text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Considering the five-dimensional warped spacetime $AdS_5$ with the $D3$-brane, we derive a potential in the fifth dimension, according to which ordinary particles are initially confined on the $D3$-brane. It is estimated, however, that the lightest neutrino with mass $m_1$ is tunneling away into the extra dimension. Hence there is a possibility that no neutrinos with mass $m_1$ exist in cosmic background neutrinos, but surviving neutrinos are those with heavier masses $m_2$ and $m_3$. The other possibilities are also discussed.'
author:
- Akira Kokado
- Takesi Saito
title: |
A Confinement Potential for Leptons\
and\
Their Tunneling Effects into Extra Dimensions
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In the present paper we would like to discuss some behaviors of particles in extra dimensions. We take the so-called braneworld picture. In this scenario, ordinary matter is trapped in a three-dimensional space, called the $D3$-brane, embedded in a higher dimensional space. This idea must be contrasted with the traditional view of extra dimensions, the Kaluza-Klein picture, where matter fields live everywhere in compact extra dimensions. Any such higher dimensional field can be described as an infinite collection of four-dimensional fields, the so-called KK modes, with masses depending on the size of the extra dimensions. Non-observation of KK modes in the present collider experiments suggests the size to be very small. Hence we do not take such a picture here.\
We focus our attention on the problem about what kinds of particles can move to the extra dimension. We confine ourselves to consider only leptons, because this possibility may be large for particles with small masses. We consider the five-dimensional warped spacetime $AdS_5$ with the $D3$-brane [@ref:Randall]-[@ref:Langlois]. We derive a potential in the fifth dimension, according to which ordinary leptons are initially confined on the the $D3$-brane. Then we would like to discuss whether these particles on the brane can move to the fifth dimension by something like a tunneling effect [@ref:Photon_ex].\
Main results are the following: Initial numbers of neutrinos will be found to decrease because of escapes into the fifth dimension by tunneling. From the data of solar neutrinos [@ref:Mikheyev] we estimate the half-life times of neutrinos with masses $m_1, m_2,$ and $m_3$, respectively. The lightest neutrino with $m_1$ is only tunneling away into the extra dimension. Hence there is a possibility that no neutrinos with mass $m_1$ exist in cosmic background neutrinos, but surviving neutrinos are those with heavier masses $m_2$ and $m_3$. The other possibilities are also discussed.\
In Sec.\[sec:2\] we derive such a potential in the extra dimension. In Sec.\[sec:3\] the tunneling effect is discussed. In Sec.\[sec:4\] we derive the dispersion relation in the bulk. The final section is devoted to concluding remarks.
A potential in the extra dimension {#sec:2}
==================================
Let us consider a five-dimensional spacetime with three-dimensional isotropy and homogeneity metric $$\begin{aligned}
& ds^2 = e^{-2\eta |y|}\big(dt^2 - d\vec{r}^{~2} \big) - dy^2~,
\label{eq:metric}\end{aligned}$$ where the brane-universe is located at $y=0$ and is spatially flat [@ref:Randall]-[@ref:Langlois].\
This metric has been obtained from the five-dimensional Einstein equations $$\begin{aligned}
& G_{AB} + \Lambda g_{AB} = \kappa ^2 T_{AB}.
\label{eq:Einstein_Eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda $ is a cosmological constant in the bulk. Here the energy-momentum tensor $T_{AB}$ is decomposed into a bulk and a brane. The former is assumed to vanish, while the latter has a form of $T_{AB}=S_{AB}\delta (y)$, which is taken into account of only the brane tension. The absolute value $|y|$ in the exponential factor comes from this delta function $\delta (y)$. The coefficient $\eta $ is related to the cosmological constant [@ref:Randall]-[@ref:Langlois].\
Now we would like to discuss whether the ordinary leptons on the brane can move along the geodesic line of Eq. (\[eq:metric\]) by something like a tunneling effect [@ref:Photon_ex]. In order to see this we consider the action $$\begin{aligned}
& I = \int d\tau \mathcal{L}~,
\label{eq:Lagrangian} \\
& \mathcal{L} = -m\sqrt{e^{-2\eta |y|}\Big\{\big(\frac{dt}{d\tau }\big)^2 - \big(\frac{d\vec{r}}{d\tau }\big)^2 \Big\} - \big(\frac{dy}{d\tau }\big)^2 }~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which reduces to, by choosing $\tau = t$, $$\begin{aligned}
& I = \int dt L~,
\label{eq:action2} \\
& L= -m\int dt \sqrt{e^{-2\eta |y|}\big\{1 - \dot{\vec{r}}^{\ 2} \big\} - \dot{y}^2 }~.
\nonumber \\
& \dot{\vec{r}}= \frac{d\vec{r}}{dt}~, \quad \dot{y}=\frac{dy}{dt}~,
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $m$ is a parameter with the mass-dimension. We fix its value to be the four-dimensional particle mass, when $y=\dot{y}=0$.\
Conjugate momenta are given as $$\begin{aligned}
& \vec{p} = \frac{\partial L}{d\dot{\vec{r}}} = \frac{m\dot{\vec{r}} e^{-2\eta |y|}}{\sqrt{e^{-2\eta |y|}(1-{\dot{\vec{r}}}^2) - {\dot{y}}^2}}~,
\label{eq:def_p} \\
& p_y = \frac{\partial L}{d\dot{y}} = \frac{m\dot{y}}{\sqrt{e^{-2\eta |y|}(1-{\dot{\vec{r}}}^2) - {\dot{y}}^2}}~.
\label{eq:def_py} \end{aligned}$$ The Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
& H= \vec{p}\cdot \dot{\vec{r}}+p_y\dot{y}-L
\label{eq:def_Hamiltonian} \\
& = \frac{m e^{-2\eta |y|}}{\sqrt{e^{-2\eta |y|}(1-{\dot{\vec{r}}}^2) - {\dot{y}}^2}}~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Eliminating $\dot{r}$ and $\dot{r}$ from Eqs.(\[eq:def\_p\])-(\[eq:def\_Hamiltonian\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
& H = \sqrt {\vec{p}^{\ 2} + e^{-2\eta |y|}({p_y}^2 + m^2)}~.
\label{eq:Hamiltonian2}\end{aligned}$$ Hamilton’s equations of motion are $$\begin{aligned}
& \dot{\vec{r}} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial \vec{p}}= \frac{\vec{p}}{H}~,
\nonumber \\
& \dot{\vec{p}} = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial \vec{r}} = 0~,
\nonumber \\
& \dot{y} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_y} = \frac{p_y}{H}e^{-2\eta |y|}~,
\label{eq:EOM0} \\
& \dot{p_y} = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial y} = \pm \frac{k e^{-2\eta |y|}}{H}({p_y}^2 + m^2)~,
\nonumber \\
& \quad (+ \mbox{ for } y>0, \ - \mbox{ for } y<0)
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs.(\[eq:Hamiltonian2\])-(\[eq:EOM0\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \vec{p} = \vec{c_1} = \mbox{const.}~,
\label{eq:sol_p} \\
& H = \sqrt{ \vec{c_1}^2 + e^{-2\eta |y|}(p_y^2 + m^2)} = c_0 = const.~,
\label{eq:sol_H} \\
& \dot{\vec{r}} = \mbox{const.}~.
\label{eq:sol_r}\end{aligned}$$ An equation for the extra dimension is obtained from Eq.(\[eq:sol\_H\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{p_y^{\ 2}}{2m} + U(y) = E_y =0~,
\label{eq:Energy_y1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& U(y) = \frac{m}{2}\big[1 - q e^{2\eta |y|}\big]~,
\label{eq:Potental_U} \\
& q\equiv \big(c_0^2 - \vec{c}_1^{\ 2}\big)/m^2~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $p_y^{\ 2}/2m$ and $U(y)$ can be regarded as a kinetic energy and a potential of the particle in the extra dimension, respectively, with the total energy $E_y=0$.\
Let us suppose that the brane at $y = 0$ is initially an extended object with a thin width, $-\epsilon < y < \epsilon $. In order that the particle with zero-energy is confined in this region, the potential should be positive at $y=\pm \epsilon$. So, we require the condition $$\begin{aligned}
& U(\pm\epsilon ) \cong \frac{m}{2}(1-q) \equiv Q > 0~,
\label{eq:def_U}\end{aligned}$$ where $1-q=-p_y^{\ 2}(\pm\epsilon )/m^2 >0$ is fixed to be a positive constant. The other case, $i.e.$, $p_y^{\ 2}(\pm\epsilon )\geq 0$, the particle with zero-energy can not be confined in this region, $-\epsilon < y < +\epsilon $. So, we do not consider such a case. In the region, $-\epsilon < y < \epsilon $, the potential $U(y)$ is assumed to be zero.\
\[fig1\]
{width="6.5truecm"}
The potential is symmetrical as depicted in Fig.1. The curve crosses the $y$-axis at $y=\pm y_0$, satisfying $\exp{(-2\eta |y_0|)}=q$. Particles are initially confined in the $D$-brane. Hence each of them is supposed to be in a virtually bound state with some energy $E_0$. Some kinds of particles could escape from the inside to the outside of the potential by the tunneling effect. In the next section we calculate this tunneling probability$P$. The reflection probability $R$ is, of course, given by $R=1-P$.
Tunneling effects {#sec:3}
=================
Initially let a particle be confined inside the D-brane with the binding energy $E_0$. This means that the total energy should be replaced by $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{p_y^{\ 2}}{2m} +U(y) = E_0~,
\label{eq3:EOF_py}\end{aligned}$$ The tunneling probability is then given by
$$\begin{aligned}
& P \cong \exp{\Big[ -\frac{2}{\hbar } \int _{\epsilon }^{y_1} dy \sqrt{2m\big(U(y)-E_0\big)}\Big]}~.
\label{eq:TunnelingA}\end{aligned}$$
in the WKB approximation. Here $y_1$ is given by $U(y_1)=E_0$. The integral is carried out exactly as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& I = \frac{2}{\hbar }\int _{0}^{y_0} dy\sqrt{2m\big(U(y)-E_0\big)}
\nonumber \\
& =\frac{2}{\hbar }\int _{0}^{y_0} dy\sqrt{2m'U'(y)}~,
\label{eq:TunnelingA2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& U'(y) = \frac{m'}{2}\big(1-q'\exp{(2\eta y)}\big)~,
\label{eq3:def_U'} \\
& m' = m\sqrt{1-\frac{2E_0}{m}}~,
\label{eq3:def_m'} \\
& q' = \frac{q}{1-\frac{2E_0}{m}}~,
\label{eq3:def_q'}\end{aligned}$$ and $\epsilon \to 0$. Then it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
& I = \frac{2m'}{\hbar \eta }f(q')
\label{eq3:cal_I}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
& f(q') = -\sqrt{1-q'} + \frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{{2\sqrt{1-q'}+2-q'}}{q'}~.
\label{eq3:def_f} \end{aligned}$$ Here $q'$ does not depend on particle masses [@ref:mass_no_dependence]. This property is nothing but the equivalence principle of General Relativity. Substituting the result (\[eq3:cal\_I\]) into Eq.(\[eq:TunnelingA\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
& P \cong \exp{\Big[-\frac{2m'}{\hbar \eta }f(q') \Big]}~.
\label{eq:TunnelingA3}\end{aligned}$$ From Eq.(\[eq:TunnelingA3\]) we see that the tunneling probability depends sharply on the mass parameter $m'$. For $\eta ^{-1}=10^{-2}$cm [@ref:Langlois], we have tunneling probabilities for leptons other than neutrinos listed in Table \[Table1\]. Here we have assumed to be $2E_0/m << 1$, hence $m' \cong m$ and $q' \cong q$. The tunneling probabilities seem to be very small, actually regarded so as to be zeros because of large masses of leptons, if $f(q)$ is not so small. In fact we will see later a fact that $f(q)$ should take values larger than 10.8.\
----------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
$m_{e}=0.5$ MeV$/c^2$ $P_{e}=\exp{(-0.5\times 10^9 f(q))}$
$m_{\mu }=106$ MeV$/c^2$ $P_{\mu }=\exp{(-1.1\times 10^{11} f(q))}$
$m_{\tau }=1.7$ GeV$/c^2$ $P_{\tau }=\exp{(-1.7\times 10^{12} f(q))}$
----------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
: Tunneling Probabilities for leptons.[]{data-label="Table1"}
As for masses of three mass-eigenstates of neutrinos $\nu _{1}, \nu _{2}$, and $\nu _{3}$, we take $m_1 = 0.001$eV/$c^2$, $m_2 = 0.01$eV/$c^2$, and $m_3 = 0.05$eV/$c^2$ [@ref:Mikheyev]. Three kinds of flavor neutrinos $\nu _{e}, \nu _{\mu },$ and $\nu _{\tau }$ are composed of $\nu _{1}, \nu _{2},$ and $\nu _{3}$. The tunneling probabilities for $\nu _{1}, \nu _{2},$ and $\nu _{3}$ are also given by Eq.(\[eq:TunnelingA3\]). Under the same assumption as $2E_0/m << 1$, hence $m'\cong m$, and $q'\cong q$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& P_1 \cong \exp{[-f(q)]}
\nonumber \\
& = \exp{(-10.8)} \cong 2.0\times 10^{-5}~,
\label{eq3:Prob_P1}\end{aligned}$$ for $m_1$ = 0.001 eV/$c^2$, $\eta $= 100$ cm^{-1}$, and $f(2.25\times 10^{-10})=10.8$ [@ref:Mikheyev]. The zero point of the potential becomes $y_0=0.11$ cm, which is given by the equation $q=\exp{(-2\eta y_0)}$. The non-zero value of the tunneling probability is a consequence of the small mass of the neutrino compared with other leptons. It may be convenient to use the half-life time, because the number of neutrinos in the $D$-brane decreases by the tunneling effect. The half-life time $T_1$ for $m_1$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& T_1 = \frac{\ln{2}}{P_1} = 9.6~h~,
\label{eq3:Half_time_P1} \end{aligned}$$ In the same condition as $f(q)=10.8$, we have $T_2=10^{39}$ yr and $T_3=10^{226}$ yr for $m_2$ and $m_3$, respectively. Note that those half-life times $T_2$ and $T_3$ are longer than the age of our universe $10^{10} yr$. In Table \[Table2\] we have listed the half-life times for various values of $f(q)$.\
$f(q)$ $q$ $T_1$ $T_2$ $T_3$
---------- -------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
$10.8$ $10^{-10}$ 9.6 h $10^{39}$ yr $10^{226}$ yr
$29.8$ $10^{-27}$ $10^{5}$ yr $10^{121}$ yr $10^{640}$ yr
$41.0$ $10^{-36}$ $10^{10}$ yr $10^{170}$ yr $10^{882}$ yr
: Half-life times for three kinds of neutrinos against $f(q)$[]{data-label="Table2"}
The solar neutrinos reach the earth with the flight-time 500 s. Let the initial number of $\nu _{1}$ neutrinos decrease in this flight by $500P_1=1/100$, hence $P_1=1/50000~s^{-1}$. This means that the half-life time is given by $T_1=9.6$ h and $f=10.8$, as shown in Table \[Table2\]. The decreasing rate 1/100 of solar neutrinos may be likely in the error of the observable values [@ref:Mikheyev].\
As a result, there is a possibility that no neutrinos with $m_1$ exist in cosmic background neutrinos, but surviving neutrinos are those with heavier masses $m_2$ and $m_3$. All cases of $f=$10.8-41 may be also likely for solar neutrinos and for SN1987A-neutrinos. For the special case of $f=$41 all of $\nu _1$, $\nu_2$, and $\nu_3$ appear to be stable in our universe, though we are not interested in such a case.
Dispersion relations {#sec:4}
====================
Let us consider two points A and B with a distance $L_{AB}$ on the $D3$-brane. A neutrino can move directly on the $D3$-brane from A to B without tunneling. The propagation time $T$ of such a neutrino is, of course, given by $T=L_{AB}/|\dot{\vec{r}}|$, where the neutrino velocity is given by, in a conventional notation $$\begin{aligned}
& |\dot{\vec{r}}| =\frac{|\vec{p}|}{E} =\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m^2}}{E} ~.
\label{eq:neutrino_v}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the neutrino can move through the bulk from A to B according to reflections at the potential walls. This means as follows: One neutrino has a tunneling probability $P$ through the potential from 0 to $y_1$, then it escapes into the bulk and will simply continue its propagation in the bulk, never coming back on the brane. The initial numbers of neutrinos will decrease because of escapes by tunneling.\
However, there are neutrinos which are reflected from both points of the potential walls, 0 and $y_1$. The total reflection probability is, of course, given by $R=1-P$. Thus a neutrino has a probability such that it travels from A on the brane into the $y$-direction by tunneling and will come back to B on the brane after reflection at both points of the potential walls.\
The neutrino energy inside the potential is given by Eq.(2.11), or in a conventional notation, $$\begin{aligned}
& E =\sqrt{\vec{p}^{\ 2} + e^{-2\eta |y|}\big(p_y^2+m^2\big)}
\nonumber \\
& =\sqrt{\vec{p}^{\ 2} + m^2 q}~.
\label{eq:neutrino_E} \end{aligned}$$ where $p_y^{\ 2}<0$. This can be regarded as a dispersion relation in the bulk. From Eq.(\[eq:neutrino\_E\]), we have the group velocity of neutrinos on the $D3$-brane $$\begin{aligned}
& |\dot{\vec{r}}_{\mbox{bulk}}| =\frac{\partial E}{\partial |\vec {p}|}
=\frac{\sqrt{E^2 - m^2 q}}{E}~.
\label{eq:v_bulk}\end{aligned}$$ Eqs.(\[eq:neutrino\_v\]) and (\[eq:v\_bulk\]) tell us that there are two groups of neutrinos, one with the velocity (\[eq:neutrino\_v\]) and the other with (\[eq:v\_bulk\]). However, the difference between both velocities is too small to distinguish, because of $m^2$, $q<<E$.\
In our model we see trivially that there are no neutrinos with velocities faster than light because of the Poincare invariant metric of Eq.(\[eq:metric\]) or equivalently by Eq. (\[eq:v\_bulk\]), even if they take a shortcut from A to B through the bulk.
Concluding remarks {#sec:5}
==================
We have derived the potential in the extra-dimension from the five-dimensional warped spacetime $AdS_5$. Initially the potential works well to confine ordinary leptons on the $D3$-brane. However, we have the tunneling effect through the potential. The tunneling probability (\[eq:TunnelingA3\]) for heavy leptons depends sharply on $m$. We have listed tunneling probabilities for heavy leptons in Table \[Table1\]. Their values seem to be very small, actually regarded so as to be almost zeros. They are hard to move into the extra dimension by the tunneling effect because of their large masses, but move only the $D3$-brane.\
On the other hand neutrino masses may be too small, so that we have generally a non-zero tunneling probability. We have taken neutrino masses of three mass-eigenstates as $m_1=0.001~$eV/$c^{2}$, $m_2=0.01~$eV/$c^{2}$, and $m_3=0.05~$eV/$c^{2}$ [@ref:Mikheyev]. Initial numbers of neutrinos will be found to decrease because of escapes into the fifth dimension by tunneling. From the data of solar neutrinos [@ref:Mikheyev] we estimate the half-life times of neutrinos with masses $m_1$, $m_2$, and $m_3$, respectively. The lightest neutrino with $m_1$ is only tunneling away into the extra dimension. Hence there is a possibility that no neutrinos with $m_1$ exist in cosmic background neutrinos, but surviving neutrinos are those with heavier masses $m_2$ and $m_3$.\
All cases of $f=$10.8-41 in Table \[Table2\] may be also likely for solar neutrinos and for SN1987A-neutrinos. For the special case of $f=41$ all of $\nu_1$, $\nu_2$, and $\nu_3$ appear to be stable in our universe, though we are not interested in such a case.
We thank T. Okamura for many helpful discussions with us. Thanks are also due to referees for their appropriate advices, from which we have obtained the important result of dispersion relations in the bulk.
[99]{} L. Randall and R.Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4690 (1999), and also Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3370 (1999). P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet and D. Langlois, Nucl. Phys. [**B565**]{}, 269(2000). Phys. Rev. [**D7**]{}, 535(1973). D. Langlois, Cosmology with an extra-dimension,, arXiv:astro-ph/0301021. As for the photon, we can take into account of a fact that it runs on geodesic line $\dot{\vec{r}}^{\ 2}+\exp{(2k|y|)}\dot{y}^2=1$, which is derived from Eq.(\[eq:metric\]). From this we have $\dot{y}=0$ whenever $|\dot{\vec{r}}|=1$, that is, the photon on the $D3$-brane never deviate into the extra dimension. The equation of motion for $y$ is derived from Eq.(2.12) as $\ddot{y}=m^2\eta [2\exp{(-4\eta y)}-q\exp{(-2\eta y)}]/c_o^{\ 2}$, for $y>0$, where $c_0^{\ 2}/m^2 = \vec {c}^2/m^2+\exp{(-2\eta y)}(1+p_y^{\ 2}/m^2)$ .From Eqs.(2.5) and (2.6) it follows that both $\vec{c}_0^{\ 2}/m^2$ and $p_y^{\ 2}/m^2$ are independent of $m$. Hence we see that $m^2/c_0^{\ 2}$ and $q$ are independent of $m$. This means that the acceleration $\ddot{y}$ is independent of any mass, reflecting the equivalence principle of General Relativity. S.P.Mikheyev and A. Yu Smirnov, Nuovo Cimento [**C9**]{}, 17(1986).\
L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. [**D17**]{}, 2369(1978).\
K. Graham for the SNO Collaboration, LASTEST NEWS FROM SNO, arXiv:hep-ex/0310039.\
SNO Cllaboration, Combined Analysis of all Three Phasees of Solar Neutrino Data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, arXiv:1109.0763.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Shamik Gupta
- Thierry Dauxois
- Stefano Ruffo
title: 'Out-of-equilibrium fluctuations in stochastic long-range interacting systems'
---
ł
Introduction
============
Fluctuations are ubiquitous in any physical system, and characterizing their behavior is one of the primary objectives of statistical physics. Fluctuations may originate spontaneously or may be triggered by an external force. When in thermal equilibrium, the system is unable to distinguish between the two sources of fluctuations, provided the fluctuations are small. As a result, the response of the system in thermal equilibrium to a small external force is related to the spontaneous fluctuations in equilibrium. The latter fact is encoded in the Fluctuation-Dissipation theorem (FDT), a cornerstone of statistical physics [@Kubo:1966]. Intensive research on generalizing the FDT to situations arbitrarily far from equilibrium led to the formulation of a set of exact relations, clubbed together as the Fluctuation Relations (FRs). Besides quantifying the fluctuations, these relations constrain the entropy production and work done on the system [@Seifert:2013]. Notable of the FRs are the Jarzynski equality [@Jarzynski:1997] and the Crooks theorem [@Crooks:1999] in which the system is driven far from an initial canonical equilibrium, and the Hatano-Sasa equality [@Hatano:2001] that applies when the system is initially in a non-equilibrium stationary state (NESS).
Despite such a remarkable success on the theoretical front, observing in experiments the full range of fluctuations captured by the FRs has been limited almost exclusively to small systems. In a macroscopic open system comprising a large number (of the order of Avogadro number) of constituents, the dynamics is governed by the interaction of the environment with these many constituents, so that any macroscopic observable such as the energy shows an average behavior in time, and statistical excursions are but rare. A small system, on the contrary, is one in which the energy exchange during its interaction with the environment in a finite time is small enough so that large deviations from the average behavior are much more amenable to observation [@Bustamante:2005]. Molecular motors constitute a notable example of small systems involved in efficiently converting chemical energy into useful mechanical work inside living cells. Recent advances in experimental manipulation at the microscopic level led to experimentally testing the FRs, e.g., in an RNA hairpin [@Collin:2005], and in a system of microspheres optically driven through water [@Trepagnier:2004].
In this work, we consider a macroscopic system with long-range interactions that is evolving under stochastic dynamics in presence of a time-dependent external force. The stochasticity in the dynamics is due to the interaction of the system with the environment. Long-range interacting (LRI) systems are those in which the inter-particle potential decays slowly with the separation $r$ as $r^{-\alpha}$ for large $r$, with $0 \le \alpha < d$ in $d$ dimensions [@review0].
Here, we study the out-of-equilibrium fluctuations of the work done on the system by the external force. We show that although constituted of a large number $N$ of interacting particles, an effective single-particle nature of the dynamics, which becomes more prominent the larger the value of $N$ is, leads to significant statistical excursions away from the average behavior of the work. The single-particle dynamics is represented in terms of a Langevin dynamics of a particle evolving in a self-consistent mean field generated by its interaction with other particles, and is thus evidently an effect stemming from the long-range nature of the interaction between the particles. For equilibrium initial conditions, we show that the work distributions for a given protocol of variation of the force in time and the corresponding time-reversed protocol exhibit a remarkable scaling and a symmetry when expressed in terms of the average and the standard deviation of the work. The distributions of the work per particle predict by virtue of the Crooks theorem the equilibrium free-energy per particle. For large $N$, the latter value is in excellent agreement with the analytical value obtained within the single-particle dynamics, thereby confirming its validity. For initial conditions in NESSs, we study the distribution of the quantity $Y$ appearing in the Hatano-Sasa equality (\[eq:hatano-sasa\]). We show that the distribution decays exponentially with different rates on the left and on the right.
A recap of the fluctuation relations
====================================
Consider a system evolving under stochastic dynamics, and which is characterized by a dynamical parameter $\lambda$ that can be externally controlled. Let us envisage an experiment in which the system is subject to the following thermodynamic transformation: starting from the stationary state corresponding to a given value $\lambda=\lambda_1$, the system undergoes dynamical evolution under a time-dependent $\lambda$ that changes according to a given protocol, $\{\lambda(t)\}_{0 \le t \le
\tau};\lambda(0)\equiv\lambda_1,\lambda(\tau)\equiv\lambda_2$, over time $\tau$. Only when $\lambda$ changes slowly enough over a timescale larger than the typical relaxation timescale of the dynamics does the system pass through a succession of stationary states. On the other hand, for an arbitrarily fast variation, the system at all times lags behind the instantaneous stationary state. Dynamics at times $t > \tau$, when $\lambda$ does not change anymore with time, leads the system to eventually relax to the stationary state corresponding to $\lambda_2$. In case of transitions between equilibrium stationary states, the Clausius inequality provides a quantitative measure of the lag at every instant of the thermodynamic transformation between the stationary state and the actual state of the system [@Bertini:2015]. For transitions between NESSs, Hatano and Sasa showed that a quantity $Y$ similar to dissipated work measures this lag [@Hatano:2001], where $Y$ is defined as Y\_0\^t ((t),(t)). \[eq:Y-defn\] Here, $\Phi(\mathcal{C},\lambda) \equiv -\ln \rho_{\rm
ss}(\mathcal{C};\lambda)$, and $\rho_{\rm
ss}(\mathcal{C};\lambda)$ is the stationary state measure of the microscopic configuration $\mathcal{C}$ of the system at a fixed $\lambda$. Owing to the preparation of the initial state and the stochastic nature of the dynamics, each realization of the experiment yields a different value of $Y$. An average over many realizations corresponding to the same protocol $\{\lambda(t)\}$ leads to the following exact result due to Hatano and Sasa [@Hatano:2001] e\^[-Y]{} =1. ł[eq:hatano-sasa]{}
In the particular case in which the stationary state at a fixed $\lambda$ is given by the Boltzmann-Gibbs canonical equilibrium state, let us denote by $\Delta F \equiv F_2 - F_1$ the difference between the initial value $F_1$ and the final value $F_2$ of the Helmholtz free energy that correspond respectively to canonical equilibrium at $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$. Then, if $W$ is the work performed on the system during the thermodynamic transformation, the Jarzynski equality states [@Jarzynski:1997] that e\^[-W]{}=e\^[-F]{}, ł[eq:jarzynski]{} where $\beta$ is the inverse temperature of the initial canonical distribution. Subsequent to the work of Jarzynski, a remarkable theorem due to Crooks related (i) the distribution $P_{\rm F}(W_{\rm F})$ of the work done $W_{\rm F}$ during the forward process ${\rm F}$, when the system is initially equilibrated at $\lambda_1$ and inverse temperature $\beta$, and then the parameter $\lambda$ is changed according to the given protocol $\{\lambda(t)\}$, to (ii) the distribution $P_{\rm R}(W_{\rm R})$ of the work done $W_{\rm R}=-W_{\rm F}$ during the reverse process ${\rm R}$ when the system is initially equilibrated at $\lambda_2$ and $\beta$, and then the parameter $\lambda$ is changed according to the reverse protocol $\{\widetilde{\lambda}(t) \equiv \lambda(\tau-t)\}$. The theorem [@Crooks:1999] states that =e\^[(W\_[F]{}-F)]{}. ł[eq:crooks]{} Note that the two distributions intersect at $W_{\rm F}=\Delta F$. Multiplying both sides of the above equation by $\exp(-\beta W_{\rm F})$, and noting that $P_{\rm
R}(-W_{\rm F})$ is normalized to unity, one recovers the Jarzynski equality.
Our Model
=========
ł[sec:model]{} Our model comprises $N$ interacting particles, labelled $i=1,2,\ldots,N$, moving on a unit circle. Let the angle $\th_i \in [0,2\pi)$ denote the location of the $i$-th particle on the circle. A microscopic configuration of the system is $\mathcal{C}\equiv\{\th_i;i=1,2,\ldots,N\}$. The particles interact through a long-range potential $\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{C})\equiv K/(2N)\sum_{i,j=1}^N[1-\cos(\th_i-\th_j)]$, with $K$ being the coupling constant that we take to be unity in the following to consider an attractive interaction [@note]. An external field of strength $h$ produces a potential $\mathcal{V}_{\rm
ext}(\mathcal{C})\equiv-h\sum_{i=1}^N \cos \th_i$; thus, the total potential energy is $V(\mathcal{C})\equiv\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{C})+\mathcal{V}_{\rm
ext}(\mathcal{C})$. The external field breaks the rotational invariance of $\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{C})$ under equal rotation applied to all the particles.
The dynamics of the system involves configurations evolving according to a stochastic Monte Carlo (MC) dynamics. Every particle in a small time $\mbox{d}t \to 0$ attempts to hop to a new position on the circle. The $i$-th particle attempts with probability $p$ to move forward (in the anticlockwise sense) by an amount $\phi;~0<\phi<2\pi$, so that $\th_i \to \th_i'=\th_i+\phi$, while with probability $q=1-p$, it attempts to move backward by the amount $\phi$, so that $\th_i \to
\th_i'=\th_i-\phi$. In either case, the particle takes up the attempted position with probability $g(\Delta V(\mathcal{C}))\mbox{d}t$. Here, $\Delta V(\mathcal{C})$ is the change in the potential energy due to the attempted hop from $\th_i$ to $\th_i'$: $\Delta
V(\mathcal{C})=(1/N)\sum_{j=1}^N[-\cos(\th_i'-\th_j)+\cos(\th_i-\th_j)]-h [\cos \th_i'-\cos \th_i]$. The dynamics does not preserve the ordering of particles on the circle. The function $g$ has the form $g(z)=(1/2)[1-\tanh(\beta z/2)]$, where $\beta$ is the inverse temperature. Such a form of $g(z)$ ensures that for $p=1/2$, when the particles jump symmetrically forward and backward, the stationary state of the system is the canonical equilibrium state at inverse temperature $\beta$ [@can-note]. The case $p \ne q$ mimics the effect of an external drive on the particles to move in one preferential direction along the circle. The field strength $h$ has the role of the externally-controlled parameter $\lambda$ discussed in the preceding section.
The model was introduced in Ref. [@Gupta:2013] as an LRI system evolving under MC dynamics. Depending on the parameters in the dynamics, the system relaxes to either a canonical equilibrium state or a NESS. In either case, the single-particle phase space distribution can be solved [*exactly*]{} in the thermodynamic limit.
A model that has been much explored in the recent past to study static and dynamic properties of LRI systems is the so-called Hamiltonian mean-field (HMF) model [@review0]. This model involves $N$ particles moving on a circle, interacting via a long-range potential with the same form as $\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{C})$, and evolving under deterministic Hamilton dynamics. The dynamics leads at long times to an equilibrium stationary state. Our model may be looked upon as a generalization of the microcanonical dynamics of the HMF model to a stochastic dissipative dynamics in the overdamped regime, with an additional external drive causing a biased motion of the particles on the circle. The dissipation mimics the interaction of the system with an external heat bath.
In the Fokker-Planck limit $\phi \ll 1$, we may in the thermodynamic limit $N \to \infty$ consider, in place of the $N$-particle dynamics described above, the motion of a single particle in a self-consistent mean field generated by its interaction with all the other particles. The dynamics of the particle is described by the Langevin equation [@Gupta:2013] =(2p-1)-+(t), ł[eq:langevin-sp]{} where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to time, and $\eta(t)$ is a Gaussian, white noise with $\overline{\eta(t)}=0,
~\overline{\eta(t)\eta(t')}=\delta(t-t')$. Here, overbars denote averaging over noise realizations. In Eq. (\[eq:langevin-sp\]), $\langle v \rangle \equiv \langle v
\rangle[\rho](\th,t)\equiv-m_x[\rho] \cos \th-m_y[\rho] \sin \th- h\cos
\th$ is the mean-field potential, with $(m_x[\rho],m_y[\rho])\equiv\int \mbox{d}\th ~(\cos \th, \sin
\th)\rho(\th,t)$, where $\rho(\th,t)$ is the probability density of the particle to be at location $\th$ on the circle at time $t$. Together with $\rho(\th,t)=\rho(\th+2\pi,t)$, and the normalization $\int_0^{2\pi} \mbox{d}\th ~\rho(\th,t)=1~~\forall~ t$, $\rho(\th,t)$ is a solution of the Fokker-Planck equation [@Gupta:2013] =- +. ł[eq:FP-sp]{}
Steady state
============
Let $P(\mathcal{C},t)$ be the probability to observe configuration $\mathcal{C}$ at time $t$. At long times, the system relaxes to a stationary state corresponding to time-independent probabilities $P_{\rm
st}(\mathcal{C})$. For $p=1/2$, the system has an equilibrium stationary state in which the condition of detailed balance is satisfied, and $P_{\rm
st}(\mathcal{C})$ is given by the canonical equilibrium measure $P_{\rm
eq}(\mathcal{C}) \propto
e^{-\beta V(\mathcal{C})}$. On the other hand, for $p \ne 1/2$, the system at long times reaches a NESS, which is characterized by a violation of detailed balance that leads to closed loops of net non-zero probability current in the phase space.
For the single-particle dynamics (\[eq:langevin-sp\]), the stationary solution $\rho_{\rm ss}$ of Eq. (\[eq:FP-sp\]) is given by [@Gupta:2013] \_[ss]{}(;h)=; ł[eq:sp-st-soln-fsame]{} $g(\th) \equiv -2(2p-1)\th/\phi+\beta \langle v \rangle[\rho_{\rm
ss}](\th)$, $A(\th)\equiv \int_0^\th \mbox{d}\th'e^{g(\th')}$, while the constant $\rho_{\rm ss}(0;h)$ is fixed by the normalization $\int_0^{2\pi} \mbox{d}\th
~\rho_{\rm ss}(\th;h)=1~\forall~h$. To show the effectiveness of the single-particle dynamics in describing the stationary state of the $N$-particle dynamics for large $N$ and for $\phi \ll 1$, Fig. \[eq:rhoss-th-sim\] shows a comparison between the result (\[eq:sp-st-soln-fsame\]) and MC simulation results for the $N$-particle dynamics with $N=500,\phi = 0.1$, demonstrating an excellent agreement.
![Stationary distribution $\rho_{\rm ss}(\th;h)$ for $p \ne 1/2$: A comparison between MC simulation results (points) for $\phi = 0.1, N=500$ and three values of field $h$, and the theoretical result (continuous lines) in the Fokker-Planck approximation in the limit $N \to \infty$ given by Eq. (\[eq:sp-st-soln-fsame\]) illustrates an excellent agreement.](rho-ss.pdf){width="5cm"}
ł[eq:rhoss-th-sim]{}
For $p=1/2$, Eq. (\[eq:sp-st-soln-fsame\]) gives the equilibrium single-particle distribution $\rho_{\rm eq}(\th;h)=e^{-\beta \langle v \rangle[\rho_{\rm
eq}](\th)}/Z(h)$, with $Z(h)\equiv
\int_0^{2\pi}\mbox{d}\theta~\rho_{\rm eq}(\th;h)=2\pi
I_0(\beta m_{\rm eq})$, and $I_n(x)$ the modified Bessel function of order $n$. Here, $m_{\rm eq}\equiv \sqrt{(m_x^{\rm eq}+h)^2+(m_y^{\rm eq})^2}$ is obtained by solving the transcendental equation $m_{\rm eq}+h=I_1(\beta m_{\rm
eq})/I_0(\beta m_{\rm eq})$, see [@review0]. For $h=0$, $m_{\rm eq}$ as a function of $\beta$ decreases continuously from unity at $\beta=\infty$ to zero at the critical value $\beta_c=2$, and remains zero at smaller $\beta$, thus showing a second-order phase transition at $\beta_c$ [@review0]. For $h \ne 0$, the magnetization is non-zero at all $\beta$, hence, there is no phase transition.
Equilibrium initial condition
=============================
Let us consider $p=1/2$ in our model, when the system at a fixed value of $h$ has an equilibrium stationary state. In the following, we measure time in units of MC steps, where one MC step corresponds to $N$ attempted hops of randomly chosen particles. Starting with the system in equilibrium at $h=h_0$, we perform MC simulations of the dynamics while changing the field strength linearly over a total time $\tau \in \mathbb{I}$, with $\tau \ll
\tau_{\rm eq}$, such that at the $\alpha$-th time step, the field value is $h_\alpha=h_0+\Delta h~\alpha/\tau;~\alpha \in [0,\tau]$. Here, $\Delta h$ is the total change in the value of the field over time $\tau$. Note that the FRs are expected to hold for arbitrary protocols $\{\lambda(t)\}$; the linear variation we consider is just a simple choice. Here, $\tau_{\rm eq}$ is the typical equilibration time at a fixed value of $h$, and the condition $\tau \ll
\tau_{\rm eq}$ ensures that the system during the thermodynamic transformation is driven arbitrarily far from equilibrium. The initial equilibrium configuration is prepared by sampling independently each $\theta_i$ from the single-particle distribution $\rho_{\rm eq}(\th;h)$, with $m_{\rm eq}$ determined by solving $m_{\rm eq}+h_0=I_1(\beta m_{\rm
eq})/I_0(\beta m_{\rm eq})$. The work done on the system during the evolution is [@Jarzynski:1997] W\_[F]{} \_0\^ t=-\_[=1]{}\^\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i\^[()]{}, \[eq:Wdefn\] where $\th_i^{(\alpha)}$ is the angle of the $i$-th particle at the $\alpha$-th time step of evolution. In another set of experiments, we prepare the system to be initially in equilibrium at $h=h_\tau$, and then evolve the system while decreasing the field strength linearly in time as $h_\alpha=h_\tau-\Delta h~\alpha/\tau$. During these forward and reversed protocols of changing the field, we compute the respective work distributions $P_{\rm F}(W_{\rm F})$ and $P_{\rm
R}(W_{\rm R})$, for $\phi \ll 1$ and a number of system sizes $N \gg 1$. We take $\tau_{\rm eq}=N^2$, confirming that the distributions $P_{\rm F}(W_{\rm F})$ and $P_{\rm R}(W_{\rm R})$ do not change appreciably by considering $\tau_{\rm eq}$ larger than $N^2$.
Figures \[fig:crooks-inhom\](a),(b) show the forward and the reverse work distribution for a range of system sizes $N$. Here, we have taken $\phi=0.1,h_0=1.0,\tau=10,\beta=1,\Delta h=1.0$. The data collapse evident from the plots suggests the scaling P\_[B]{}(W\_[B]{})\~ g\_[B]{}(); BF,R, ł[eq:work-scaling-BHP]{} where $g_{\rm B}$ is the scaling function, while $\langle W_B\rangle$ and $\sigma_{\rm B}$ are respectively the average and the standard deviation of the work. A similar scaling, termed the Bramwell-Holdsworth-Pinton (BHP) scaling, was first observed in the context of fluctuations of injected power in confined turbulence and magnetization fluctuations at the critical point of a ferromagnet [@Bramwell:1998]. Over the years, a similar scaling has been reported in a wide variety of different contexts, from models of statistical physics, such as Ising and percolation models, sandpiles, granular media in a self-organized critical state [@Bramwell:2000], to fluctuations in river level [@Bramwell:2002], and even in fluctuations in short electrocardiogram episodes in humans [@Bakucz:2014]. Here, the BHP scaling is shown for the first time to also hold for work distributions out of equilibrium. The dependence of the average and the standard deviation on the system size $N$ is shown in panels (e) and(f), respectively, with the numerically data suggesting that $\langle W_{\rm B}\rangle \propto N$, $\sigma_{\rm F}\sim N^{a};~a \approx 0.528$, and $\sigma_{\rm R}\sim N^b;~b \approx 0.504$. The data collapse in (c) suggests the remarkable symmetry g\_[F]{}(x)=g\_[R]{}(-x). ł[eq:g-scaling]{} An understanding of the origin of this symmetry, and particularly, whether it is specific to our model or holds in general, is left for future work. Figure \[fig:crooks-inhom\](d) shows the distribution of the work per particle. Two essential features of the plots are evident, namely, (i) significant fluctuations of the work values even for large system size, and (ii) the forward and the reverse distribution intersecting at a common value regardless of the system size. By virtue of the Crooks theorem (\[eq:crooks\]), this common value should be given by the free energy difference per particle $\Delta f$ between the canonical equilibrium states of the system at field values $h_\tau$ and $h_0$. This latter quantity may be computed theoretically by knowing the free energy per particle in the limit $N \to \infty$ and at a fixed value of $h$ [@review0]: f(h)=m\_[eq]{}\^2-( e\^). ł[eq:sp-fe]{} Using the above gives $\Delta f\approx−0.725$, which is seen in Fig. \[fig:crooks-inhom\](d) to match very well with the intersection point of the forward and the reverse distribution of the work.
![Starting with an initial equilibrium state at inverse temperature $\beta=1$ and field $h=h_0=1.0$, and then increasing the field linearly in time to $h=2.0$ over a time $\tau=10$ Monte Carlo steps (thus, $\Delta h=1.0$), panel (a) shows the scaled work distribution for this forward (F) protocol, while (b) shows the same for the corresponding reverse (R) protocol, both for a range of system sizes $N$. Scaling collapse in (c) suggests for the scaling functions in (a) and (b) the symmetry $g_{\rm F}(x)=g_{\rm R}(-x)$. (d) shows $NP_{\rm F}(W_{\rm F})$ (right set of curves) and $NP_{\rm
R}(W_{\rm R})$ (left set) as a function of $W_{\rm F}/N$ and $W_{\rm R}/N$, respectively, for different $N$, with the curves intersecting at a value given by the free energy difference per particle $\Delta f$ estimated using Eq. (\[eq:sp-fe\]) for single-particle equilibrium. (e) and (f) show respectively the dependence of the average and the standard deviation of the forward and the reverse work on $N$, suggesting that while the average grows linearly with $N$, one has $\sigma_{\rm F}\sim N^{a};~a \approx 0.528$, and $\sigma_{\rm R}\sim N^b;~b \approx 0.504$. Here, $\phi=0.1,p=0.5$.](work-inhom.pdf){width="6cm"}
ł[fig:crooks-inhom]{}
![ Plots similar to those in Fig. \[fig:crooks-inhom\], but with $\beta=0.5,h_0=0.0,\tau=10,\Delta h=1.0$. The black lines in panels (a) and (b) denote a Gaussian distribution with zero average and unit standard deviation. While the averages in (d) grow linearly with $N$, the standard deviations in (e) satisfy $\sigma_{\rm F}\sim N^{a};~a \approx 0.501$, and $\sigma_{\rm R}\sim N^b;~b \approx 0.5$.](work-hom.pdf){width="6cm"}
ł[fig:crooks-hom]{}
While Fig. \[fig:crooks-inhom\] was for inhomogeneous initial equilibrium, in order to validate our results also for homogeneous initial conditions, Figure \[fig:crooks-hom\] repeats the plots at $h_0=0.0$ and at a temperature larger than $1/\beta_c$. In this case, the scaled work distributions fit quite well to a Gaussian distribution with zero average and unit standard deviation, see Figs. \[fig:crooks-hom\](a),(b), so that $g(x)=\exp(-x^2/2)/\sqrt{2\pi}$, and therefore, the symmetry (\[eq:g-scaling\]) is obviously satisfied. The free energy difference $\Delta f$ can be estimated by using Eq. (\[eq:sp-fe\]), but can also be obtained by using Eq. (\[eq:crooks\]) and the fact that in the present situation, the scaled work distributions are Gaussian. Using the latter procedure, one gets the expression $\Delta f=(\langle W_{\rm
F}\rangle-\langle W_{\rm R}\rangle)/(2N)$ [@Dourache:2005]; then, on substituting our numerical values for $\langle W_{\rm F}\rangle$ and $\langle W_{\rm R}\rangle$, we get $\Delta f\approx −0.161$. In Fig. \[fig:crooks-hom\](c), we show that this value of $\Delta f$ coincides with the point of intersection of the forward and the reverse work distribution.
In Figs. \[fig:crooks-inhom\] and \[fig:crooks-hom\], it may be seen that $\sigma_{\rm F} > \sigma_{\rm R}$, and also $\langle
W_{\rm R}\rangle > |\langle W_{\rm F}\rangle|$. In computing $\sigma_{\rm F}$, we start with a smaller magnetized state (thus, with the particles more spread out on the circle) than the state we start with in computing $\sigma_{\rm R}$. As a result, the work done in the former case during the thermodynamic transformation in which the increasing field tries to bring the particles closer together will show more variation from one particle to another, resulting in $\sigma_{\rm F} > \sigma_{\rm R}$. Now, $\langle W \rangle$, either F or R, is basically the time-integrated magnetization, see Eq. (\[eq:Wdefn\]). During the forward process, we start with a less-magnetized equilibrium state with magnetization $m_0^{\rm eq}$, and then increase the field for a finite time. The final magnetization value $m_{\rm fin,F}$ reached thereby will be smaller than the actual equilibrium value $m^{\rm eq}_1$ for the corresponding value of the field, since we did not allow the system to equilibrate during the transformation. For the reverse process, we started with this equilibrium value $m^{\rm eq}_1$, and during the transformation when the field is decreased, the magnetization decreases but not substantially to the value $m^{\rm eq}_0$, since the system remains out of equilibrium during the transformation. As a result, the time integrated forward magnetization, whose mean value is $\langle W_{\rm
F}\rangle$, is smaller in magnitude than the time-integrated reverse magnetization, whose mean value is $\langle W_{\rm R} \rangle$. In Fig. \[fig:crooks-hom\], $\langle W_{\rm F} \rangle$ is very close to zero. This is because here, we start with a homogeneous equilibrium for which the magnetization value is $m^{\rm eq}_0=0$, and then increase the field for a finite time to a not-so-high value $h=1$, so the magnetization does not increase much from the initial value. Hence, $\langle W_{\rm F} \rangle$, which is the time-integrated magnetization during this forward transformation, is close to zero.
Figures \[fig:crooks-inhom\] and \[fig:crooks-hom\], while illustrating the validity of the Crooks theorem (and hence, of the Jarzynski equality) for many-body stochastic LRI systems, underline the effective single-particle nature of the actual $N$-particle dynamics for large $N$ in the Fokker-Planck limit $\phi \ll 1$. This feature is further illustrated by our analysis of fluctuations while starting from NESSs, as we now proceed to discuss.
![Starting with initial conditions in a NESS at $h=h_0=1.0$, and then increasing the field linearly in time to $h=1.15$ over $\tau=15$ Monte Carlo steps (thus, $\Delta h=0.15$), the figure shows for two values of initial inverse temperature $\beta$ the distribution of the quantity $Y$ appearing in the Hatano-Sasa equality (\[eq:hatano-sasa\]). The black lines in the inset stand for the exponential fit $\sim \exp(aY)$ to the left tail, with $a\approx 280$ for $\beta=5$ and $a \approx 300$ for $\beta=10$, and the exponential fit $\sim \exp(-bY)$ to the right tail, with $b\approx 7$ for $\beta=5$ and $b \approx 11.5$ for $\beta=10$. Here, $N=500,\phi=0.1,p=0.55$.](HS-fig-new.pdf){width="4cm"}
ł[fig:HS]{}
Non-equilibrium initial condition
=================================
We now consider $p\ne1/2$ in our model. In this case, the system at a fixed value of $h$ relaxes to a NESS. We wish to compute the distribution of the quantity $Y$ appearing in the Hatano-Sasa equality (\[eq:hatano-sasa\]). To proceed, we consider a large value of $N$ and $\phi \ll 1$ and use a combination of $N$-particle dynamics, and the knowledge of the single-particle stationary-state distribution (\[eq:sp-st-soln-fsame\]). Starting with the initial value $h=h_0$, the field is varied linearly in time, as in the equilibrium case; specifically, at the $\alpha$-th time step, the field is $h_\alpha=h_0+\Delta h~\alpha/\tau;~\alpha
\in [0,\tau]$. Again, the choice of the protocol is immaterial in as far as validity of the Hatano-Sasa equality is concerned. The steps in computing the $Y$-distribution for fixed values of $\beta,h_0,\Delta h,\tau$ are as follows. A state prepared by sampling independently each $\theta_i$ uniformly in $[0,2\pi)$ is allowed to evolve under the $N$-particle MC dynamics with $h=h_0$ to eventually relax to the stationary state, which is confirmed by checking that the resulting single-particle distribution is given by Eq. (\[eq:sp-st-soln-fsame\]). Subsequently, the particles are allowed to evolve under the time-dependent field $h_\alpha$ for a total time $\tau$, and the quantity $Y$ is computed along the trajectory of each particle according to Eq. (\[eq:Y-defn\]), which is given in the present case for the $i$-th particle by the following expression, as an approximation to the integral and the derivative appearing in Eq. (\[eq:Y-defn\]): Y\_i=\_[=1]{}\^(), \[eq:Yi\] where $\{\theta_i^{(\alpha)}\}_{0\le\alpha\le\tau}$ gives the trajectory of the $i$-th particle, and $\rho_{\rm
ss}(\theta_i^{(\alpha)};h_{\alpha})$ is computed by using Eq. (\[eq:sp-st-soln-fsame\]). Repeating these steps yields the distribution of $Y$ for each particle, which is finally averaged over all the particles to obtain the distribution $P(Y)$ depicted in Fig. \[fig:HS\]. Here, we use two values of $\beta$, while the other parameters are $p=0.55,N=500,\phi=0.1,h_0=1.0,\Delta h=0.15,\tau=15$. As is evident from the figure, the distribution is highly asymmetric, and in particular, has exponential tails (see the inset). From the data for $P(Y)$, we find for $\langle
\exp(-Y)\rangle$ the value $1.04$ for $\beta=10$, and the value $1.11$ for $\beta=5$, which within numerical accuracy are consistent with the expected value of unity. Let us reiterate the combined use of the $N$-particle dynamics and the exact single-particle stationary state distribution in obtaining the $Y$-distribution, and remark that the consistency of the final results with the Hatano-Sasa equality further highlights the effective mean-field nature of the $N$-particle dynamics for large $N$.
To conclude, in this work, we studied the out-of-equilibrium fluctuations of the work done by a time-dependent external force on a many-particle system with long-range interactions and evolving under stochastic dynamics. For both equilibrium and non-equilibrium initial conditions, we characterized the fluctuations, and revealed how a simpler single-particle Langevin dynamics in a mean field gives accurate quantitative predictions for the $N$-particle dynamics for large $N$. This in turn highlights the effective mean-field nature of the original many-particle dynamics for large $N$. It is interesting to generalize recent studies of work statistics in quantum many-body short-range systems, e.g., [@Russomanno:2015; @Dutta:2015], to those with long-range interactions, and unveil any effective mean-field description.
SG and SR thank the ENS de Lyon for hospitality. We acknowledge fruitful discussions with A. C. Barato, M. Baiesi, S. Ciliberto, G. Jona-Lasinio, and A. Naert.
[99]{} R. Kubo, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**29**]{}, 255 (1966).
U. Seifert, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**75**]{}, 126001 (2012).
C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 2690 (1997).
G. Crooks, Phys. Rev. E, [**60**]{}, 2721 (1999).
T. Hatano and S. Sasa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 3463 (2001).
C. Bustamante, J. Liphardt and F. Ritort, Physics Today, [**58**]{}, Issue no. 7, 43 (2005).
D. Collin, F. Ritort, C. Jarzynski, S. B. Smith, I. Tinoco, Jr and C. Bustamante, Nature [**437**]{}, 231 (2005).
E. H. Trepagnier, C. Jarzynski, F. Ritort, G. E. Crooks, C. J. Bustamante, and J. Liphardt, PNAS [**101**]{}, 15038 (2004).
, A. Campa, T. Dauxois, D. Fanelli, and S. Ruffo (Oxford University Press, UK, 2014).
L. Bertini, A. De Sole, D. Gabrielli, G. Jona-Lasinio, and C. Landim, J. Stat. Mech. P10018 (2015).
The exponent $\alpha$ characterizing the decay of the inter-particle potential with separation is zero here, thus corresponding to the extreme case of long-range interactions, when the potential does not decay at all with distance.
S. Gupta, T. Dauxois, and S. Ruffo, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. P11003 (2013).
Non-additivity of LRI systems brings in complications in deriving the canonical equilibrium while starting from a microcanonical one, whereby the former describes fluctuations in a subsystem that is a part of and is in interaction with the rest of the system. We however invoke canonical equilibrium in the sense that although non-additive, an LRI system in contact with an external short-ranged heat bath via a small coupling will be in canonical equilibrium at a temperature given by that of the bath [@Baldovin:2006].
F. Baldovin and E. Orlandini, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 240602 (2006).
S. T. Bramwell, P. C. W. Holdsworth, and J.-F. Pinton, Nature [**396**]{}, 552 (1998).
S. T. Bramwell, K. Christensen, J.-Y. Fortin, P. C. W. Holdsworth, H. J. Jensen, S. Lise, J. M. López, M. Nicodemi, J.-F. Pinton, and M. Sellitto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 3744 (2000).
S. T. Bramwell, T. Fennell, P. C. W. Holdsworth, and B. Portelli, Europhys. Lett. [**57**]{},310 (2002).
P. Bakucz, S. Willems, and B. A. Hoffmann, Acta Polytechnica Hungarica [**11**]{}, 73 (2014).
F. Douarche, S. Ciliberto, and A. Petrosyan, J. Stat. Mech. P09011 (2005).
A. Russomanno, S. Sharma, A. Dutta, and G. E. Santoro, J. Stat. Mech. P08030 (2015).
A. Dutta, A. Das, and K. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. E [**92**]{}, 012104 (2015).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We examine the current lower bound on the charged Higgs boson mass in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. By applying direct search constraints on the neutral Higgs bosons and other supersymmetric states, as well as a number of indirect constraints ($b\to s\gamma$, $B_s\to\mu\mu$, $B\to\tau\nu$, $B\to D\tau\nu$), we find that it is possible to push the charged Higgs boson mass as low as $140\gev$. We work in a completely low-energy approach with no assumptions about scalar mass unification, examining two of the most popular limits for neutral Higgs boson searches: the Max-Mixing and No-Mixing scenarios. While both scenarios allow light charged Higgs bosons, they do so for completely different ranges of $\tan\beta$. In either case, one expects light top squarks to accompany a light charged Higgs.'
---
‘@=11 caption\#1\[\#2\]\#3
‘@=12
[[at]{}]{}
[[**1**]{}]{}
[M\_[GUT]{}]{}
[m\_0]{}
[M\_[1/2]{}]{}
[[**5**]{}]{}
[[**|5**]{}]{}
[[**10**]{}]{}
[[**|[10]{}**]{}]{}
[[**16**]{}]{}
[[**|[16]{}**]{}]{}
[.7ex]{}
[.7ex]{}
[[GeV]{}]{}
[[MeV]{}]{}
[[eV]{}]{}
[[keV]{}]{}
[[TeV]{}]{}
[m\_Z]{}
[m\_W]{}
[M\_[Pl]{}]{}
[m\_h]{}
[m\_A]{}
[m\_[H\^]{}]{}
[H\^]{}
\#1\#2
[\_[\_[FC]{}]{}]{}
[\^[-1]{}]{}
[\^[-1]{}]{}
[[**D**]{}]{}
[[**D\^**]{}]{}
[[**U**]{}]{}
[[**U\^**]{}]{}
[[**Y\_D**]{}]{}
[[**Y\_D\^**]{}]{}
[[**Y\_U**]{}]{}
[[**Y\_U\^**]{}]{}
[[**V**]{}]{}
[[**V\^**]{}]{}
[[**V\^0**]{}]{}
[[**V\^[0]{}**]{}]{}
[[**X**]{}]{}
[B\^0-|B\^0]{}
\#1[\#1 |]{} \#1[| \#1 ]{}
[[**m**]{}]{}
[M\_[SUSY]{}]{}
[M\_[unif]{}]{}
[[L]{}]{}
[[e]{}]{}
[0]{}
\#1\#2\#3[Nucl. Phys. [**B\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Lett. [**B\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Lett. [**\#1B**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rev. [**D\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rev. Lett. [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Phys. Rep. [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Mod. Phys. Lett. [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Zeit. für Physik [**C\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[Ap. J. [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Ann. Phys. ]{} [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Rev. Mod. Phys. ]{} [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Comm. Math. Phys. ]{} [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{}
[[*i.e.*]{}]{}
[[*et al.*]{}]{}
[[*e.g.*]{}]{}
[[*etc.*]{}]{}
[[*c.f.*]{}]{}
/\#1[/]{} |\#1 \#1[\#1 ]{}
[**Constraining the Charged Higgs Mass in the MSSM:\
A Low-Energy Approach**]{}
.5cm
With the initiation of the LHC, physicists will soon be able to search for new physics at energy regimes never before possible. Among the possible discoveries that would signal the existence of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM), one that stands out (among several) would be the discovery of a charged Higgs boson. While physicists have become comfortable thinking of the SM as a theory with a single Higgs SU(2) doublet, there are simple extensions, trivially consistent with all available data, in which additional SU(2) singlets and/or doublets are added to the spectrum of the Higgs sector. One of the smoking guns for the models with additional doublets, called Two-Higgs Doublet Standard Models (2HDSMs), are physical, charged Higgs bosons.
If a charged Higgs ($\hpm$) exists, there are a number of channels, both direct and indirect, in which its presence could have a profound effect. But the most well-known (and currently most limiting) constraint on the $\hpm$ comes from the rare decay $b\to s\gamma$. Constructive interference in 2HDSMs between a $\hpm$-mediated loop diagram and the standard $W^\pm$-mediated diagram (see Fig. \[bsgdiags\]) leads to lower bounds on the charged Higgs mass of roughly $300\gev$ [@Hewett:1992is].
However, it has long been known that $b\to s\gamma$ can have other, equally important contributions in more general models of new physics. In particular, within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), chargino- and neutralino-mediated diagrams (Fig. \[bsgdiags\](c)) can partially or completely cancel the charged Higgs contribution, eliminating the aforementioned bound [@Barbieri:1993av]. Given the possibility of at least some cancelation amongst the different contributions, it is almost taken for granted that supersymmetry (SUSY) can accommodate a lighter charged Higgs than the 2HDSMs. However, the other light SUSY particles which help in the $b\to s\gamma$ cancelation also enhance other flavor changing processes, such as $B_s\to\mu\mu$. At the same time, a charged Higgs still mediates tree-level flavor-changing process such as $B\to\tau\nu$ and $B\to D\tau\nu$. All of these processes provide constraints of varying strength on both the charged Higgs and other SUSY masses, which makes determining a direct theoretical mass bound on the charged Higgs difficult to achieve.
There are additional constraints on both the charged Higgs and the spectrum of SUSY partners (“sparticles") which arise from the neutral Higgs sector. Within the MSSM, the charged Higgs is accompanied by three neutral Higgs bosons, the lightest of which is often SM-like, and for which a number of experiments have conducted searches. At tree level, the lightest Higgs ($h$) must be lighter than the $Z$; at higher order the mass can be raised as high as 125 to $135\gev$, depending on the details of the sparticle spectrum and the masses of the other Higgs states. These correlations can be quite complicated and, as we will see, can rules out many models with a light charged Higgs.
In this paper we examine all these varied constraints in order to calculate a true lower bound on the charged Higgs mass, an important question for phenomenologists at the start of the LHC era. This question has been examined in recent literature [@Domingo:2007dx; @Barenboim:2007sk; @Eriksson:2008cx], and like these papers, we include various $B$-physics and electroweak constraints. However, we will try to maintain, in so far as possible, a completely “bottom-up" analysis; that is, we make no assumption about unification at some high scale, which means we avoid the hidden correlations that usually arise in that class of models. We also will work within two limits that are most-often examined by phenomenologists and experimentalists looking for the light Higgs: the so-called Max-Mixing and No-Mixing scenarios, which we will define in the next section. In a sense, we trade some of the high-scale simplifications of Ref. [@Domingo:2007dx; @Barenboim:2007sk; @Eriksson:2008cx] in favor of low-energy simplifications. Our final results, however, as in broad agreement with the earlier analyses, as we will explain.
The plan for this paper is as follows: We begin with three sections reviewing the major constraints, both direct and indirect, on the Higgs sector of the MSSM, and on the sparticle spectrum. Following that discussion, we explain in $\S4$ how our analysis was performed, the results of which are discussed in detail in $\S5$. These results are compared to earlier results in the Conclusions ($\S6$).
Direct Observables
==================
The first direct observable of importance is obviously the search for the charged Higgs with the current experimental limit coming from the process $e^+e^-\to H^+H^-$. The best searches so far only place a lower limit on $m_{H^{\pm}}$ of $79\gev$, which is far below indirect searches in 2HDMs. However, the parameters in the Higgs sector of SUSY are all strongly connected. At tree level, the charged Higgs mass depends on the CP-odd Higgs, $A$, through the relationship: m\_[H\^]{}\^2=m\_A\^2+m\_W\^2. Many other relationships like this exist amongst the Higgs parameters and at tree level the Higgs spectrum in SUSY is usually determined by two parameters, commonly taken to be the mass of the CP-odd Higgs boson, $m_A$ and $\tan\beta = v_u/v_d$. Through these relationships direct limits on other Higgs particles impact the mass range available to the charged Higgs.
Two direct limits of interest are those on $m_A$ and the lightest CP-even Higgs mass, $m_h$. The lightest CP-even Higgs, $h$, in particular has been strongly sought after and in SUSY is quite light, lighter than $m_Z$ at tree level. However, quantum corrections play a large role, and can raise $m_h$ above the LEP bound of $114\gev$. The primary quantum corrections of interest are those generated by stop loops and yielding a light Higgs mass [@Carena:1995bx]: m\_h\^2 & = & m\_Z\^2\^22(1- )\
&& +. \[HiggscorrectionEq\] In the above $X_t = A_t -\mu\cot\beta$ and $\msusy$ is understood to be the average mass of the top squarks.
The size of these corrections can vary greatly, and in many phenomenological studies, the choice is reduced to two extremes, these being the “Max-Mixing" and “No-Mixing" scenarios. The Max-Mixing scenario occurs when $m_h$ is maximized by setting $X_t =
\sqrt{6}\msusy$, whereas the No-Mixing scenario sets $X_t = 0$. The former case generally implies large $A$-terms while the latter typically requires a heavier $\msusy$ in order to pass the LEP bound.
The lower limit on the Higgs mass of $114\gev$ was obtained through a search for the SM higgstrahlung process ($e^+e^-\to Zh$) at LEP. SUSY effects can alter the bound significantly because of a suppression in the coupling between the Z boson and the light Higgs ($g_{ZZh}$) which leads to a suppression of the cross section of the form: \^[hZ]{}\_& = & \^2(-)\^[hZ]{}\_. In the above, $\sigma^{hZ}_{\mbox{\tiny{SM}}}$ is the Standard Model cross section given by: \^[hZ]{}\_ & = &C\_[EW]{} \^[1/2]{}(+12sm\_Z\^2),\
& = & (s - m\_h\^2 - m\_Z\^2)\^2 - 4m\_h\^2m\_Z\^2, where, we condense the pieces of the calculation not dependent on $m_h$ into a constant $C_{EW}$. This constant depends on the center of mass energy, $s$, and other electroweak parameters such as $m_Z$, $\alpha$ and the weak angle, $\theta_W$.
LEP also considered the production of the CP-odd Higgs boson, $A$. The cross section for $e^+e^-\to Z\to hA$ is suppressed by $\cos^2(\beta-\alpha)$ which goes as: \^2(-) = In the Higgs decoupling limit, where $m_A$ is large, $\cos^2(\beta -\alpha)\to 0$ which leaves the higgstrahlung process above SM-like. These two experiments are complementary and combine for a robust constraint on the light CP-even Higgs.
We implemented the constraint from the SM Higgs search by requiring the the higgstrahlung cross section for the SUSY Higgs, $h$, satisfies the following bound: \^[hZ]{}\_(m\_h;=209) \^[hZ]{}\_(m\_h = 114, = 209). For the complementary process, $e^+e^-\to Z\to
hA$, the decay of the $A$ boson is unfortunately very model dependent. Therefore we will enforce the LEP constraint on $m_A$ of $91\gev$ though it is possible that a lighter $A$ could be possible.
Finally, LEP has also placed limits on other SUSY particles. For instance, the lightest stop, $\tilde{t}_1$, is required to be heavier than $95\gev$ and the lightest chargino, $\chi^{\pm}_1$, must be heavier than $103\gev$. This last limit constrains the $\left|\mu\right|$ parameter through the chargino mass matrix. While other SUSY particles have direct limits imposed by LEP, such as the lightest sbottom, $m_{\tilde{b}_1}$ and lightest neutralino, $\chi^0_1$, they do not have a sizeable effect for the parameter space we examine in this analysis More details about these constraints is given in section 4.
B Physics Observables
=====================
Over the last decade, the number of measured observables and their precision has increased dramatically. These measurements have in turn provided new, powerful constraints on beyond the SM physics and SUSY in particular. In this analysis many different flavor-violating processes are considered which are enhanced by the presence of a light charged Higgs. These include processes such as $b\to
s\gamma$, which currently places a very strong limit on $m_{H^{\pm}}$ in 2HDMs. There is also $B_s\to\mu\mu$, which receives corrections from SUSY which are an order of magnitude greater than the SM contributions. We study these processes and other flavor observables, such as the decays $B\to\tau\nu$ and $B\to D\tau\nu$ which are tree-level processes mediated by a charged Higgs.
$b\to s\gamma$
--------------
The calculation of $b\to s\gamma$ is generally broken into two parts by way of the operator product expansion. The short range physics, which includes all the contributions from SUSY, is contained in the calculation of the Wilson coefficients,${\cal C}_i$. The calculation of these coefficients is well documented in the literature. [@Barbieri:1993av; @Bertolini:1990if] The $W^{\pm}$ and $H^{\pm}$ contributions, which are shown in Fig.\[bsgdiags\]a)-b), are as follows: \_[W]{}& = & \_1(),\
[C]{}\_[H\^]{}& = & (\_1()+ \_2()), where $\mbox{F}_1$ and $\mbox{F}_2$ are kinematic loop functions given in [@Bertolini:1990if]. These two contributions are the only ones found in 2HDMs and they always constructively interfere. This allows the current measurements on $b\to s\gamma$ to place strict limits on the charged Higgs mass in such models, with current bounds requiring the charged Higgs in 2HDMs to be heavier than $\approx300\gev$.
Within SUSY, the charged Higgs and SM contributions also interfere constructively, but now there are the chargino contributions, shown in Fig. \[bsgdiags\]c), which depend on several different particles masses and the chargino and stop mixing angles; these in turn bring in a dependence on soft SUSY parameters such as $\mu$ and $A_t$. The chargino contributions usually interfere destructively with the SM, which weakens the limit on $m_{H^{\pm}}$ coming from $b\to s\gamma$.
To determine the effect of this short range physics, the entire calculation, including the long range QCD effects, must be considered. Converting the Wilson coefficients into a rate for $\mbox{Br}(B\to X_s\gamma)$ has been well studied [@Hurth:2003dk; @Misiak:2006zs]. We use the NLL calculation of Ref. [@Hurth:2003dk], which easily and analytically incorporates new physics from the Wilson coefficients. The largest source of error in this calculation comes from the charm mass in the ratio $m_c/m_b$ and we use this large uncertainty to tune the NLL calculation so that it reproduces the NNLO theoretical value for the SM calculation of $\mbox{Br}(B\to X_s\gamma)$ of $3.15\times 10^{-4}$ when the new physics is turned off.
This theoretical value is lower than the current experimental value which is given by the Heavy Flavor Averaging Group [@Barberio:2008fa] to be: (BX\_s)\_[exp]{}&=& (3.550.24\^[+0.09]{}\_[-0.10]{}0.03)10\^[-4]{}. This allows some room for new physics, and leads to the following $2\sigma$ confidence interval which we enforce on our analysis: 3.0310\^[-4]{} < & (BX\_s)\_[E\_>1.6]{}& < 4.0610\^[-4]{}.
$B_s\to\mu\mu$
--------------
Another probe of SUSY, which is particularly powerful at large $\tan\beta$, is the decay $B_s\to\mu\mu$. This process is mediated by Higgs penguin diagrams which create an effective coupling between $H_u$ and the down type quarks: $H_u\bar{d}_R\Delta_uq_L$. This effective coupling picks up contributions from two sources in SUSY, a gluino loop which is flavor preserving and a chargino loop which is flavor violating as shown in Fig. \[higgspenguins\]. The size of this effective coupling is given by [@Babu:1999hn; @Buras:2002wq]: (\_u)\^[JI]{} &=& y\_[d\_J]{}(\_0\^[IJ]{}+\_Yy\_t\^2V\^[3J\*]{}V\^[3I]{}), where $I,J=1...3$ designate the quark generation, and \_0& = & -H\_2(x\^[Q/]{},x\^[D/]{}),\
\_Y& = & H\_2(x\^[Q/]{},x\^[U/]{}). Here $x^{Q/\mu}=m_Q^2/\mu^2$ and the other $x$’s are similarly defined and $H_2$ is a kinematic function defined to be: H\_2(x,y)&=&+.
Two of the prominent features of this decay are its strong dependence on $\tan\beta$ and $m_A$, which enter the branching ratio with six and four powers respectively. In the large $\tan\beta$ limit, where the SUSY contribution is clearly important, the branching ratio can be formulated as [@Buras:2002wq]: (B\_s)& = & 3.510\^[-5]{}\^6 \^2 \^2\
&&. In the above, \_3 & = & \_0+\_Yy\_t\^2.
This large $\tan\beta$ enhancement allows the SUSY contribution to this decay to dominate over the SM prediction, which is highly suppressed: $\mbox{Br}(B_s\to\mu\mu)_{\mbox{\tiny SM}} =
(3.2\pm0.5)\times 10^{-9}$. Such a large possible contribution from new physics has driven the search for this decay. Currently, the strongest experimental limit comes from CDF [@:2007kv]: (B\_s)\_ &< &5.810\^[-8]{}.
$B\to\tau\nu$
-------------
The process $b\to s\gamma$, though it is well-studied and provides a strong constraint, only depends on the charged Higgs through loops. This allows other SUSY particles to interfere with the effect of the charged Higgs contribution as described above. However, SUSY models with a charged Higgs also generate tree-level flavor violation and without the loop factors, ${\cal O}(1)$ corrections to several processes can be produced. One process of interest is $B\to\tau\nu$ which is generated by a simple tree-level exchange of a $H^{\pm}$. The contribution of the charged Higgs to $B\to\tau\nu$ has been studied in many sources [@Hou:1992sy; @Akeroyd:2003zr] and the decay rate is given by: (B\^+)&=&|V\_[ub]{}|\^2 (1-)\^2r\_H, where $r_H$ contains the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ dependence: r\_H = (1-)\^2. In the equation above, the $\epsilon_0$ is the same Higgs penguin corrections discussed in the $B_s\to\mu\mu$ section.
The current experimental limits for $B\to\tau\nu$ is often expressed as a limit on the ratio of the experimental value and the SM theoretical calculation [@Barberio:2008fa]: R\_[B]{}=& =& 1.280.38. We turn this into a $2\sigma$ confidence interval on $R_{B\to\tau\nu}$: 0.52<&R\_[B]{}<2.04
However, while $B\to\tau\nu$ can provide a strong experimental constraint, as found in [@Barenboim:2007sk], its calculation is plagued by large theoretical uncertainties; neither the decay constant, $f_B$, nor the CKM element $V_{ub}$ are well measured. $V_{ub}$ in particular is poorly understood with a large range of experimental measurements which depend on whether the measurement is from the inclusive or exclusive decays. In fact, several of the most precise measurements of $V_{ub}$ obtain very different results [@Barberio:2008fa; @Bona:2006ah]. This presents a problem when trying to interpret the effect of this constraint on our models and we will discuss it further in section $5$.
$B\to D\tau\nu$
---------------
While $B\to\tau\nu$ has a large theoretical uncertainty due to the error in $V_{ub}$, $B\to D\tau\nu$ depends on the more accurately measured $V_{cb}$. Unfortunately, the presence of multiple neutrinos in the final state makes the detection of $B\to D\tau\nu$ more of an experimental challenge. But, with growing certainty in the measurement, it can possibly provide comparable power to constrain new physics models.
In order to limit the dependence on hadronic parameters, it is more useful to calculate a ratio of $B\to Dl\nu$ decays. We follow the results of Refs. [@Kamenik:2008tj; @Nierste:2008qe] to obtain the ratio: &=& (0.280.02)(1+ 1.38Re(C\_[NP]{}) + 0.88|C\_[NP]{}|\^2). In the above, $C_{NP}$ contains all the contributions that come from new physics. Neglecting all but the tree-level charged Higgs contributions, one finds: C\_[NP]{} & = & - .
We compare our calculation to the measurement by BaBar [@Aubert:2007dsa]: &=& 0.4160.1170.052. Which leads to a $2\sigma$ confidence interval of: 0.151<<0.681.
Other Observables
=================
The observables listed in the previous sections are the dominant constraints on the charged Higgs mass, and they are also the most model independent. There are however a number of other constraints which are traditionally applied to the parameter space of the MSSM, some of which we use and others we choose to ignore, for reasons we outline now.
So far, we have applied nothing in the way of constraints on the slepton sector. Though this sector has a rather rich phenomenology, constraints arising here generally depend on slepton masses and mixings, and on complicated, highly model-dependent decay rates among the neutralinos and sleptons. Such observables however, exhibit very weak, or no, direct dependence on the charged Higgs mass. If we were to implement some unification constraints on our models, such as is often done in the literature (, a unified scalar mass, $M_0$), the sleptons become linked to the squark sector and therefore in turn to the Higgs sector. Enforcing such a constraint on the mass spectrum will of necessity result in tighter limits on $\mhpm$ which are higher than in more general models. Since our goal is to find something close to an absolute lower bound on $\mhpm$, we will not take this approach. However there are still a few, generally useful constraints that we can learn from physics in the (s)leptonic sector.
The main such constraint arises from the measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment, denoted $a_\mu$. Both the theoretical and experimental values of $a_\mu$ have been extracted to extraordinarily high precision, with a small (roughly $3\sigma$) discrepancy found between experiment and the SM. The current difference between experiment and the SM calculation is [@Bennett:2006fi; @Miller:2007kk]: $$a_{\mu}^{\mbox{\scriptsize exp}} - a_\mu^{\mbox{\scriptsize SM}} = (29.5 \pm 8.8)\times 10^{-10}$$ If the spectrum of SUSY is at all light, then it will contribute to this anomaly, but with a sign that depends almost solely on the sign of the $\mu$-parameter [@Feroz:2008wr]. Given the sign of the discrepancy, a positive sign for $\mu$ is favored (using here the Les Houches conventions [@Allanach:2008qq]). Therefore we will present our results under the assumption of $\mu>0$, leaving the case for $\mu<0$ for our comments at the end of the next section.
But since the sleptons play little other direct role in constraining $\mhpm$, we will push all slepton masses to $10\tev$ so that they don’t inadvertently create correlations which are not generic to the MSSM.
Another possible constraint comes from astrophysics. Observations [@Komatsu:2008hk] have shown that there is an abundance of dark matter in the universe which cannot be explained within the SM. Low energy SUSY models generally introduce a new symmetry, called $R$-parity, in order to avoid fast proton decay. In the process, $R$-parity forces the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) to be stable, making it a candidate for the universe’s dark matter. Ideally there are two sets of constraints on the LSP. First, it must be electrically neutral so that the matter is truly “dark", and second it must produce the correct density of dark matter as observed by astronomers. We will use the first constraint (though, as we will see, it does very little for us), but ignore the second constraint, since constraints on the calculated relic abundance once again produce a great deal of model dependence in our results.
Analysis
========
The goal of this analysis is to find a lower bound on the charged Higgs mass within the MSSM, but without enforcing “unnatural" constraints on the model, such as unification of all scalar masses. As we will see shortly, the analysis here is not entirely general, but captures most of the physics that a truly general analysis would uncover.
One way in which we avoid being completely general is in our treatment of the radiative corrections to the lightest neutral Higgs boson. Studies of the Higgs sector phenomenology usually consider two particular limits for the lightest Higgs mass, called the “Maximal Mixing" and “No Mixing" scenarios. The names refer to the size of the top squark mixing corrections that are calculated at the SUSY decoupling scale, as discussed earlier. All of our calculations are done within one or the other of these scenarios.
Our basic procedure is to perform a random scan over the low-energy parameters of the MSSM, enforcing all constraints and then finding the lower bound on $\mhpm$ consistent with those constraints. For the plots that follow, we have shown only 10,000 points, though we have studied the parameter space with many more, particularly near the boundaries where a transition between constraints arises.
The parameters in the scan are entirely weak-scale parameters; no unification or running is done in the analysis. But these parameters are generally not equal to physical masses, and we include F- and D-term contributions, left-right mixing, and leading one-loop corrections in calculating physical mass eigenvalues. In the next few paragraphs we summarize the constraints that we place on the input parameters in order to define our model space.
We begin by setting the slepton masses to be very heavy – $10\tev$ – and $\mu$ positive. As we mentioned in the previous section, the observables which depend crucially on slepton masses, such as the dark matter relic density or $a_\mu$, have very little correlation with the charged Higgs mass. By setting the slepton masses high, and by choosing that our models have a positive sign for $\mu$, we include the indications given by these constraints without ruling out otherwise “good" models unnecessarily. Another way to say this is as follows: if a model point is acceptable in every way except that it generates too much/too little dark matter, or falls outside the experimentally allowed range for $a_\mu$, we can probably fix that problem by shifting the slepton masses, without affecting the charged Higgs mass in any way. Thus we choose to essentially decouple the sleptons from the start.
In the squark sector we set the masses of the first two generations to $1\tev$, for reasons that echo those for the sleptons. However the third generation plays a key role in the charged Higgs bound, coming into both the radiative corrections to the Higgs masses themselves, and the chargino-stop diagrams that contribute to $b\to s\gamma$. Thus we allow the the third generation soft squark mass parameters to run within the range of $500\gev$ to $1\tev$. To make the analysis simpler, we assume that the soft mass parameters for each of the third generation squark states (the left-handed stop-sbottom doublet, and the right-handed stop and sbottom singlets) all share a common soft mass, $m_{\tilde{q}_3}$. From the soft masses, the physical masses are calculated by adding the “threshold corrections": F- and D-term pieces, as well as left-right mixing. For the left-right mixing, we will need to choose values for the $A$ and $\mu$-terms, which we will discuss shortly. Some loss of generality is unavoidable by our choice of a universal third generation squark mass. Even so, after including threshold corrections to the squark masses, the squarks can become as light as $300\gev$, where they would start to run into Tevatron constraints.
As for the left-right mixing, we set all $A$-terms, except $A_t$, to be zero. (We assume that trilinear soft breaking terms are proportional to their corresponding Yukawa matrices, which justifies this simplification.) Instead of varying $A_t$ as another free parameter, it instead takes on two extreme values that have been used in many phenomenological studies of SUSY. The first is the Max-Mixing scenario in which $X_t=A_t-\mu\cot\beta$ is given a value such that the correction to the light Higgs mass in Eq. (\[HiggscorrectionEq\]) is maximized. Once $\mu$ and $\tan\beta$ are chosen in a model, $A_t$ is chosen such that $X_t = \sqrt{6} m_{\tilde{q}_3}$. The second scenario is the No-Mixing scenario in which $A_t = \mu\cot\beta$ and $X_t$ is identically zero.
In the gaugino sector, we set the bino mass, $M_1$, and the gluino mass, $M_3$, to fixed values, while allowing the wino mass, $M_2$, to vary between 100 and $500\gev$. Varying $M_2$ is important because, along with the $\mu$ parameter it directly enters the diagrams for $b\to s\gamma$ through the chargino masses. $M_1$, however, does not need to vary, as the only constraint that depends heavily on its value is the LSP dark matter constraint. With the sneutrino masses raised to $10$ TeV, the only remaining candidate for dark matter is the lightest neutralino, whose mass is tied strongly to $M_1$. For this analysis, $M_1 =
60\mbox{ GeV}$, a value which both satisfies the LEP bound on $\chi^0_1$, and provides for $\chi^0_1$ to be the LSP. (There is a small dependence in $b\to s\gamma$ on $M_1$ through the neutralino diagrams, but this effect is far too small to affect our results.)
The gluino mass, $M_3$, has no leading contributions to any of the observables we are considering, but it does have one sub-leading effect. Because the non-holomorphic corrections to the down-quark masses depend on $M_3$ (through the parameter $\epsilon_0$), there is a second order dependence in both $B\to\tau\nu$ and $B\to D\tau\nu$. Even $B_s\to\mu\mu$, which depends heavily on the non-holomorphic terms, is primarily dependent only on $\epsilon_Y$ (which has no $M_3$ dependence), and only receives a small correction via the $M_3$-dependent $\epsilon_0$ term. For these reasons, $M_3$ in this study is set to a fixed value of $1\tev$, at which most of its effects decouple. [^1]
The $\mu$-parameter is also varied: $100\gev\leq \mu\leq 1\tev$. The value of $\mu$ is assumed to remain positive for all of the results shown in the next section (consistent with $a_\mu$), but we have tested the stability of our results for negative $\mu$ and find no new regions of parameter space appear. The lower bound of $100\gev$ is set by the LEP limit on chargino masses.
We treat the Higgs sector much like the others – we vary over a set of input parameters and check to see if the resulting set of inputs is consistent with all of our constraints. Normally one parametrizes the Higgs sector with two parameters, $\tan\beta$ and $m_A$. But for the purposes of this paper, it is more convenient to replace $m_A$ with $\mhpm$ which is allowed to vary between 100 and $300\gev$. The upper bound is set because above $300\gev$ it is rather trivial to find models consistent with the $b\to s\gamma$ constraint, and so we have no interest there. The parameter $\tan\beta$ is varied from $1\leq \tan\beta\leq 70$. Allowing $\tan\beta$ to push above the more usual limits of 50–60 will have some effect in the No-Mixing scenario.
It is also important to note while our calculation of the Higgs spectrum includes many of the first order corrections, however, there are higher order corrections which can shift the light Higgs mass by $3-5\gev$ [@Allanach:2004rh]. To account for this uncertainty and guarantee models are not incorrectly thrown out, $3\gev$ is added to the masses of $A$ and $h$ before enforcing the calculating the observables and applying their constraints.
The range over which the various parameters have been varied is summarized in Table \[ParameterTable\].
$\tan\beta$ $1 - 70$
----------------------- --------------------------
$m_{H^{\pm}}$ $100 - 300\mbox{ GeV}$
$\mu$ $100 - 1000\mbox{ GeV}$
$M_1$ $ 60 \mbox{ GeV}$
$M_2$ $ 100 - 500 \mbox{ GeV}$
$M_3$ $1000\mbox{ GeV}$
$m_{\tilde{q}_{1,2}}$ $1\mbox{ TeV}$
$m_{\tilde{q}_3}$ $500 - 1000\mbox{ GeV}$
$m_{\tilde{\ell}}$ $10\mbox{ TeV}$
: Range of parameters in MSSM scan. \[ParameterTable\]
Once a set of parameters is chosen in either of the Max-Mixing/No-Mixing scenarios, a physical spectrum is generated. In order to take include the corrections necessary in both the squark and Higgs sector, we started from the publicly available CPsuperH code [@Lee:2003nta], altered to our uses. Once a physical spectrum and its accompanying parameters (such as the angle $\alpha$ in the neutral Higgs sector), each observable was calculated and compared to its $2\sigma$ confidence bounds. The results of this analysis, in terms of which points passed all the constraints and how each constraint sliced the parameter space, is discussed below.
Results
=======
Our primary result is shown in Fig. \[MaxmixHvsTanb\], showing $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. $\tan\beta$ for a set of Max-Mixing models. The electroweak and flavor constraints are applied one at a time, in the following order: [*(1)*]{} all direct search constraints on sparticles are applied as discussed at the end of $\S1$; [*(2)*]{} the mass bounds on $h$ and $A$ are applied also following the discussion of $\S1$; [*(3)*]{} the $b\to s\gamma$ constraint is applied following $\S2.1$; [*(4)*]{} the $B_s\to\mu\mu$ constraints is applied as in $\S2.2$; and finally [*(5)*]{} the $B\to\tau\nu$ constraint is applied following $\S2.3$. The points are colored according to the bound which they first fail. Those points which remain after all constraints have been applied are shown as dark black, filled circles.
Some constraints described in the text had no noticeable effect on the parameter space. For example, the $B\to D\tau\nu$ bound (described in $\S2.4$) only rules out model points which are already in conflict with the LEP Higgs or $B_s\to\mu\mu$ bounds. Other constraints, such as the neutral LSP requirement, are built into our choice of parameter ranges, as described in the previous section.
The region that passes the constraints has several interesting properties. Most importantly, we find that a light charged Higgs mass is possible in the MSSM, with models possessing a charged Higgs down to $140\gev$ still able to pass all constraints. The region which allows for a light $H^{\pm}$ is similar to the non-universal Higgs mass (NUHM) case as examined in Ref. [@Eriksson:2008cx].
It is also interesting that the lower bound on $\mhpm$ appear to come primarily from the LEP constraints on the the neutral Higgs masses (particularly $\mh$, though it is not obvious in the figure). In other words, it is possible to find ranges of SUSY sparticle masses and parameters for which all the indirect observables are consistent with experiment, for charged Higgs masses right down to the direct bounds coming from LEP. But once the charged Higgs mass falls below $140\gev$ it appears to be impossible to find a sets of parameters that remain consistent with the bound on $\mh$. This is a somewhat unfortunate circumstance, since the calculation of $\mh$ is so complicated that different calculations of $\mh$ could potentially lead to very different bounds on $\mhpm$; this is something one of us is exploring further [@Dudleythesis].
One can also see the effect of the $b\to s\gamma$ constraint starkly. In the region of $3\lsim \tan\beta\lsim 15$, there are very few model points which are consistent with all bounds yet yield a light $H^\pm$. And as we push to lower and lower $\mhpm$, the number of points rapidly decreases. This is because such light $H^\pm$ require large cancellations in the $b\to s\gamma$ calculation, cancellations that become harder and harder to arrange the more $\mhpm$ decreases.
In order to arrange such a cancellation we are forced to have other light sparticles, particularly top squarks. In Figure \[MaxmixMsqvsMhpm\] we can see this explicitly. As $\mhpm$ decreases, the upper bound on the lightest squark (almost always a stop) also decreases. For $\mhpm< 200\gev$, a squark below $500\gev$ is required; for $\mhpm<155\gev$, a squark below $400\gev$ is required. This can be contrasted with the $\mhpm\simeq 300\gev$, when squark masses up to $750\gev$ are fine. Thus a light charged Higgs necessarily implies other “light" sparticles, in particular, top squarks.
The lightest charged Higgs masses in Fig. \[MaxmixHvsTanb\] occur in the region of $7\lsim\tan\beta\lsim 15$. Larger values of $\tan\beta$ are in conflict with $B_s\to\mu\mu$, whose rate grows as $\tan^6\beta$. This constraint is further strengthened at small $m_{H^{\pm}}$ because the rate also scales as $1/m_A^4$ (with $m_A$ in turn scaling with $\mhpm$). Therefore, $B_s\to\mu\mu$ rules out a large fraction of the low $\mhpm$, high $\tan\beta$ region of parameter space. (The constraint from $B\to\tau\nu$ also plays a role in this region of parameter space, but only a few model points are ruled out by $B\to\tau\nu$ which are not otherwise ruled out by $B_s\to\mu\mu$; these are very difficult to see in Fig. \[MaxmixHvsTanb\].) Also, in Fig. \[MaxmixHvsTanb\], $\tan\beta > 50$ is not included. This region is dominated by $B_s\to\mu\mu$ and contains no new interesting regions.
The decay rate for $B_s\to\mu\mu$ depends on several other ingredients, an important one of which is the parameter $A_t$. Within the Max-Mixing scenario, the value of $A_t$ is fixed from the squark masses and is thus sizable. But in the No-Mixing scenario, $A_t$ is set to be equal to $\mu\cot\beta$, which is very small at large $\tan\beta$. Thus it is possible that the No-Mixing Scenario, lacking a strong $B_s\to\mu\mu$ constraint, might allow for light $H^\pm$ over a wider range of parameters.
In fact, the No-Mixing scenario changes the picture dramatically, but not as one might expect from the arguments in the previous paragraph. Our result is shown in Fig. \[NomixHvsTanb\]. As expected, the $B_s\to\mu\mu$ constraint is now entirely absent. In its place is an even stronger $b\to s\gamma$ constraint, and at $\tan\beta\gsim 30$, the $B\to\tau\nu$ constraint. The origin of the strengthened $b\to s\gamma$ appears to be as follows: The No-Mixing scenario gets its name from the absence of left-right mixing among the top squarks. But left-right stop mixing plays a key role in several of the diagrams that help to cancel the $H^\pm$ contribution to $b\to s\gamma$. (Recall that $b\to s\gamma$ has the form of a magnetic moment operator and is thus chirality changing. For many parts of the calculation, the $A$-terms provide the chirality flip.) This $b\to s\gamma$ constraint prohibits any light charged Higgs masses from appearing at low $\tan\beta$.
Recall that in the Max-Mixing scenario, the constraint from $B\to\tau\nu$ was almost unnecessary as the $B_s\to\mu\mu$ constraint seemed to rule out almost all models which would violate experimental bounds on $B\to\tau\nu$. For the No-Mixing scenario, the $B_s\to\mu\mu$ constraint is irrelevant, and the $B\to\tau\nu$ constraint plays a more interesting role. Because the $W^{\pm}$ and $H^{\pm}$ contributions to $B\to\tau\nu$ interfere, the high $\tan\beta$, low $m_{H^{\pm}}$ region is not completely ruled out by $B\to\tau\nu$. At very high $\tan\beta$, the charged Higgs contribution can be twice as large, and with opposite sign, as the SM piece. In this region, the $B\to\tau\nu$ constraint breaks down and a low charged Higgs mass is not ruled out. In our analysis, this occurs at $50 < \tan\beta < 60$, where a charged Higgs mass of about $150\gev$ is allowed. Of course, at even larger $\tan\beta$, the charged Higgs contribution becomes altogether too large, ruling out all the available low $m_{H^{\pm}}$ parameter space.
But there is one caveat: recall from our discussion in $\S2.3$ that the $B\to\tau\nu$ calculation is plagued by uncertainties, the largest coming from the poorly measured value of $V_{ub}$ and, to a slightly lesser degree, $f_B$. The uncertainty in these inputs translates into an uncertainty in the boundary of the region ruled out by $B\to\tau\nu$. Depending on the precise values used, the region at $\tan\beta\gsim 55$ where we find light charged Higgs masses may grow (, a light charged Higgs could be consistent even for slightly lower $\tan\beta$) or it could vanish completely (due to the competing constraint from $B\to D\tau\nu$). One of us is examining this issue further [@Dudleythesis].
While the two main scenarios detailed above cover a important, and often studied, portions of the low-energy MSSM parameter space, there are still large portions of the MSSM not fully examined. We have also examined some other special regions of the parameter space, but found no results inconsistent with those shown above. In particular, we have dropped the constraint on the sign of $\mu$ coming from $a_\mu$; we find that cancellations in $b\to s\gamma$ are even more difficult to arrange, and so a light $H^\pm$ is even more unlikely.
Conclusion
==========
A discovery of the charged Higgs, predicted in both trivial (2HDSM) and non-trivial (MSSM) extensions to the Standard Model, would be an unambiguous sign of new physics. Such a particle could be discovered directly at the LHC or through its indirect effects on rare flavor-changing processes. In 2HDSMs in particular, the measurement of $b\to s\gamma$ puts a severe constraint on the mass of a charged Higgs. However, in the MSSM, new contributions from other SUSY particles may partially cancel the charged Higgs contribution, which allows for a considerable reduction in this bound. Precise knowledge of how light the charged Higgs is allowed to be in the MSSM is an important question for experimental searches, both direct and indirect. Several analyses have appeared over the last year examining exactly this question [@Domingo:2007dx; @Barenboim:2007sk; @Eriksson:2008cx]. But because the parameter space of the MSSM is so vast, each has make a different set of assumptions about the sparticle mass spectrum, mostly from a top-down approach.
In this paper we re-examined this issue in an entirely bottom-up way. The points in parameter space which we have studied were chosen based on low-energy criteria alone, and not on their ability to unify at some ultraviolet scale. While one criticism of this paper would be our lack of unification, we feel that this is offset by our ability to find Higgs bounds which are fairly model independent. Likewise we have chosen to ignore questions of dark matter relic densities because the calculation of said densities would require knowing details of the spectrum (such as the slepton masses) which have no immediate effect on the charged Higgs mass, and which we therefore consider to be tunable. We suffice to demand that the LSP be a neutralino, which will at least afford the model a potentially viable dark matter candidate.
In order to make a bottom-up analysis simple yet useful, we made one further simplification: we examined the MSSM in the two extremes of No-Mixing and Maximal-Mixing, where each is defined by the effect of stop mixing corrections on the light scalar Higgs mass. These scenarios are frequently examined in the phenomenological SUSY literature and so provide good starting points for any more complete discussion.
The main results of this paper, in each of these two limits, can be found in Fig. \[MaxmixHvsTanb\] (Max-Mixing) and Fig. \[NomixHvsTanb\] (No-Mixing). For the Max-Mixing case, the charged Higgs can be found to be as light as $140\gev$, with a hard lower limit coming from the LEP searches for the light Higgs. This agrees well with the CMSSM analysis of Ref. [@Eriksson:2008cx], and is fairly similar to the large, positive $A_t$ case in Ref. [@Domingo:2007dx]. Because the Max-Mixing scenario requires relatively large $A_t$, the process $B_s\to\mu\mu$ rules out most of the available parameter space at high $\tan\beta$. At low to moderate $\tan\beta$, it is possible to find a charged Higgs as light as $140\gev$, but we are required to have a light set of squarks to cancel out the charged Higgs contributions to $b\to s\gamma$. This can be seen in Fig. \[MaxmixMsqvsMhpm\], where a charged Higgs mass below $150\gev$ must be offset by squark(s) with mass below $400\gev$.
For the No-Mixing scenario, the story is quite different. First, the constraint from $b\to s\gamma$ becomes even more powerful. This appears to be because, with small $A_t$, many of the chargino-stop diagrams become significantly weaker, as they require left-right stop mixing. Second, the $B_s\to\mu\mu$ constraints disappear entirely, as the branching ratio is proportional to $A_t^2$. But the $B_s\to\mu\mu$ constraint is mostly replaced by the $B\to\tau\nu$ constraint, which now plays a large and more complicated role, since the $W^\pm$ and $H^\pm$ contributions can cancel under some conditions.
Thus in the No-Mixing scenario at low to moderate $\tan\beta$, the strengthened $b\to s\gamma$ constraint pushed the lightest charged Higgs mass up to roughly $250\gev$. For $\tan\beta > 50$, we found that a charged Higgs mass as low as $150\gev$ is possible, which loosely agrees with the “NUHM" case found in Ref. [@Barenboim:2007sk], though our choice of theoretical and experimental inputs differs from theirs in detail.
Either way, we have shown that in the oft-studied “Max-Mixing" and “No-Mixing" SUSY Higgs scenarios, it is possible for a charged Higgs mass as light as 140 to $150\gev$ to be observed. However such an observation requires cancellations in $b\to s\gamma$ (and perhaps other processes) that can only occur if one or both of the top squarks are lighter than 400 to $500\gev$. Thus, within the context of the MSSM, observation of such a light charged Higgs would appear to guarantee a host of other sparticle discoveries, making for a very exciting period at the LHC.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0355066 and by the Notre Dame Center for Applied Mathematics.
[99]{}
J. L. Hewett, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1045 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9211256\]. R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. B [**309**]{}, 86 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9303270\]. F. Domingo and U. Ellwanger, JHEP [**0712**]{}, 090 (2007) \[arXiv:0710.3714 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Barenboim, P. Paradisi, O. Vives, E. Lunghi and W. Porod, JHEP [**0804**]{}, 079 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.3559 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. Eriksson, F. Mahmoudi and O. Stal, arXiv:0808.3551 \[hep-ph\]. M. S. Carena, J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros and C. E. M. Wagner, Phys. Lett. B [**355**]{}, 209 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9504316\]. S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati, A. Masiero and G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys. B [**353**]{}, 591 (1991). T. Hurth, E. Lunghi and W. Porod, Nucl. Phys. B [**704**]{}, 56 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0312260\]. M. Misiak [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 022002 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0609232\]. E. Barberio [*et al.*]{} \[Heavy Flavor Averaging Group\], arXiv:0808.1297 \[hep-ex\]. K. S. Babu and C. Kolda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 228 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9909476\]. A. J. Buras, P. H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek and L. Slawianowska, Phys. Lett. B [**546**]{}, 96 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0207241\]. T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 101802 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.1708 \[hep-ex\]\]. W. S. Hou, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 2342 (1993). A. G. Akeroyd and S. Recksiegel, J. Phys. G [**29**]{}, 2311 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0306037\]. M. Bona [*et al.*]{} \[UTfit Collaboration\], JHEP [**0610**]{}, 081 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0606167\].
J. F. Kamenik and F. Mescia, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 014003 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.3790 \[hep-ph\]\]. U. Nierste, S. Trine and S. Westhoff, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 015006 (2008) \[arXiv:0801.4938 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[BABAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 021801 (2008) \[arXiv:0709.1698 \[hep-ex\]\]. G. W. Bennett [*et al.*]{} \[Muon G-2 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 072003 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0602035\]. J. P. Miller, E. de Rafael and B. L. Roberts, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**70**]{}, 795 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0703049\]. F. Feroz, B. C. Allanach, M. Hobson, S. S. AbdusSalam, R. Trotta and A. M. Weber, arXiv:0807.4512 \[hep-ph\]. B. Allanach [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0801.0045 \[hep-ph\]. E. Komatsu [*et al.*]{} \[WMAP Collaboration\], arXiv:0803.0547 \[astro-ph\]. M. Hashemi, S. Heinemeyer, R. Kinnunen, A. Nikitenko and G. Weiglein, arXiv:0804.1228 \[hep-ph\]. B. C. Allanach, A. Djouadi, J. L. Kneur, W. Porod and P. Slavich, JHEP [**0409**]{}, 044 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0406166\]. J. S. Lee, A. Pilaftsis, M. S. Carena, S. Y. Choi, M. Drees, J. R. Ellis and C. E. M. Wagner, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**156**]{}, 283 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0307377\]. B. Dudley, Ph.D. Thesis, [*in preparation*]{}.
[^1]: We note in passing that while the observables considered here have little to no dependence on $M_3$ or $\epsilon_0$, there appears to be a rather strong dependence on these parameters in the discovery potential at the LHC. See Ref. [@Hashemi:2008ma] for details.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The evolution of a driven quantum system is said to be adiabatic whenever the state of the system stays close to an instantaneous eigenstate of its time-dependent Hamiltonian. The celebrated quantum adiabatic theorem ensures that such [*pure state adiabaticity*]{} can be maintained with arbitrary accuracy, provided one chooses a small enough driving rate. Here, we extend the notion of quantum adiabaticity to closed quantum systems initially prepared at finite temperature. In this case adiabaticity implies that the (mixed) state of the system stays close to a quasi-Gibbs state diagonal in the basis of the instantaneous eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. We prove a sufficient condition for the finite temperature adiabaticity. Remarkably, it implies that the finite temperature adiabaticity can be more robust than the pure state adiabaticity, particularly in many-body systems. We present an example of a many-body system where, in the thermodynamic limit, the finite temperature adiabaticity is maintained, while the pure state adiabaticity breaks down.'
author:
- 'Nikolai Il‘in$^{1}$'
- 'Anastasia Aristova$^{1}$'
- 'Oleg Lychkovskiy$^{1,2}$'
bibliography:
- 'C:/D/Work/QM/Bibs/1D.bib'
- 'C:/D/Work/QM/Bibs/LZ\_and\_adiabaticity.bib'
- 'C:/D/Work/QM/Bibs/AQC.bib'
- 'C:/D/Work/QM/Bibs/QIP.bib'
title: Adiabatic theorem for closed quantum systems initialized at finite temperature
---
[*Introduction.*]{} A concept of quantum adiabatic evolution was introduced by Born and Fock in the early days of quantum mechanics [@Born1926; @born1928beweis]. The concept pertains to a driven closed quantum system described by a time-dependent Hamiltonian. The evolution of the system is called adiabatic as long as the state of the system stays close to the time-dependent instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. The celebrated adiabatic theorem [@born1928beweis; @kato1950] states that adiabaticity can be maintained with any prescribed accuracy, provided the driving rate (i.e. the rate of change of the Hamiltonian) is chosen small enough. The adiabatic theorem enjoys a glorious history and a wide range of theoretical and practical applications, including dynamics of chemical reactions [@bowman1991reduced], population transfer between molecular vibrational levels [@gaubatz1990population; @bergmann2015perspective], theory of quantum topological order [@budich2013adiabatic], quantized charge transport [@thouless1983quantization], quantum memory [@fleischhauer2002quantum] and quantum adiabatic computation [@farhi2001quantum; @albash2018adiabatic; @farhi2000quantum].
Nowadays there is a wealth of experimental techniques available to manipulate large quantum systems consisting of cold atoms in optical lattices, ions in ion traps, arrays of superconducting qubits and quantum dots [*etc*]{} [@2D]. However, these systems are rarely prepared in pure states. Rather, they are typically initialized at some finite temperature determined by the preparation protocol. Therefore the conventional concept of adiabaticity [@Born1926; @born1928beweis; @kato1950], which we refer to as [*pure state adiabaticity*]{} (PSA) in what follows, calls for extension to the case of finite temperature.
Here we define the [*finite temperature adiabaticity*]{} as the property by which the state of a system initially prepared at finite temperature stays close to the quasi-Gibbs state in the course of the unitary quantum evolution. The time-dependent quasi-Gibbs state, defined by eq. below, is diagonal in the instantaneous eigenbasis of the Hamiltonian and has the same spectrum as the initial thermal state.
Clearly, if the driving rate is so low that the conditions for PSA for [*any*]{} eigenstate are met, then the finite temperature adiabaticity is also present, irrespectively of the temperature. It turns out that, in fact, the finite temperature adiabaticity can be present at much higher driving rates. This follows from the finite temperature adiabatic condition proven in the present paper. Remarkably, the energy gaps do not enter this conditions directly, in contrast to the case of PSA. Instead, the role of the energy gaps is played by the temperature. This can be of particular importance for many-body systems, where energy gaps vanish in the thermodynamic limit, and the pure state adiabaticity typically breaks down whenever the driving rate is kept finite but the system size is increased [@FetterWalecka; @lychkovskiy2017time]. We provide a particular example of a many-body system where the finite temperature adiabaticity survives the thermodynamic limit, despite the pure state adiabaticity being broken.
The rest paper is organised as follows. We start from introducing required definitions and notions (most importantly, the notion of the quasi-Gibbs state). Then we state the adiabatic theorem for closed quantum systems prepared in thermal states and discuss its scope and implications. After that we illustrate the theorem by applying it to a particular many-body system. We conclude the paper by the summary and outlook. Technical details are relegated to the Supplementary material [@supplementary_TAT].
[*Preliminaries \[sec: prelim\]*]{} We describe an isolated driven quantum system by means of a time-dependent Hamiltonian. To introduce time dependence in a way convenient for our purposes, we consider a Hamiltonian $H_s$ dependent on a parameter $s$ and assume that $s$ varies in time. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $s$ is a linear function of time, s=t, where $\omega$ is the driving rate. The adiabatic limit is defined as \[adiabatic limit\] 0,t,t=[const]{}>0.
Let $E^n_s$ and $\Phi_{s}^n$ be respectively eigenenergies and eigenvectors of $H_s$, H\_[s]{} \_[s]{}\^n = E\_[s]{}\^n \_[s]{}\^n,n=1,2,...,d, where $d$ is the dimension of the Hilbert space. We assume that $E^n_s$ and $\Phi_{s}^n$ are continuously differentiable in $s$.
Importantly, $H_s$ can be represented as H\_[s]{}=U\_[s]{}\_[s]{}U\_[s]{}\^, where $U_{s}$ is a continuously differentiable unitary operator,[^1] $U_0=1$, and $\widetilde{H}_s$ is an auxiliary operator with the same eigenvalues as $H_s$ and the same eigenvectors as $H_0,$ \_s=\_[n]{}E\_[s]{}\^n |n n |, where $|n \rangle\equiv\Phi_{0}^n$. Note that time dependence enters $\widetilde{H}_s$ only through $E^n_s$. An important object in our study is the operator \[V definition\] V\_s-iU\_[s]{}\^ \_s [U]{}\_[s]{}. To characterize the spectrum, we define \[mu\] =\_[n]{}|| and \[nu\] \_s=\_[n]{}|\_s (E\_s\^[n+1]{}-E\_s\^n)|.
Often the spectrum of the driven Hamiltonian does not change with time, which we refer to as [*isospectral driving*]{}. In this case $\widetilde{H}_s=H_0$, $\mu_s$ do not actually depend on $s$, and $\nu_s$ is identically zero. A particular simple instance of the isospectral driving is the [*uniform*]{} isospectral driving with \[isospectral driving\] H\_s=e\^[isV]{}H\_0 e\^[-isV]{}. Here $V$ coincides with $V_s$ defined by eq. .
The state of the system $\rho_t$ satisfies the von Neumann equation \[Schrodiger equation\] i\_t \_t = \[H\_[t]{},\_t\]. We assume that at $t=0$ the system is initialized in a thermal state, \[initial condition\] \_0= e\^[-H\_0]{}/Z\_0, Z\_0[[tr]{}]{}e\^[-H\_0]{}, $\beta$ being the inverse temperature.
If the system were prepared in an eigenstate (in particular, in the ground state, i.e. “at zero temperature”), the adiabatic theorem [@born1928beweis; @kato1950; @albash2018adiabatic] would imply that for any given $s$ one can choose sufficiently small $\omega$ so that the state of the system at a (large) time $t=s/\omega$ is close (within a given error margin) to the corresponding instantaneous eigenstate. This is what we refer to as pure state adiabaticity (PSA).
When we turn to the case of finite temperatures, the first question we have to address is what state one should compare the dynamical state $\rho_t$ with. If the conditions for PSA are met for any eigenstate, then $\rho_t$ stays close to the [*quasi-Gibbs*]{} state given by \[quasi-Gibbs state\] \_t\^Z\_0\^[-1]{}\_[n]{} e\^[-E\_0\^n]{} |\_[t]{}\^n\_[t]{}\^n |. We will prove that, in fact, this is also the case under different (and, generally, less stringent) conditions that those for PSA.
It should be emphasized that the quasi-Gibbs state is diagonal in the time-dependent instantaneous eigenbasis of the Hamiltonian, but its spectrum does not change with time and coincides with the spectrum of the initial Gibbs state. The latter feature emerges because the spectrum of the density matrix $\rho_t$ cannot be changed by the unitary evolution . For this reason the quasi-Gibbs state is, in general, different from the instantaneous Gibbs state $
\rho_t^\beta \equiv e^{-\beta H_{\omega t}}/ {{\rm tr}}\,e^{-\beta H_{\omega t}},
$ whose spectrum varies with time.
In what follows we will need to quantify the difference between two mixed quantum states. To this end, we employ the trace distance D\_[tr]{}(\_1,\_2)(1/2)[[tr]{}]{}|\_2-\_1 |, which is known to have a straightforward operational meaning [@helstrom1969quantum; @holevo1972quasiequivalence; @holevo1973statistical; @wilde2013quantum].
[*Adiabatic theorem for finite temperatures. \[sec: AT\]*]{} Now we are in a position to state the following
[0em]{} [**Theorem:**]{} The trace distance between the dynamical state of the system $\rho_t$ (initialized in the Gibbs state and evolving according to the von Neumann equation ) and the quasi-Gibbs state $\theta_t^\beta$ (defined by eq. ) is bounded from above by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{main result}
\nonumber
&&D_{\rm tr}\left(\rho_t,\theta_t^\beta\right)\leq \sqrt{\sqrt{2}\omega\beta} \,\Bigg(\frac{1}{\mu_{\omega t}}\|V_{\omega t}\|
\\
\nonumber
&+&\int_{0}^{\omega t}\frac{1}{\mu_{s'}}\|\partial_{ s'}V_{ s'}\|d s'+\int_{0}^{\omega t}\frac{\nu_{s'}}{\mu_{s'}}\|V_{ s'}\|d s'
\\
&+&
\sqrt2 \, \int_{0}^{\omega t}\frac{1}{\mu_{s'}}\|V_{ s'}\|^2d s'\Bigg)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $V_s$, $\mu_s$ and $\nu_s$ are defined according to eqs. , and , respectively, and $\|\dots\|$ refers to the operator norm.[^2]
This theorem implies that $\rho_t$ converges to $\theta_t^\beta$ in the adiabatic limit , provided the term in brackets remains finite. The proof of the theorem can be found in the Supplement [@supplementary_TAT].
Observe that the r.h.s. of the bound vanishes in the limit of infinite temperature, $\beta=0$. This is consistent with the simple fact that at the infinite temperature $\rho_t=\theta_t^{\beta=0}=\mathds{1}/d$, and the evolution is adiabatic at any driving rate.
The theorem admits a particularly simple form in the case of the uniform isospectral driving :
[0em]{} [**Corollary:**]{} For the isospectrally and uniformly driven Hamiltonian the bound reads $$\label{corollary}
D_{\rm tr}\left(\rho_t,\theta_t^\beta\right)\leq \sqrt{\sqrt{2}\omega\beta \,\|V\|\,\left(1+
\sqrt2 \, \omega t\,\|V\| \right)}.$$
The corollary immediately implies that $\rho_t$ converges to $\theta_t^\beta$ in the adiabatic limit whenever $\|V\|$ is finite.
Remarkably, energy gaps do not directly enter the bounds and , in contrast to typical sufficient conditions for PSA [@albash2018adiabatic] (see, however, [@avron1999adiabatic; @teufel2001note]). This is crucial for the robustness of adiabaticity in the thermodynamic limit, since the energy gaps vanish with increasing the system size. The system size may also enter the bounds and through $\|V_s\|$, $\|\partial_s V_s\|$ and (for the bound ) through $\mu_s$, $\nu_s$. When the above quantities are finite in the thermodynamic limit, the finite temperature adiabaticity survives in this limit even if the PSA fails. Below we consider a many-body system exhibiting such behavior.
![(Color online) A quantum sensor with a single spin possessing a magnetic moment is moved around a wire along a circular trajectory. The net current through the wire is zero, however the electrons in the wire are still magnetically coupled to the spin due to fluctuations of the current, see eqs. , . The many-body adiabaticity of the electron-spin system at finite temperature is robust with respect to increasing the system size (i.e. the length of the wire). In contract, the pure state adiabaticity breaks down in the thermodynamic limit at any finite driving rate.[]{data-label="fig"}](fig_fin.png){width="\linewidth"}
[*Example.*]{} Consider a thin straight wire with $N$ electrons and a quantum sensor which can be moved around the wire, see Fig. \[fig\]. We consider a toy model of the sensor consisting of a single quantum spin $S$ with a magnetic moment $\mu_{\rm magn}$ (not to be confused with $\mu_s$ defined in eq. ). The interaction between the spin and the electrons is mediated by the magnetic field produced by the electron motion.[^3] We consider the case of zero net current of electrons. Still, the interaction persists even in this case due to fluctuations of the current, both classical and quantum. The Hamiltonian of the system reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H wire}
H_\alpha= & \,H^e+H^{Se}_\alpha,\end{aligned}$$ where $H_e$ is the Hamiltonian of electrons (we do not need its explicit form here), and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H Se}
H^{Se}_\alpha= & \,-\frac{\mu_{\rm magn}}{2\pi r} \, {\cal J} \left(-\sin\alpha\, S_x+\cos\alpha \, S_y\right)\end{aligned}$$ is the Hamiltonian of the magnetic field-mediated interaction between electrons and the spin. Here $(S_x,S_y,S_z)$ are the components of the spin operator, ${\cal J}$ is the operator of the electron current, $r$ is the distance from the sensor to the wire and $\alpha$ is the polar angle determining the position of the sensor, see Fig. \[fig\].
We further assume that the sensor is moved along a circular trajectory around the wire with $r={{\rm const}}$ and $\alpha = \omega t$. Then the Hamiltonian can be cast in the form , $H_\alpha=e^{-i\alpha S_z} H_{\alpha=0} \,e^{i\alpha S_z}$, therefore the bound with $V=-S_z$ applies. This bound implies that it suffices to choose \[wire sufficient condition\] to move the sensor up to the angle $\alpha$ along the circular trajectory while maintaining adiabaticity with precision $\varepsilon$, $\left.D_{\rm tr}\left(\rho_{t},\theta_t^\beta\right)\right|_{t=\alpha/\omega}\leq\varepsilon$.
Remarkably, the sufficient adiabatic condition does not depend on the number of electrons. Thus the finite temperature adiabaticity is robust in the thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow\infty$, $L\rightarrow\infty$, $A={{\rm const}}$, $\rho\equiv N/(LA)={{\rm const}}$, where $L$ and $A$ are, respectively, the length and the cross section of the wire, and $\rho$ is the number density of electrons in the wire.
In contract, the pure state adiabaticity breaks down in the thermodynamic limit. This can be easily seen if periodic boundary conditions along the $z$ direction are imposed on the electron wave functions. In this case the Hamiltonian commutes with the current operator, the latter being related to the total momentum of electrons, $P_e$, \[current\] [J]{} = P\_e, where $e$ and $m_e$ are the charge and the mass of the electron. As a result, the dynamics of the spin is governed by the effective Hamiltonian , where ${\cal J}$ now refers to the eigenvalue of the current operator in the eigenstate the system is initialized in. Since in the typical eigenstate from the Gibbs ensemble this eigenvalue is $O(1/\sqrt N)$, the driving rate necessary to maintain the pure state adiabaticity also scales as $1/\sqrt N$ and vanishes in the thermodynamic limit (see a detailed analysis in the Supplement [@supplementary_TAT]).
[*Summary and outlook \[sec: conclusions\]*]{}
To summarize, we have introduced the notion of finite temperature adiabaticity of an isolated quantum system and proved the finite temperature adiabatic theorem . The sufficient adiabatic condition which follows from this theorem does not contain energy gaps, in contrast to most of the adiabatic conditions for pure state adiabaticity. This indicates that the finite temperature adiabaticity can be more robust in the thermodynamic limit then the pure state adiabaticity. We confirm this expectation for the specific model .
It should be emphasized that our notion of adiabaticity refers to the many-body state of the system and is different from the notion of local adiabaticity [@abou-salem2005adiabatic; @abou-salem2007status; @jaksic2014note; @bachmann2016adiabatic; @venuti2016adiabaticity; @benoist2016full; @teufel2019non-equilibrium]. The latter notion applies to the reduced density matrix of a subsystem coupled to a reservoir. The many-body adiabaticity implies the local adiabaticity, but not vice versa.
A considerable limitation of the bounds , is that they contain the operator norms. For continuous systems operator norms of certain physically relevant operators (e.g. momentum) are infinite, which renders the bounds void. In fact, the operator norm can be replaced by the better behaved thermal averages in [*some*]{} of the terms in eqs. , , as we discuss in the Supplement [@supplementary_TAT]. However, at the moment we are not able to avoid the operator norms altogether, and leave the improvement of the bounds , in this direction for further work.
[*Acknowledgements.*]{} We are grateful to V. Dobrovitski for a useful discussion. The work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation under the grant N$^{\rm o}$ 17-71-20158.
[Supplementary material]{} \[sec: supplement\]
==============================================
Properties of $\mu_s$ and $\nu_s$
---------------------------------
Here we prove a Lemma about $\mu_s$ and $\nu_s$ required for the proof of the finite temperature adiabatic theorem. We introduce a shorthand notation \_[mn]{}(s)E\^m\_s-E\^n\_s. We assume that at a given $s$ the spectrum is ordered: \[ordering\] \_[mn]{}(s)0 m>n.
Let us show that $\mu_s$ and $\nu_s$ defined respectively by eqs. and of the main text, satisfy the following\
[**Lemma:**]{} \[mu general\] =\_[1n<m d]{}|| and \[nu general\] ( s)=\_[1n<md]{}||.
[**Proof:**]{} Consider an arbitrary set of real numbers $A_n,$ $n=1,2,\dots,d$ and introduce \[lemma1\] q=\_[m,n]{}||. We are going to prove that in fact \[lemma equality\] q=\_[k]{}||. This equality entails eq. for $A_n=E_0^n$ and eq. for $A_n=\partial_s E^n_s$.
To prove eq. , we start from an obvious observation that q\_[k]{}||. Let us show that, in fact, the strict inequality is impossible. To this end we assume the opposite, i.e. that \[opposite\] ||< qk. Then for any $m>n$ we obtain \[lemma2\] |A\_[m]{}-A\_[n]{}|=|\_[k=n]{}\^[m-1]{}(A\_[k+1]{}-A\_[k]{})|\_[k=n]{}\^[m-1]{}|A\_[k+1]{}-A\_[k]{}|<q\_[k=n]{}\^[m-1]{}(E\^[k+1]{}\_s-E\^k\_s)=q(E\^m\_s-E\^n\_s), where the ordering of energies, , is used to get rid of the modulus. Eq. is inconsistent with eq. (\[opposite\]). Thus the equality is true, q.e.d.
Proof of the finite temperature adiabatic theorem
-------------------------------------------------
Here we prove the bound from the main text. We introduce \_t=U\_[t]{}\^\_[t]{}U\_[t]{}, which evolves according to \_t \_t=-i\[\_[t]{}+V\_[t]{},\_[t]{}\],\_[0]{}=e\^[-H\_[0]{}]{}/Z\_0. We denote by dot the derivative of a function with respect to its argument $s=\omega t$. For example, $\dot{U}_{ s}=\partial_ s U_{ s}$, $\dot{U}_{\omega t}=\partial_ s U_{s}|_{s=\omega t}$ but $\partial_t U_{\omega t}=\omega\dot{U}_{\omega t}$. We first estimate the quantity D 1-[[tr]{}]{}()=1-[[tr]{}]{}().
Note that \_t =-i\[\_[t]{}+V\_[t]{},\]. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\partial_t D & = -{{\rm tr}}(\sqrt{\rho_{0}}\, \partial_t \sqrt{\sigma_{t}})=i \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{Z_0}}{{\rm tr}}(e^{-\beta H_0/2}\, [\widetilde{H}_{\omega t}+\omega V_{\omega t},\sqrt{\sigma_t}])=
i\omega \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{Z_0}}{{\rm tr}}([e^{-\beta H_0/2}, V_{\omega t}] \sqrt{\sigma_t})\\[8 pt]
\nonumber
& = \frac{i\omega}{\sqrt{Z_0}}\,\sum_{n,\, k} (e^{-\frac{\beta}{2}E^n_0}-e^{-\frac{\beta}{2}E^k_0}) \, \langle n| V_{\omega t} |k \rangle \, \langle k | \sqrt{\sigma_t} |n\rangle
\\[8 pt]
& =
\frac{i\beta \omega}{2\sqrt{Z_0}} \,\sum_{n,\, k} f_{nk}(\omega t) \Delta_{nk}(\omega t) \, \langle n| V_{\omega t} |k \rangle \, \langle k | \sqrt{\sigma_t} |n\rangle,
\label{dD}\end{aligned}$$ where $|n \rangle=|\Phi_{0}^n \rangle$, $|k \rangle=|\Phi_{0}^k \rangle$ are eigenstates of $H_0$ and, consequently, of $\widetilde{H}_{\omega t}$ for arbitrary $t$, $E^n_0, E^k_0$ are eigenenergies of $H_{0}$, and \[fnk Delta nk definitions\] f\_[nk]{}(t) [for]{} nk, f\_[nn]{}=0. Note that we will occasionally drop an argument of the function $f_{nk}$ when this does not lead to ambiguities.
We notice that \[first route\] (E\^n\_[t]{}-E\^k\_[t]{}) k | |n=-k | \[\_[t]{},\] |n= -i k | \_t |n+ k | \[V\_[t]{},\] |n. Substituting this expression to eq. and integrating it over time one obtains \[D\] D= \_[n, k]{} \_[0]{}\^[t]{}f\_[nk]{}(t’)n| V\_[t’]{} |k (k|\_[t’]{} |n+ik | \[V\_[t’]{},\]|n)dt’. Integrating (\[D\]) by parts one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
D&=&\frac{\beta\omega}{2\sqrt{Z_0}} \sum_{n,\, k}\Bigg(f_{nk}(\omega t)\langle n| V_{\omega t} |k \rangle \langle k|\sqrt{\sigma_{t}} |n\rangle-\omega\int_{0}^{t}f_{nk}(\omega t')\langle n| \dot{V}_{\omega t'} |k \rangle \langle k|\sqrt{\sigma_{t'}} |n\rangle dt'
\\
\nonumber
&+&\omega\int_{0}^{t}f_{nk}(\omega t')\langle n| V_{\omega t'} |k \rangle \frac{\dot{\Delta}_{nk}(\omega t')}{\Delta_{nk}(\omega t')}\langle k|\sqrt{\sigma_{t'}} |n\rangle dt'+i\omega\int_{0}^{t}f_{nk}(\omega t')\langle n| V_{\omega t'} |k \rangle \langle k | [V_{\omega t'},\sqrt{\sigma_{t'}}]|n\rangle dt'\Bigg)
\\
&=&\frac{\beta\omega}{2\sqrt{Z_0}} (K_1+K_2+K_3+K_4),\end{aligned}$$ where we us $\dot{f}_{nk}(\omega t)=-f_{nk}(\omega t)\dot{\Delta}_{nk}(\omega t)/\Delta_{nk}(\omega t)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
K_1&=&\sum_{n,\, k}f_{nk}(\omega t)\langle n| V_{\omega t} |k \rangle \langle k|\sqrt{\sigma_{t}} |n\rangle \label{K1}
\\
K_2&=&-\omega\sum_{n,\, k}\int_{0}^{t}f_{nk}(\omega t')\langle n| \dot{V}_{\omega t'} |k \rangle \langle k|\sqrt{\sigma_{t'}} |n\rangle dt'
\\
K_3&=&\omega\sum_{n,\, k}\int_{0}^{t}f_{nk}(\omega t')\langle n| V_{\omega t'} |k \rangle \frac{\dot{\Delta}_{nk}(\omega t')}{\Delta_{nk}(\omega t')}\langle k|\sqrt{\sigma_{t'}} |n\rangle dt'
\\
K_4&=&i\omega\sum_{n,\, k}\int_{0}^{t}f_{nk}(\omega t')\langle n| V_{\omega t'} |k \rangle \langle k | [V_{\omega t'},\sqrt{\sigma_{t'}}]|n\rangle dt'\end{aligned}$$
Obviously, \[D<K+K+K+K\] |D| (|K\_1|+|K\_2|+|K\_3|+|K\_4|).
Let us estimate $|K_1|$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{K11}
|K_1|\leq
\left( \sum_{n,\, k} f_{nk}^2 \, \langle n| V_{\omega t} |k \rangle\,\langle k| V_{\omega t} |n \rangle \right)^{1/2}
\left( \sum_{n,\, k} \langle k | \sqrt{\sigma_t} |n\rangle \langle n | \sqrt{\sigma_t} |k\rangle \right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ The term in the second bracket reads \_[n, k]{} k | |nn | |k=[[tr]{}]{}\_t=[[tr]{}]{}\_0=1. To estimate the first term we need to estimate $f_{nk}^2$: \[fnk estimate\] f\_[nk]{}\^2(t)=()\^2()\^2, where eq. is used to establish the inequality. Further, by the Lagrange’s Mean Value Theorem there exists $a\in(0,1)$ such that \[fnk estimate 2\] ()\^2=e\^[-(a E\^n\_0+(1-a)E\^k\_0)]{}e\^[-{E\^n\_0,E\^k\_0}]{}e\^[-E\^n\_0]{}+e\^[-E\^k\_0]{},nk. Combining inequalities and and extending them to the trivial case $n=k$ (where $f_{nn}=0$ by definition ) we get f\_[nk]{}\^2(t)(e\^[-E\^n\_0]{}+e\^[-E\^k\_0]{}). We use this bound to proceed further: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estimate 1}
\nonumber
&&\sum_{n,\, k} f_{nk}^2 \, \langle n| V_{\omega t} |k \rangle\,\langle k| V_{\omega t} |n \rangle
\\
\nonumber
&\leq&\frac{1}{\mu^2(\omega t)}\sum_{n,\, k}\left(e^{-\beta E^n_0} \langle n| V_{\omega t} |k \rangle\,\langle k| V_{\omega t} |n \rangle+e^{-\beta E^k_0} \langle n| V_{\omega t} |k \rangle\,\langle k| V_{\omega t} |n \rangle\right)
\\
\nonumber
&=& \frac{1}{\mu^2(\omega t)}\sum_{n,\, k}\Big(\langle n| V_{\omega t} |k \rangle\,\langle k| V_{\omega t} \, e^{-\beta H_0}|n \rangle+\langle n| V_{\omega t} |k \rangle\,\langle k| e^{-\beta H_0}\, V_{\omega t} |n \rangle\Big)
\\
&=&2\frac{1}{\mu^2(\omega t)}{{\rm tr}}(V_{\omega t}^2 e^{-\beta H_0})\end{aligned}$$ Next use the inequality |[[tr]{}]{}AB|A[[tr]{}]{}B, valid for any $B>0$ and diagonalisable $A$ (be reminded that $\|...\|$ stands for the operator norm), to obtain [[tr]{}]{}V\_[t]{}\^2 e\^[-H\_0]{}V\_[t]{}\^2[[tr]{}]{} e\^[-H\_0]{}. Finally \[K1\] |K\_1| V\_[t]{}. $K_2$ can be bounded in an analogous way: |\_[n, k]{}f\_[nk]{}(t’)n| \_[t’]{} |k k| |n|\_[t’]{} and \[K2\] |K\_2|\^[t]{}\_0\_[t’]{}dt’=\^[t]{}\_0\_[ s’]{}d s’. Let us estimate $|K_3|$: $$\begin{aligned}
|K_3|\leq
\int^t_0\left( \sum_{n,\, k} f_{nk}^2 \left(\frac{\dot{\Delta}_{nk}(\omega t')}{\Delta_{nk}(\omega t')}\right)^2 \langle n| V_{\omega t'} |k \rangle\,\langle k| V_{\omega t} |n \rangle \right)^{1/2}
\left( \sum_{n,\, k} \langle k | \sqrt{\sigma_{t'}} |n\rangle \langle n | \sqrt{\sigma_{t'}} |k\rangle \right)^{1/2}dt',\end{aligned}$$ f\_[nk]{}\^2(t’)()\^2=()\^2(e\^[-E\^n\_0]{}+e\^[-E\^k\_0]{}), where eqs. , are used to establish the inequality. Thus we obtain \[K3\] |K\_3|\^[t]{}\_0V\_[ s’]{}d s’ Finally, let us estimate $K_4$: $$\begin{aligned}
|K_4|\leq \omega\int_{0}^{t}dt'
\left( \sum_{n,\, k} f_{nk}^2 \, \langle n| V_{\omega t'} |k \rangle\,\langle k| V_{\omega t'} |n \rangle \right)^{1/2}
\left( \sum_{n,\, k} \langle k | [V_{\omega t'},\sqrt{\sigma_{t'}}] |n\rangle \langle n | [\sqrt{\sigma_{t'}},V_{\omega t'}] |k\rangle \right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ The term in the first bracket has been already bounded, see eq. . The term in the second bracket reads [[tr]{}]{}\[V\_[t’]{},\]\[,V\_[t’]{}\]=2 [[tr]{}]{}V\_[t’]{}\^2 \_[t’]{} -2 [[tr]{}]{}( \_[t’]{}\^[1/4]{} V\_[t’]{} \_[t’]{}\^[1/4]{})\^22 V\_[t’]{}\^2 [[tr]{}]{}\_t=2 V\_[t’]{}\^2, and we get \[K44\] |K\_4| 2 \_[0]{}\^[t]{}V\_[t’]{}\^2dt’=2\_[0]{}\^[t]{}V\_[ s’]{}\^2d s’.
Finally we collect all pieces – together and bound $D$ according to eq. : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D fin}
D&\leq& \frac{\omega\beta}{\sqrt{2}} \,\left(\frac{1}{\mu_{\omega t}}\|V_{\omega t}\|+\int_{0}^{\omega t}\frac{1}{\mu(t')}\|\partial_{t'}V_{t'}\|dt'+\int_{0}^{\omega t}\frac{\nu(t')}{\mu(t')}\|V_{t'}\|dt'+\sqrt2 \, \int_{0}^{\omega t}\frac{1}{\mu(t')}\|V_{t'}\|^2dt'\right).\end{aligned}$$
The last thing we need to do is to connect $D$ with the trace distance $ D_{\rm tr}\left(\rho_t,\theta_t^\beta\right)$. This can be done thanks to the inequality proven in [@holevo1972quasiequivalence] which reads
\[Holevo inequality\] D\_[tr]{}(\_1,\_2). Eq. of the main text follows from eqs. and , q.e.d.
As was mentioned in the main text, the presence of operator norms in the final result makes the bound inapplicable in the cases where $V$ or $\dot{V}$ are unbounded operators. In fact, the operator norms are superficial for estimating $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K_3$ above and can be substituted by thermal averages with respect to the initial Gibbs state. For $K_1$ this can be seen from the eq. , and analogously for $K_2$ and $K_3$. However, we were not able to avoid the operator norm when estimating $K_4$.
Spin moved around a wire: pure state adiabaticity
-------------------------------------------------
Here we derive a condition for pure state adiabaticity in the electron-spin system (see , of the main text) under the assumption of periodic boundary conditions for electron wave functions in the $z$-direction. To be specific, we choose S=12.
Using eq. of the main text, we rewrite the Hamiltonian as \[Hamiltonian wire suppl\] H\_=H\_e+ e\^[-iS\_z]{} S\_y e\^[iS\_z]{}, where \[gamma\] = - P\_e. The total momentum of electrons, $P_e$, commutes with $H_\alpha$, therefore we treat it as a $c$-number. We initialize the system in an eigenstate of $H_\alpha$, \_0=|[electrons]{} \_0, where $|{\rm electrons} \rangle$ is an eigenstate of $H_e$ and $P_e$, while $\psi_0$ is an eigenstate of $S_y $, S\_y \_0 =12 \_0.
The time-dependent many-body wave function $\Psi_t$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation i\_t \_t=H\_[t]{} \_t. It is easy to see that $\Psi_t$ factors as follows: \[Psi\_t factorized\] \_t =( e\^[-i H\_e t]{} |[electrons]{} )\_t, where $\psi_t$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation with the effective spin Hamiltonian $H^{Se}_{\omega t} $, \[effective SE suppl\] i\_t \_t = H\^[Se]{}\_[t]{} \_t,H\^[Se]{}\_[t]{}= e\^[-it S\_z]{} S\_y e\^[it S\_z]{}.
The figure of merit of the pure state adiabaticity is the adiabatic fidelity between the dynamical wave function $\Psi_t$ and the instantaneous eigenfunction $\Phi_\alpha$ of the Hamiltonian : \_t|\_[=t]{}| \_t|\^2. From one immediately obtains that ${\cal F}_t$ is given by \_t= |\_[=t]{}|\_t|\^2, where $\varphi_\alpha$ is the eigenstate of $H^{Se}_\alpha$ satisfying $\varphi_0=\psi_0$.
The dynamics of $\psi_t$ can be easily inferred from eq. by transformation to the rotating frame. As a result one obtains $$\label{fidelity}
1 - {\cal F}_t = \left. \frac{\omega^2}{\omega^2 + \gamma^2} \, \sin^2\left( \frac\alpha2 \sqrt{1 + \gamma^2 / \omega^2} \right) \right|_{\alpha=\omega t}.$$
We say that the adiabaticity is maintained up to some target $\alpha$ with the accuracy $\varepsilon$ if for $t\leq\alpha/\omega$ 1 - [F]{}\_t. Let us assume that the target $\alpha$ is greater than $\pi$. Then the sine squared in eq. will become equal to unity somewhere on the way to the target $\alpha$. Taking this into account, we conclude from eq. that the maximal driving rate $\omega_{\varepsilon}$ that allows to maintain adiabaticity with the accuracy $\varepsilon$ is given by \[adiabatic driving\] \_ = . Since $P_e\sim p_F \sqrt{N}$ in the majority of states in the Gibbs ensemble, it follows from eqs. and that for these states \[sqrt scaling\] \_\~1/N in the thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow \infty$, $\rho={{\rm const}}$.
It should be stressed that the explicit solution of the dynamical problem presented here works only in the case when the total momentum of electrons in the wire is conserved, i.e. for periodic boundary conditions imposed on electron wave functions. If this is not the case, e.g. for a long piece of wire with open ends, the dynamics of electrons and the spin are coupled. However, we see no reasons to expect that different boundary conditions can make the scaling of the driving rate with the system size more favorable for the pure state adiabaticity.
[^1]: Note that $U_{s}$ is [*not*]{} an evolution operator.
[^2]: For our purposes, the operator norm $\|\dots\|$ can be defined as the maximum among absolute values of eigenvalues of the corresponding operator.
[^3]: We disregard the magnetic fields of the magnetic moments of electrons.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- '**A.K. Aringazin$^{1,2}$ and R.M. Santilli$^2$**'
date: |
\
[$^2$Institute for Basic Research, P.O. Box 1577, Palm Harbor,]{}\
[FL 34682, USA]{}\
[[email protected]]{}\
[June 5, 2000; Revised October 10, 2001\
Final version December 9, 2001]{}
title: '**A STUDY OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF HADRONIC REACTORS OF MOLECULAR TYPE**'
---
ł
Ø
Introduction
============
In this paper, we introduce an estimate of the “commercial efficiency” of Santilli’s hadronic reactors of molecular type [@1] (Patented and International Patents Pending) which convert a liquid feedstock into the clean burning magnegas plus heat acquired by the liquid feedstock.
The reactors operate via a new process based on a certain flow of the liquid feedstock through a submerged electric arc between submerged carbon-base electrodes (for which reason the reactors are also called PlasmaArcFlow reactors) and other features.
The “commercial efficiency” [@1] is defined as the ratio between the total energy output (energy in magnegas plus heat) and the electric energy used for its production, while the “scientific efficiency” is the usual ratio between the total energy output and the total energy input (the sum of the electric energy plus the energy in the liquid feedstock as well as that in the carbon electrodes). Unless otherwise specified, the word “efficiency” is referred hereon to the “commercial efficiency.” The latter name originates from the fact that liquid wastes carry an income, rather than having a cost and, for this reason, they are not included in commercial calculations of operating costs.
Needless to say, the scientific efficiency is always smaller than one because of the conservation of energy. However, a peculiar feature of Santilli’s hadronic reactors of molecular type is that their commercial efficiency is considerably bigger than one, namely, the reactors are capable of tapping energy from the liquid feedstock and the carbon rods.
A primary purpose of this paper is to show that conventional thermochemistry does indeed predicts a commercial efficiency bigger than one, although their values is considerably smaller than the actual efficiency measured in the reactors, thus indicating the applicability of the covering hadronic chemistry from which the reactors have received their name.
By its elementary chemical content, magnegas is similar to the water gas, or synthesis gas, although we should emphasize that magnegas is produced under a DC electric arc, and reveals an unusual chemical structure characterized by the presence of heavy molecular mass clusters, which have not been identified by Gas Chromatography Mass-Spectroscopy and InfraRed spectroscopy (GC-MS/IR) tests among about 135,000 species [@1; @2]. This feature may be naturally attributed to the influence of the plasma arc and related strong external magnetic field which can lead to new couplings of CO and H$_2$ molecules and other new effects.
In Secs. 2 and 3, we consider in detail conventional chemical reactions in a PlasmaArcFlow reactor operating with pure water or ethyleneglicole and water mixtures as feedstock. We treat the gas produced as a simple mixture of carbon monoxide CO and hydrogen H$_2$ viewed as ideal gases, to simplify consideration, and calculate its combustion heat.
We estimate the upper theoretical limit of the efficiency of the reactor by using only chemical energy balance equations. The efficiency is defined as a ratio between the total energy release (including combustion heat of magnegas) to the energy input (electricity consumed). Such efficiency is over unity due to the fact that the sum of the combustion heat of the gas and the heat acquired by the liquid is bigger than the electric energy needed for their production. It is therefore evident that, for the case of water as feedstock, the missing energy originates from the combustion of carbon with oxygen originating from the separation of water. This is due to the fact that the original water is reproduced in the combustion and, therefore, cannot contribute to the total efficiency.
Independent experimental tests of the efficiency of the PlasmaArcFlow reactors clearly confirm such a commercial over-unity [@1], since the measured value of the over-unity is of about 3 to 5 for antifreeze stock at atmospheric pressure with bigger values for bigger pressures and powers. Our theoretical result is that the upper limit of the commercial over-unity ranges from 3.11 to 7.5, in a remarkable correspondence to the tests.
However, it should be noted that, whenever the study is specified to the heat acquired by the liquid feedstock a discrepancy of a factor of three originates between experimental data and the prediction of thermochemical calculations. An additional discrepancy also of a factor of about three exists between the measured combustion heat of magnegas and its predicted value.
The above discrepancies are of such a magnitude to support the hypothesis that the chemical composition of magnegas is that Santilli’s magnecules [@1].
It should also be noted that our calculations are based, as usual, on thermochemical values at $T= 25^o$C and pressure $p=1$ atm while the arc plasma (reaction zone) is characterized by much higher temperatures. Therefore, our results are of preliminary character. Also, in the present paper we do not consider issues pertaining to mechanism of the reactions, thermodynamics, fluidodynamics, and chemical kinetics.
In Sec. 4 we consider in detail the energy balance for the plasma creation. In Sec. 5 we introduce the heat production coefficient and calculate the heat production. In Sec. 6 we consider the total heat production as a sum of the heat produced and the combustion heat of the gas. In Sec. 7 we outline the results. Numerical data are presented in Appendix.
Water as a feedstock of PlasmaArcFlow reactors
==============================================
The main chemical reactions in PlasmaArcFlow reactors are the gasification of carbon (graphite), evaporation of water, and the conversion of water and carbon to hydrogen and carbon monoxide, according to the known reactions - 171.7, - 10.4, + ++138.8, in kcal/mol. Therefore the related the balance reaction, i.e., ł[water]{} ++-43.9, is endothermic. Hereon, we use binding energies represented in Table 1.
Diatomic molecules Diatomic molecules
---------------------- ------- ---------------------- -------
H–H 104.2 C=O 255.8
O=O 119.1 N$\equiv$N 192.0
Manyatomic molecules Manyatomic molecules
C–O 85.5 O–H 110.6
C=O in CO$_2$ 192.0 O–O 35
: Binding energies, kcal/mole. $T=25^o$C.
ł[Table1]{}
The energy input of 1 kW$\cdot$h = 860 kcal produces 860/43.9 = 19.6 moles = 19.6$\times$22.4 l = 439 l = 439/28.317 cf = 15.5 cf of H$_2$ and the same amount of CO, treated here as ideal gases (1 mole = 22.4 l); conversion factors are presented in Table 2.
[ll]{}\
1 kcal &= 3.9685 BTU\
1 kcal &= 1.1628$\times$10$^{-3}$ kW$\cdot$h\
1 BTU &= 0.25198 kcal\
1 BTU &= 2.930$\times$10$^{-4}$ kW$\cdot$h\
1 kW$\cdot$h &= 3413.0 BTU\
1 kW$\cdot$h &= 859.99 kcal\
1 m$^3$ &= 35.314 cf\
1 cf &= 28.317 liters\
ł[Table2]{}
The combustion of the products is exothermic, ł[CO]{} + + 68.7, ł[H2]{} + + 57.5, + + 67.9, + + + + 126.2, + + + + 136.6, i.e., the 50%-50% mixture of (CO+H$_2$) ideal gas has 68.3 kcal/mol = 271.2 BTU/mol = 342.8 BTU/cf content[^1]. The total combustion heat is 19.6$\times$126.2 = 2473.5 kcal = 2.88 kW$\cdot$h (for water vapor) and 19.6$\times$136.6 = 2677.4 kcal = 3.11 kW$\cdot$h (for water liquid), respectively. Therefore, the theoretical upper limit of the efficiency is 3.11.
Clearly, only some part $k$ of the consumed electric energy contributes directly the reaction (\[water\]) because some of the electric energy is consumed in the production of heat (dissipation). Consequently, the real efficiency is $3.11k$, where $k<1$.
Antifreeze as a feedstock of PlasmaArcFlow reactors
===================================================
We assume that antifreeze consists of ethyleneglicole and water. The complete dissociation of ethyleneglicole (we ignore evaporation heat and solution effects) is characterized by 4 + 6 + 2 - 869.6, and the subsequent association of CO and H$_2$, ł[et]{} 2+ 3 - 45.4, produces 2 moles of CO and 3 moles of H$_2$.
In PlasmaArcFlow reactors we thus have a pair of chemical reactions, (\[water\]) and (\[et\]), or ł[etwater]{} r + + (2r+1)+ (3r+1) - (45.5r+43.9), where $r$ represents the relative consumption of ethyleneglicole with respect to that of carbon rod.
The energy effect of reaction (\[etwater\]) is endothermic, -(45.4$r$ + 43.9) kcal $<0$. The energy input of 1 kW$\cdot$h = 680 kcal produces $(2r+1)680/(45.4r+43.9)$ moles of CO and $(3r+1)680/(45.4r+43.9)$ moles of H$_2$, with the total combustion energy, ((2r+1)68.7 + (3r+1)67.9) , where we have used Eqs. (\[CO\]) and (\[H2\]) Therefore, the upper theoretical limit of the efficiency is given by ł[rless]{} ((2r+1)68.7 + (3r+1)67.9). For $r=0$, we recover the value 3.11 obtained in Sec. 2. The efficiency increases from 3.11 to 7.51 with the increase of $r$ from 0 to infinity. Figures 1 and 2 display efficiency (\[rless\]) as a function of $r$. Only some part $k$ of the electric energy consumed contributes directly the reaction (\[etwater\]) because, again, some electric energy is dissipated into heat. Therefore, the real efficiency of the reactor is less than that given by Eq. (\[rless\]).
In general, higher consumption rates of ethyleneglicole and carbon rods per 1 kW$\cdot$h electricity consumed imply bigger real efficiency. This is due to higher values of $k$, which depend on design of the reactor. In turn, the consumption rates depend on reaction rates, volume of the reaction zone, rates of the reactants (ethyleneglicole, water, gasified carbon rod) input, rates of the products (CO and H$_2$) removal, stoichimetric ratios, etc. The reaction rates depend on temperature and pressure. The volume of the reaction zones depends on size of the plasma arc and on the size of surrounding high-temperature regions. The rates of the reactants inlet and products outlet depend on the rate of the carbon rod gasification, geometry and velocity of the liquid flow, and pressure. Here, it is important to identify a limiting factor (e.g., the slowest rate among the above) in order to better represent the efficiency of the reactor.
Accounting for plasma creation
==============================
We now present calculations of the energy required to convert liquid water and solid graphite into the plasma state so as to identify its possible contribution to the overall efficiency.
Water contribution
------------------
We take 1 mole of liquid water at $T=20^o \C$ and atmospheric pressure as an initial state.
\(1) The energy required to heat up one mole of water from $T=20
\C$ to $T=100 \C$ is $Q_1 = 1.4$ kcal.
\(2) The energy required to evaporate one mole of water is $Q_2 =
10.4$ kcal.
\(3) The energy required to heat up one mole of water vapor from $T=100 C$ to $T=3600 C = 3300 K$ is $Q_3 = 26$ kcal.
\(4) The energy required for total disintegration of one mole of water molecules to individual atoms is $Q_4 = 221.6$ kcal, \_2Ø++Ø-Q\_4.
\(5) The energy required to ionize all the H and O atoms can be calculated due to the following known values of the first ionization potentials, \^[+]{} + e - 13.6 , ØØ\^[+]{} + e - 13.6 . Taking into account that 1 eV = $3.83 \cdot 10^{-23}$ kcal, the Avogadro number is $N = 6 \cdot 10^{23}$ particles per mole, 1 mole of water (i.e. $N$ molecules of water) gives $2N$ atoms of the hydrogen and $N$ atoms of the oxygen (in total $3N$ atoms), we have Q\_5 = 3N 13.6 = 3610\^[23]{}13.6 = 244.810\^[23]{} , i.e., Q\_5 = 244.810\^[23]{}(3.83 10\^[-23]{}) = 937.6 .
In total we obtain the following energy required to convert 1 mole of liquid water into the pure plasma state, \_2Ø() \_2Ø() - Q, where Q = Q\_1+Q\_2+Q\_3+Q\_4+Q\_5, so that by inserting the above values, we finally get the following numerical value: Q = 1.4 + 10.4 + 26 + 221.6 + 937.6 = 1197 .
Carbon contribution
-------------------
We assume 1 mole of solid carbon (graphite) at $T=20^o C$ and atmospheric pressure as an initial state.
\(1) The energy required to heat up one mole of graphite from $T=300 K$ to $T=3300 K$ is $E_1 = 6$ kcal;
\(2) The energy required to evaporate one mole of graphite, $\C\solid \to \C\gas - E_2$, is $E_2 = 171.7$ kcal;
\(3) The energy required to ionize one mole of graphite can be calculated due to the following known values of the first ionization potential: \^[+]{} + e - 11.3 . One mole contains $N=6\cdot10^{23}$ atoms, so the require energy is E\_3 = 11.3N = 67.8 10\^[23]{} , or, using 1 eV = $3.83 \cdot 10^{-23}$ , E\_3 = 259.7 . In total, we obtain the following energy required to convert 1 mole of solid carbon to the pure plasma state, () () - E, where E = E\_1+E\_2+E\_3, so that by inserting the above values, we finally obtain the following numerical value, E = 437.4 .
Fully ionized plasma of 2H, O and C
-----------------------------------
In total, the energy required to convert 1 mole of liquid water and 1 mole of solid carbon to a pure plasma state is the sum of the above two energies, W = Q + E, i.e., W = 1197 + 437.4 = 1634.4 . This energy is required to convert 1 mole the water and 1 mole of carbon to 4 moles of the pure plasma, as a sum of 2 moles of H, 1 mole of O, and 1 mole of C. More precisely, the plasma consists of $2N$ positive ions H$^{+}$, $N$ positive ions O$^{+}$, $N$ positive ions C$^{+}$, and $4N$ electrons.
We can convert moles to cubic foots by assuming that the plasma is an ideal gas. Using the facts that 1 mole of ideal gas is 22.4 liters and 1 cf is 28.3 liters, we obtain that 1 mole of ideal gas is 0.79 cf.
Thus, 4 moles = 4$\cdot$22.4 liters = 89.6 liters = 3.16 cf of plasma require 1634.4 kcal energy input due to the above result. So that we obtain the following estimation of the energy needed to convert 1 mole of H$_2$O and 1 mole of C (graphite) to the plasma, 1634.4/4 = 408.5 per one mole of the 100% ionized 2H,O,C plasma; or 1634.4/3.16 = 517 per one cubic foot of the 100% ionized 2H,O,C plasma; or, using the relation 1 kWh = 860 kcal, 517/860 = 0.6 per one cubic foot of the 100% ionized 2H,O,C plasma, or, using the relation 1 kWh = 3413 BTU, 34130.6 = 2052 per one cubic foot of the 100% ionized 2H,O,C plasma.
The following remarks are in order. In our study, (i) we do not take into account energies associated to cathode, anode, and in the form of a radiation (DC electric low-voltage high-current discharge in water vapor); (ii) we do not consider fluidodynamics and thermodynamics issues associated to the flow and bubbles in the PAF reactor; (iii) we do not consider mechanism of the reactions and chemical kinetics issue; (iv) we do not consider magnetochemistry (influence of strong external magnetic field on the species and chemical reactions) of the PAF reactor; and (v) we do not consider the creation of clusters containing molecules and atoms.
No recombination of water {#sec6.2}
-------------------------
We assume 1 mole of liquid water and 1 mole of solid graphite, at $T=300$ K.
Reactions (\[2.1\]) and (\[2.2\]) below are due to the formation of the 2H,O,C plasma, with $T=3300$ K, from the above water and graphite. Reaction (\[2.3\]) is ion recombination of 2H; reaction (\[2.4\]) is formation of H$_2$ gas; reaction (\[2.5\]) is ion recombinations of C and O; and reaction (\[2.6\]) is formation of CO gas; namely, \[2.1\] \_2Ø() 2() + O() - 1197 , where Q\_ = 1197 . \[2.2\] () () - 437.4 , where Q\_ = 437.4 . \[2.3\] 2() 2() + 625 , where 625 kcal= 2N13.6 eV = 163.2$\cdot10^{23}$ eV is ion recombination heat of 2 moles of H (2H$^{+} + 2e \to 2$H); \[2.4\] 2() \_2() + 104.2 + 18 . Here, 104.2 kcal are released due to recombination heat of H$_2$ molecule, H + H $\to$ H$_2$, and 18 kcal are due to cooling down of a diatomic gas from $T=3300 K$ to $T=300 K$. Heat capacity of a diatomic gas is about 6 to 7 cal/(mole K), at high and low temperatures. \[2.5\] () + Ø() () + $$+ \O(\textrm{gas, 3300K}) + 259+313 \kcal;$$ where 259 kcal= N11.26 eV = 67.6$\cdot$10$^{23}$ eV is ion recombination heat of 1 mole of C (C$^{+} + e \to $C), and 313 kcal = N13.6 eV = 81.6$\cdot$10$^{23}$ eV is ion recombination heat of 1 mole of O (O$^{+} + e \to $O); \[2.6\] () + Ø() Ø() + 255.8 + 18 , where 255.8 is energy released during formation of carbon monoxide CO, and 18 is energy released due to the cooling down of CO from $T=3300 K$ to $T=300 K$.
In conclusion,
\(i) The creation of 4 moles of fully ionized 2H,O,C plasma (T=3300K) requires Q\_+Q\_ = 1197+437=1634 ; Thus, the energy consumption for the plasma is (1/4)1634 kcal/mol, i.e. 408.5 = 0.475 = 1621 = 515.8 = $$= 0.600\textrm{ kWh/cf} = 2047\textrm{ BTU/cf of the
plasma};$$
\(ii) The formation of 1 mole of H$_2$(gas, 300K) releases 625+104.2 + 18 = 747 kcal;
\(iii) The formation of 1 mole of CO(gas, 300K) releases 259+313+255.8 + 18 = 846 kcal;
\(iv) In total, 747+846= 1593 kcal is released as a heat. Thus, the heat released is (1/4)1593 =398 kcal/mol=1994 BTU/cf of the plasma.
\(v) In total, 2 moles of the CO+H$_2$ (1:1 ratio) gas have been produced from 4 moles of the plasma (more precisely, from 4 moles of the positive ions and 4 moles of electrons);
\(vi) As the net result, from (i) and (iv) we obtain 1593-1634 = - 41 kcal per two moles of CO+H$_2$ gas, i.e. the considered reaction, + \_2Ø+ 2+ Ø$$\to \C\O\gas + \H_2\gas,$$ is endothermic. Within the adopted accuracy, this value confirms the value 43.9 kcal of Eq. (\[water\]) obtained without consideration of the intermediate plasma state.
\(vii) Since the number of moles of the gas produced is two times less than the number of moles of the plasma we have, in addition to the above results (i) and (iv), the following alternative result. The energy input is 2$\cdot$2047 = 4094 BTU/cf of the CO+H$_2$ gas; and the heat produced by the exothermic reactions is 2$\cdot$1994 BTU/cf = 3988 BTU/cf of the CO+H$_2$ gas. The total balance is $- 4094 + 3988 = -108$ BTU/cf.
50% recombination of water {#sec6.3}
--------------------------
The reaction + \_2Ø()+ 2() + Ø() Ø+ \_2 represents an ideal situation because in reality some atoms may recombine back into the water. Therefore, we should consider the more general case, + x\_2Ø()+ 2() + Ø() x\_1\_2Ø+ x\_2Ø+ x\_3\_2. For $x_1 \not= 0$, we have lower efficiency of the process since the target products are CO and H$_2$.
Below, we consider the sequence starting with 1 mole of water and 1/2 mole of graphite; reactions (\[3.1\]) and (\[3.2\]) below are formation of the 2H, O, (1/2)C plasma; reaction (\[3.3\]) is ion recombination of H and (1/2)O, and recombination of liquid (1/2)H$_2$O (50% recombination); reaction (\[3.4\]) is ion recombination of the remaining H; reaction (\[3.5\]) is formation of (1/2)H$_2$; reaction (\[3.6\]) is ion recombination of (1/2)C and remaining (1/2)O; and reaction (\[3.7\]) is formation of CO; namely, \[3.1\] \_2Ø() 2() + Ø() - 1197 , i.e., the same as the above reaction (\[2.1\]); \[3.2\] () () - (1/2)437 , i.e., 218.5 (one-half of the above reaction (\[2.2\])); \[3.3\] 2() + Ø() \_2Ø(liquid, 300K) + $$+ \H(\textrm{plasma, 3300K}) + \frac{1}{2}\O(\textrm{plasma,
3300K}) + \frac{1}{2}1197 \kcal,$$ i.e., 598.5 kcal release; \[3.4\] () () + 625 , i.e., 312.5 kcal release; \[3.5\] () \_2() + 104.2 + 18 , i.e., 52.1+9= 61.1 kcal release; \[3.6\] () + (1/2)Ø() () + $$+ \frac{1}{2}\O(\textrm{gas, 3300K}) + \frac{1}{2}(259+313) \kcal,$$ i.e., 129.5+156.5=286 kcal release. \[3.7\] (, 3300K) + Ø(, 3300K) Ø(, 300K) + 255.8 + 18 , i.e., 128+9=137 kcal release;
In conclusion,
\(i) The formation of 3.5 moles of 2H, O, $\frac{1}{2}$C plasma with T=3300K from 1 mole of liquid water and 1/2 mole of solid graphite (T=300K) requires 1197+218.5= 1415.5 kcal. Thus, the energy consumption for the plasma is (1/3.5)1415.5 kcal/mol, i.e. 404.4 kcal/mol = 0.47 kWh/mol = 1605 BTU/mol = 510.6 kcal/cf = 0.594 kWh/cf = 2026 BTU/cf of the plasma;
\(ii) 50% recombination of water (1/2 moles of water) releases 598.5 kcal;
\(iii) The formation of 1/2 moles of H$_2$ releases $\frac{1}{2}(625+104.2+18) = 312.5+52.1+9=373.6$ kcal;
\(iv) The formation of 1/2 moles of CO releases $\frac{1}{2}(259 +
313 +255.8 + 18) = 129.5+156.5+128+9=423$ kcal;
\(v) In total, 1 mole of CO+H$_2$ (1:1) gas and 1/2 mole of water has been produced from 3.5 moles of the 2H, O, $\frac{1}{2}$C plasma (more precisely, from 3.5 moles of the positive ions and 3.5 moles of electrons);
\(vi) In total, 598.5+373.6+423 = 1395.1 kcal released as a heat. Thus, the heat released is $\frac{1}{3.5}$1395.1 =399 kcal/mol = 1997 BTU/cf of the plasma.
\(vii) Since the number of moles of the gas produced is 3.5 times less than number of moles of the plasma we alternatively have, in addition to the above results (i) and (vi), that the energy input is 3.5$\times$2026 = 7091 BTU/cf of the CO+H$_2$ gas; and the heat produced by the exothermic reactions is 3.5$\times$1997 BTU/cf = 6990 BTU/cf of the CO+H$_2$ gas.
Heat production
===============
No heat production
------------------
No heat production is here understood in the sense that all the heat produced by the exothermic reactions is used back in the endothermic reactions, and thus helps the formation of the plasma and CO+H$_2$ gas. The energy balance could be calculated as follows:
*Energy required to form the plasma + Energy released as a heat.* Since the energy input is negative while heat produced is positive we obtain from the above result (vi) of Sec. \[sec6.2\] the following energy consumption: \[4.1a\] -4094+3988 = -106 ; and from the above result (vii) of Sec. \[sec6.3\] (the case of 50% recombination of water): \[4.1b\] -7091+6990 = -101 .
Here, minus sign means that energy is required. Hence, about 100 BTU is required to produce 1 cf of the gas, under the assumption that the reactor has ideal 100% efficiency (does not produce any heat but only the gas).
The heat production coefficient
-------------------------------
The heat produced by the exothermic reactions (see (vi) of Sec. \[sec6.2\] and (vii) of Sec. \[sec6.3\]) is distributed via two main channels: first, it contributes to the endothermic reactions and, second, it is dissipated into the environment (heat production). If some part $k$, \[4.1\] 0 < k < 1, of the heat produced by the exothermic reactions is removed due to dissipation (convection, radiation, heat-mass transfer, etc.) to the environment from the region where the endothermic reactions occur, i.e., the “heat production coefficient” is given by \[4.2\] k =. Therefore the remaining part, $(1-k)$, of the heat, \[4.3\] 1- k = is used in the endothermic reactions. The latter part of heat cannot be measured directly since it is absorbed by the endothermic reactions thus helping the formation of the plasma and CO+H$_2$ gas. Therefore, we could modify the above energy consumptions (\[4.1a\]) and (\[4.1b\]) as follows: \[4.4a\] -4094+(1-k)3988 and \[4.4b\] -7091+(1-k)6990 of the gas, with the associated heat produced being \[4.5a\] k3988 and \[4.5b\] k6990 of the gas, respectively. The heat productions (\[4.5a\]) and (\[4.5b\]) are those corresponding to the measurable heat produced since these heats are absorbed by the environment (surrounding liquid, metal parts of the reactor, etc.).
Example 1: 70% heat production
------------------------------
For k=0.7 (70% of the total heat is dissipated/utilized and 30% is used in the endothermic reactions), we get energy consumptions \[4.6a\] -4094+0.33988 = -2898 and \[4.6b\] -7091+0.36990 = -4994 of the gas, with the associated heat production (i.e. measurable heat produced) being \[4.7a\] 0.73988 = 2792 of the gas and \[4.7b\] 0.76990 = 4893 of the gas, respectively. These heat productions correspond to measurable heats produced.
Example 2: 100% heat production
-------------------------------
For k=1 (100% of the heat produced by exothermic reactions is dissipated/utilized), we evidently have the maximal value for the energy consumptions: \[4.8a\] -4094 of the gas; and \[4.8b\] -7091 of the gas, and the associated maximal values of the heat productions: \[4.9a\] 3988 of the gas; and \[4.9b\] 6990 of the gas, respectively. These heat productions correspond to measurable heats produced.
Total heat produced
===================
We now add the combustion heat of the produced CO+H$_2$ (1:1) gas (the theoretical value is 315 BTU/cf) to the measurable heat produced by the reactor, in order to estimate the total heat produced. By adding 315 BTU/cf to the heats (\[4.4a\]) and (\[4.4b\]) we obtain the total measurable heat produced \[5.1a\] k3988 + 315 and \[5.1b\] k6990 + 315 for the cases of 0% and 50% recombination of water, respectively. Here, the coefficient $k$ ($0<k<1$) is defined by (\[4.2\]) and can be given in some approximate value by studying thermodynamics of a specific reactor. This coefficient accounts for all heat losses, including that at (tungsten) anode.
By assuming that the total heat produced is approximately equal to the energy input (see the energy inputs in (vi) of Sec. \[sec6.2\] and (vii) of Sec. \[sec6.3\]), that is, by assuming the efficiency 1, we have \[5.2a\] = 1, and \[5.2b\] = 1. Therefore, we obtain \[5.3a\] k=0.948 and \[5.3b\] k= 0.969, respectively. The measurable total heat produced is \[5.4a\] 4094; and \[5.4b\] 7091, which is valid under conditions (\[5.2a\]) and (\[5.2b\]), i.e., that the total measurable heat produced is equal to the energy input.
The above estimations (\[5.3a\]) and (\[5.3b\]) mean that about 95% of the (electric) energy input is dissipated into the environment and the remaining 5% contributes to the endothermic chemical reactions.
The following remark is in order. We can account for additional heat production which could not be accounted by the coefficient $k$ by adding some heat $Q'$, so that (\[5.4a\]) and (\[5.4b\]) become \[5.5a\] = A, and \[5.5b\] = A, where $A$ can be taken approximately one, or some other value. However, one can incorporate $Q'$ into $k$ by simple redifinition. For instance, $k3988 + 315 + Q' \to k3988 + 315 + k'3988 \to
(k+k')3988 + 315 \to k3988 + 315$, and we arrive again to the estimation (\[5.3a\]), for $A=1$. However, here $k$ acquires some other meaning which is different than that in Eq. (\[4.2\]).
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have studied the upper limit of the “commercial efficiency” [@1], simply referred i the text as “efficiency” of Santilli’s hadronic reactors of molecular type, also called PlasmaAArcFlow reactors [@1].
For the case of pure water we have obtained the upper limit 3.11, while for the mixture of ethyleneglicole and water the efficiency is given by Eq. (\[rless\]) (see Figs. 1 and 2), and rises from 3.11 to about 7.5, with increase of the relative consumption of ethyleneglicole with respect to that of carbon rods. These results are based on the assumptions that all thermochemical processes are conventional and have been obtained at at $T = 25^o$C and $p=1$ atm.
Similar calculations can be made for different water-based liquid wastes, provided that their main chemical composition is known.
We have accounted for the plasma production, and obtained a more detailed view on the steps of the entire process. This has allowed us to account for the water recombination and the heat production coefficient.
The comparison of the theoretical results with measurements leads to a sharp discrepancy between theoetical predictions and experimental data. In fact, the fitting of the measured commercial over-unity leads to a prediction which is about three times smaller than the measured heat. On the other hand, the fitting of the measured heat production leads to the prediction that the measured commercial over-unity is smaller than that predicted.
The implications of the above calculations are the following. The fact that the heat produced in the PlasmaArcFlow reactors is less than 1/3 the theoretical prediction constitutes clear evidence that magnegas is not composed of conventional H$_2$ and CO molecules. Alternatively, the indicated evidence prohibits the complete formation of H$_2$ and CO. It then follows that magnegas is indeed composed of clusters, called Santilli magnecules [@1], which are composed of clusters of individual H, C and O atoms, dimers OH, CH or C-O in single bond, and ordinary molecules $H_2$ and CO under a new attraction between opposite polarities created by magnetic and electric polarizations of the orbitals of individual atoms into toroids.
On the other side, the fact that the heat content of magnegas is about 3 times that predicted is additional strong evidence that magnegas, again, contains non-molecular bonds. In fact, said H, C and O atoms may bond into H$_2$ and CO at the time of combustion, thus releasing extra energy. As such the above two large deviations complement each other rather nicely.
It is evident that no additional quantitative study of the commercial efficiency of PlasmaArcFlow reactors can be done without a more accurate knowledge of the new chemical species of magnecules, as well as a reinterpretation of thermochemical processes via the covering hadronic chemistry.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Hydrogen {#hydrogen .unnumbered}
--------
Atomic weight: 1 gram/mol;\
Ionization potential: 13.6 eV;\
Melting point: 13.8 K;\
Boiling point: 20.3 K;\
Specific heat capacity (300K): 14.304 J/(gram K) = 3.4 cal/(gram K) = 3.4 cal/(mole K);\
Density: 0.09 gram/liter (gas).
To heat 1 mole (i.e. 1 gram) of hydrogen from $T=300$K to $T=3300$K it is required 3.4 cal/(mole K)$\cdot$(3300 - 300) K = 10.2 kcal.
Oxygen {#oxygen .unnumbered}
------
Atomic weight: 16 gram/mol; First Ionization potential: 13.6 eV;\
Melting point: 54.8 K;\
Boiling point: 90.2 K;\
Specific heat capacity (300K): 0.92 J/(gram K) = 0.22 cal/(gram K) = 3.5 cal/(mole K).
To heat 1 mole (i.e. 16 grams) of oxygen from $T=300$K to $T=3300$K it is required 3.5 cal/(mole K )$\times$(3300 - 300) K = 10.5 kcal.
Carbon {#carbon .unnumbered}
------
Atomic weight: 12 gram/mol;\
First ionization potential: 11.26 eV;\
Melting point: 3825 K;\
Boiling point: 5100 K;\
Specific heat capacity (300K): 0.709 J/(gram K) = 0.17 cal/(gram K) = 2 cal/(mole K);\
Heat of evaporation: 715 kJ/mol = 171.7 kcal/mol 1 J = 0.24 cal 1 J = 2.8$\times 10^{-7}$ kWh 1 J = $10^{7}$ erg.
To heat 1 mole (i.e., 12 grams) of carbon from $T=300$K to $T=3300$K it is required 2 cal/(mole K )$\times$(3300 - 300) K = 6000 cal = 6 kcal, thus $E_1$ = 6 kcal.
Water (liquid) {#water-liquid .unnumbered}
--------------
Molecular weight: 18 gram/mol;\
Specific heat capacity (300K): 4.18 J/(gram K) = 1 cal/(gram K) = 18 cal/(mole K).
To heat 1 mole (i.e., 18 grams) of liquid water from $T=20$C to $T=100$C it is required 18 cal/(mole K )$\times$(100 - 20) K = 1440 cal = 1.4 kcal, thus $Q_1$ = 1.4 kcal.
Water vapor (ideal gas) {#water-vapor-ideal-gas .unnumbered}
-----------------------
Molecular weight: 18 gram/mol;
For ideal gases the heat capacity is $Nk/2$ per each degree of freedom of molecule. $Nk/2$ = 4.2 J/(mole K) = 1 cal/(mol K).
Water molecule has 3 translational and 3 rotational degrees of freedom. Also, there are 3 vibrational degrees of freedom, at sufficiently high temperatures ($T >$ 3000K). So, in total we have (about) 9 degrees of freedom. Hence, the heat capacity of water vapor at high temperatures is $9Nk/2$ = 9 cal/(mol K). The heat required to heat up 1 mole of water vapor from T =100C = 400K to $T=3300$K is thus 9 cal/(mole K)$\times$(3300 - 400) K = 26100 cal = 26 kcal, therefore $Q_3$ = 26 kcal.
Conversion factors and constants {#conversion-factors-and-constants .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
1 kWh = 860 kcal = 3413 BTU;\
1 kcal = 3.97 BTU;\
1 eV =3.83 x 10$^{-23}$ kcal;\
1 cal = 4.18 J;\
1 mole = 22.4 liters = 0.792 cf (an ideal gas, normal conditions);\
1 cf = 28.3 liters;\
1 cf = 1.263 mol (an ideal gas, normal conditions);\
$N$ = 6$\times$10$^{23}$ mol$^{-1}$ (Avogadro number);\
$Nk/2$ = 1 cal/(mol K);\
$R$ = 8.314 J/(mol K) = 1.986 cal/(mol K).
Specific heat capacities {#specific-heat-capacities .unnumbered}
------------------------
$p = 1$ atm, $T = 25$C.
H$_2$(gas): 29.83 J/(mol K) = 7 cal/(mol K);\
H$_2$O (liquid): 4.18 J/(gram K) = 1 cal/(gram K) = 18 cal/(mol K);\
C (graphite, solid): 0.71 J/(gram K) = 0.17 cal/(gram K) = 2 cal/(mol K);\
O$_2$ (gas): 29.36 J/(gram K) = 7 cal/(gram K);\
H (gas): 14.3 J/(gram K) = 3.42 cal/(gram K);\
O (gas): 0.92 J/(gram K) = 0.22 cal/(gram K);\
Fe (solid): 0.45 J/(gram K) = 0.11 cal/(gram K) = 6 cal/(mol K).
Evaporation heats {#evaporation-heats .unnumbered}
-----------------
Water: 10.4 kcal/mol, $T=25$C;\
Graphite: 171.7 kcal/mol, $T=25$C.
First ionization potentials {#first-ionization-potentials .unnumbered}
---------------------------
H: 13.6 eV; O: 13.6 eV; C: 11.26 eV.
Test results for some model of PAF reactor {#test-results-for-some-model-of-paf-reactor .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------
Measured energy consumption: 100 Wh/cf = 341.3 BTU/cf of magnegas;\
Measured heat production: 665 BTU/cf of magnegas produced;\
Measured combustion heat of magnegas: 650 BTU/cf;\
Measured commercial over-unity: (665+650)/341.3 = 3.85;\
Theoretical combustion heat of CO+H$_2$ (1:1) gas: 315 BTU/cf.
[6]{}
R.M. Santilli, [*Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry with Aopplications to New Clean Energies and Fuels*]{} (Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston-Dordrecht-London, 2001).
R.M. Santilli and D.D. Shillady, [*Ab Initio Hadronic Chemistry*]{}, Hadronic Press, Florida (2000).
R.M. Santilli and D.D. Shillady, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy [**24**]{}, 943 (1999), and [**25**]{}, 173 (2000).
\(a) M.G. Kucherenko and A.K. Aringazin, Hadronic Journal [**21**]{}, 895 (1998); (b) M.G. Kucherenko and A.K. Aringazin, Hadronic Journal [**23**]{}, 1 (2000). e-print http://www.arXive.org: [physics/0001056]{}; (c) A.K. Aringazin, Hadronic Journal [**23**]{}, 57 (2000). e-print http://www.arXive.org: [physics/0001057]{}.
R.M. Santilli, “Alarming oxygen depletion caused by hydrogen combustion and their resolution by magnegas”, Contributed paper, International Hydrogen Energy Forum 2000, Munich, Germany, September 11-15, 2000. e-print http://www.arXive.org: [physics/0009014]{}.
[^1]: Due to experimental tests magnegas, which consists mainly of CO and H$_2$ at approximately equal percentages, has about 800 BTU/cf energy content [@1].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study reproducing kernels, and associated reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHSs) $\mathscr{H}$ over infinite, discrete and countable sets $V$. In this setting we analyze in detail the distributions of the corresponding Dirac point-masses of $V$. Illustrations include certain models from neural networks: An Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) is a neural network-configuration in which a hidden layer of weights are randomly sampled, and where the object is then to compute resulting output. For RKHSs $\mathscr{H}$ of functions defined on a prescribed countable infinite discrete set $V$, we characterize those which contain the Dirac masses $\delta_{x}$ for all points $x$ in $V$. Further examples and applications where this question plays an important role are: (i) discrete Brownian motion-Hilbert spaces, i.e., discrete versions of the Cameron-Martin Hilbert space; (ii) energy-Hilbert spaces corresponding to graph-Laplacians where the set $V$ of vertices is then equipped with a resistance metric; and finally (iii) the study of Gaussian free fields.'
address:
- '(Palle E.T. Jorgensen) Department of Mathematics, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1419, U.S.A. '
- '(Feng Tian) Department of Mathematics, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435, U.S.A.'
author:
- Palle Jorgensen and Feng Tian
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Discrete reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces: Sampling and distribution of Dirac-masses'
---
Introduction
============
A reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) is a Hilbert space $\mathscr{H}$ of functions on a prescribed set, say $V$, with the property that point-evaluation for functions $f\in\mathscr{H}$ is continuous with respect to the $\mathscr{H}$-norm. They are called kernel spaces, because, for every $x\in V$, the point-evaluation for functions $f\in\mathscr{H}$, $f\left(x\right)$ must then be given as a $\mathscr{H}$-inner product of $f$ and a vector $k_{x}$, in $\mathscr{H}$; called the kernel.
The RKHSs have been studied extensively since the pioneering papers by Aronszajn in the 1940ties, see e.g., [@Aro43; @Aro48]. They further play an important role in the theory of partial differential operators (PDO); for example as Green’s functions of second order elliptic PDOs; see e.g., [@Nel57; @HKL14]. Other applications include engineering, physics, machine-learning theory (see [@KH11; @SZ09; @CS02]), stochastic processes (e.g., Gaussian free fields), numerical analysis, and more. See, e.g., [@AD93; @ABDdS93; @AD92; @AJSV13; @AJV14]. Also, see [@MR2089140; @MR2607639; @MR2913695; @MR2975345; @MR3091062; @MR3101840; @MR3201917]. But the literature so far has focused on the theory of kernel functions defined on continuous domains, either domains in Euclidean space, or complex domains in one or more variables. For these cases, the Dirac $\delta_{x}$ distributions do not have finite $\mathscr{H}$-norm. But for RKHSs over discrete point distributions, it is reasonable to expect that the Dirac $\delta_{x}$ functions will in fact have finite $\mathscr{H}$-norm.
An illustration from neural networks: An Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) is a neural network configuration in which a hidden layer of weights are randomly sampled (see e.g., [@RW06]), and the object is then to determine analytically resulting output layer weights. Hence ELM may be thought of as an approximation to a network with infinite number of hidden units.
Here we consider the discrete case, i.e., RKHSs of functions defined on a prescribed countable infinite discrete set $V$. We are concerned with a characterization of those RKHSs $\mathscr{H}$ which contain the Dirac masses $\delta_{x}$ for all points $x\in V$. Of the examples and applications where this question plays an important role, we emphasize three: (i) discrete Brownian motion-Hilbert spaces, i.e., discrete versions of the Cameron-Martin Hilbert space; (ii) energy-Hilbert spaces corresponding to graph-Laplacians; and finally (iii) RKHSs generated by binomial coefficients. We show that the point-masses have finite $\mathscr{H}$-norm in cases (i) and (ii), but not in case (iii).
Our setting is a given positive definite function $k$ on $V\times V$, where $V$ is discrete (see above). We study the corresponding RKHS $\mathscr{H}\left(=\mathscr{H}\left(k\right)\right)$ in detail. Our main results are Theorems \[thm:del\], \[thm:bino\], and \[thm:mc\] which give explicit answers to the question of which point-masses from $V$ are in $\mathscr{H}$. Applications include Corollaries \[cor:proj\], \[cor:bino\], \[cor:lap1\], \[cor:lap2\], \[cor:lap3\], and \[cor:Lap3\].
The paper is organized as follows: Section \[sec:drkhs\] leads up to our characterization (Theorem \[thm:del\]) of point-masses which have finite $\mathscr{H}$-norm. It is applied in sections \[sec:egs\] and \[sec:net\] to a variety of classes of discrete RKHSs. Section \[sec:egs\] deals with samples from Brownian motion, and from the Brownian bridge process, and binomial kernels, and with kernels on sets $V\times V$ which arise as restrictions to sample-points. Section \[sec:net\] covers the case of infinite network of resistors. By this we mean an infinite graph with assigned resistors on its edges. In this family of examples, the associated RKHSs vary with the assignment of resistors on the edges in $G$, and are computed explicitly from a resulting energy form. Our result Corollary \[cor:lap1\] states that, for the network models, all point-masses have finite energy. Furthermore, we compute the value, and we study $V$ as a metric space w.r.t. the corresponding resistance metric. These results, in turn, have direct implications (Corollaries \[cor:lap2\], \[cor:lap3\] and \[cor:lap\]) for the family of Gaussian free fields associated with our infinite network models.
A positive definite kernel $k$ is said to be *universal* [@CMPY08] if, every continuous function, on a compact subset of the input space, can be uniformly approximated by sections of the kernel, i.e., by continuous functions in the RKHS. In Theorem \[thm:mc\] we show that for the RKHSs from kernels $k_{c}$ in electrical network $G$ of resistors, this universality holds. The metric in this case is the resistance metric on the vertices of $G$, determined by the assignment of a conductance function $c$ on the edges in $G$.
\[sec:drkhs\]Discrete RKHSs
===========================
Let $V$ be a countable and infinite set, and $\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$ the set of all *finite* subsets of $V$. A function $k:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ is said to be *positive definite*, if $$\underset{\left(x,y\right)\in F\times F}{\sum\sum}k\left(x,y\right)\overline{c_{x}}c_{y}\geq0\label{eq:pd1}$$ holds for all coefficients $\{c_{x}\}_{x\in F}\subset\mathbb{C}$, and all $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$.
\[def:d1\]Fix a set $V$, countable infinite.
1. For all $x\in V$, set $$k_{x}:=k\left(\cdot,x\right):V\rightarrow\mathbb{C}\label{eq:pd2}$$ as a function on $V$.
2. Let $\mathscr{H}:=\mathscr{H}\left(k\right)$ be the Hilbert-completion of the $span\left\{ k_{x}:x\in V\right\} $, with respect to the inner product $$\left\langle \sum c_{x}k_{x},\sum d_{y}k_{y}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}:=\sum\sum\overline{c_{x}}d_{y}k\left(x,y\right)\label{eq:pd3}$$ modulo the subspace of functions of zero $\mathscr{H}$-norm. $\mathscr{H}$ is then a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (HKRS), with the reproducing property: $$\left\langle k_{x},\varphi\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}=\varphi\left(x\right),\;\forall x\in V,\:\forall\varphi\in\mathscr{H}.\label{eq:pd31}$$ **Note.** The summations in (\[eq:pd3\]) are all finite. Starting with finitely supported summations in (\[eq:pd3\]), the RKHS $\mathscr{H}=\mathscr{H}\left(k\right)$ is then obtained by Hilbert space completion. We use physicists’ convention, so that the inner product is conjugate linear in the first variable, and linear in the second variable.
3. If $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, set $\mathscr{H}_{F}=\text{closed\:\ span}\{k_{x}\}_{x\in F}\subset\mathscr{H}$, (closed is automatic if $F$ is finite.) And set $$P_{F}:=\text{the orthogonal projection onto \ensuremath{\mathscr{H}_{F}}}.\label{eq:pd4}$$
4. For $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, set $$K_{F}:=\left(k\left(x,y\right)\right)_{\left(x,y\right)\in F\times F}\label{eq:pd5}$$ as a $\#F\times\#F$ matrix.
It follows from the above that reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHS) arise from a given positive definite kernel $k$, a corresponding pre-Hilbert form; and then a Hilbert-completion. The question arises: What are the functions in the completion? Now, before completion, the functions are as specified in Definition \[def:d1\], but the Hilbert space completions are subtle; they are classical Hilbert spaces of functions, not always transparent from the naked kernel $k$ itself. Examples of classical RKHSs: Hardy spaces or Bergman spaces (for complex domains), Sobolev spaces and Dirichlet spaces (for real domains, or for fractals [@MR3054607; @MR2892621; @MR2764237]), band-limited $L^{2}$ functions (from signal analysis), and Cameron-Martin Hilbert spaces from Gaussian processes (in continuous time domain).
Our focus here is on discrete analogues of the classical RKHSs from real or complex analysis. These discrete RKHSs in turn are dictated by applications, and their features are quite different from those of their continuous counter parts.
\[def:dmp\]The RKHS $\mathscr{H}=\mathscr{H}\left(k\right)$ is said to have the *discrete mass* property ($\mathscr{H}$ is called a *discrete RKHS*), if $\delta_{x}\in\mathscr{H}$, for all $x\in V$. Here, $\delta_{x}\left(y\right)=\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if }x=y\\
0 & \text{if \ensuremath{x\neq y}}
\end{cases}$, i.e., the Dirac mass at $x\in V$.
\[lem:proj1\]Let $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, $x_{1}\in F$. Assume $\delta_{x_{1}}\in\mathscr{H}$. Then $$P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(\cdot\right)=\sum_{y\in F}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(y\right)k_{y}\left(\cdot\right).\label{eq:pd6}$$
Show that $$\delta_{x}-\sum_{y\in F}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(y\right)k_{y}\left(\cdot\right)\in\mathscr{H}_{F}^{\perp}.\label{eq:pd7}$$ The remaining part follows easily from this.
(The notation $\left(\mathscr{H}_{F}\right)^{\perp}$ stands for orthogonal complement, also denoted $\mathscr{H}\ominus\mathscr{H}_{F}=\left\{ \varphi\in\mathscr{H}\:\big|\:\left\langle f,\varphi\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}=0,\;\forall f\in\mathscr{H}_{F}\right\} $.)
\[lem:proj\]Using Dirac’s bra-ket, and ket-bra notation (for rank-one operators), the orthogonal projection onto $\mathscr{H}_{F}$ is $$P_{F}=\sum_{y\in F}\left|k_{y}\left\rangle \right\langle k_{y}^{*}\right|;\label{eq:pd71}$$ where $$k_{x}^{*}:=\sum_{y\in F}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\right)_{yx}k_{y}\label{eq:pd72}$$ is the dual vector to $k_{x}$, for all $x\in V$.
Let $k_{x}^{*}$ be specified as in (\[eq:pd72\]), then $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle k_{x}^{*},k_{z}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}} & = & \sum_{y\in F}\left\langle \left(K_{F}^{-1}\right)_{yx}k_{y},k_{z}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\\
& = & \sum_{y\in F}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\right)_{xy}\left\langle k_{y},k_{z}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\\
& = & \sum_{y\in F}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\right)_{xy}\left(K_{F}\right)_{yz}=\delta_{x,z},\end{aligned}$$ i.e., $k_{x}^{*}$ is the dual vector to $k_{x}$, for all $x\in V$.
For $f\in\mathscr{H}$, and $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{y\in F}\left|k_{y}\left\rangle \right\langle k_{y}^{*}\right|f & = & \sum_{y\in F}\left\langle k_{y}^{*},f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}k_{y}\\
& = & \underset{\left(y,z\right)\in F\times F}{\sum\sum}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\right)_{z,y}\left\langle k_{z},f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\\
& = & P_{F}f.\end{aligned}$$ This yields the orthogonal projection realized as stated in (\[eq:pd71\]).
Now, applying (\[eq:pd71\]) to $\delta_{x_{1}}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right) & = & \sum_{y\in F}\left\langle k_{y}^{*},\delta_{x_{1}}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}k_{y}\\
& = & \sum_{y\in F}\left(\sum_{z\in F}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\right)_{yz}\left\langle k_{z},\delta_{x_{1}}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\right)k_{y}\\
& = & \sum_{y\in F}\left(\sum_{z\in F}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\right)_{yz}\delta_{x_{1}}\left(z\right)\right)k_{y}\\
& = & \sum_{y\in F}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(y\right)k_{y},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(y\right):=\sum_{z\in F}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\right)_{yz}\delta_{x_{1}}\left(z\right).$$ This verifies (\[eq:pd6\]).
Note a slight abuse of notations: We make formally sense of the expressions for $P_{F}(\delta_{x})$ in (\[eq:pd6\]) even in the case when $\delta_{x}$ might not be in $\mathscr{H}$. For all finite $F$, we showed that $P_{F}(\delta_{x})\in\mathscr{H}$. But for $\delta_{x}$ be in $\mathscr{H}$, we must have the additional boundedness assumption (\[eq:d3\]) satisfied; see Theorem \[thm:del\].
\[lem:proj2\]Let $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, $x_{1}\in F$, then $$\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)=\left\Vert P_{F}\delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}.\label{eq:pd8}$$
Setting $\zeta^{\left(F\right)}:=K_{F}^{-1}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)$, we have $$P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)=\sum_{y\in F}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(y\right)k_{F}\left(\cdot,y\right)$$ and for all $z\in F$, $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)}{\underbrace{\sum_{z\in F}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(z\right)P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(z\right)}} & = & \sum_{F}\sum_{F}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(z\right)\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(y\right)k_{F}\left(z,y\right)\label{eq:pd81}\\
& = & \left\Vert P_{F}\delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Note the LHS of (\[eq:pd81\]) is given by (see Lemma \[lem:proj\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert P_{F}\delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2} & = & \left\langle P_{F}\delta_{x_{1}},\delta_{x_{1}}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\\
& = & \sum_{y\in F}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(y\right)\left\langle k_{y},\delta_{x_{1}}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\\
& = & \left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)=K_{F}^{-1}\left(x_{1},x_{1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
\[cor:proj1\]If $\delta_{x_{1}}\in\mathscr{H}$ (see Theorem \[thm:del\]), then $$\sup_{F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)=\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}.\label{eq:pd9}$$
The following condition is satisfied in some examples, but not all:
$\exists F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$ s.t. $\delta_{x_{1}}\in\mathscr{H}_{F}$ $\Longleftrightarrow$ $$K_{F'}^{-1}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)=K_{F}^{-1}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)$$ for all $F'\supset F$.
If $F$ and $F'$ are in $\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$ and $F\subset F'$, then $$\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)\leq\left(K_{F'}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)\label{eq:mono1}$$ and $$\lim_{F\nearrow V}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)=\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}.\label{eq:mono2}$$
By (\[eq:pd8\]), $$\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)=\left\Vert P_{F}\delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}.$$ Since $\mathscr{H}_{F}\subset\mathscr{H}_{F'}$, we have $P_{F}P_{F'}=P_{F}$, so $$\left\Vert P_{F}\delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\left\Vert P_{F}P_{F'}\delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\leq\left\Vert P_{F'}\delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}$$ i.e., $$\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)\leq\left(K_{F'}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right).$$ So (\[eq:mono1\]) follows; and the limit in (\[eq:mono2\]) is monotone.
\[thm:del\]Given $V$, $k:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ positive definite (p.d.). Let $\mathscr{H}=\mathscr{H}\left(k\right)$ be the corresponding RKHS. Assume $V$ is countable and infinite. Then the following three conditions \[enu:d1\]-\[enu:d3\] are equivalent; $x_{1}\in V$ is fixed:
1. \[enu:d1\]$\delta_{x_{1}}\in\mathscr{H}$;
2. \[enu:d2\]$\exists C_{x_{1}}<\infty$ such that for all $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, the following estimate holds: $$\left|\xi\left(x_{1}\right)\right|^{2}\leq C_{x_{1}}\underset{F\times F}{\sum\sum}\overline{\xi\left(x\right)}\xi\left(y\right)k\left(x,y\right)\label{eq:d1}$$
3. \[enu:d3\]For $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, set $$K_{F}=\left(k\left(x,y\right)\right)_{\left(x,y\right)\in F\times F}\label{eq:d2}$$ as a $\#F\times\#F$ matrix. See Definition \[def:d1\], eq. (\[eq:pd5\]). Then $$\sup_{F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)}\left(K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)<\infty.\label{eq:d3}$$
**\[enu:d1\]$\Rightarrow$\[enu:d2\]** For $\xi\in l^{2}\left(F\right)$, set $$h_{\xi}=\sum_{y\in F}\xi\left(y\right)k_{y}\left(\cdot\right)\in\mathscr{H}_{F}.$$ Then $\left\langle \delta_{x_{1}},h_{\xi}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}=\xi\left(x_{1}\right)$ for all $\xi$.
Since $\delta_{x_{1}}\in\mathscr{H}$, then by Schwarz: $$\left|\left\langle \delta_{x_{1}},h_{\xi}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\right|^{2}\leq\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\underset{F\times F}{\sum\sum}\overline{\xi\left(x\right)}\xi\left(y\right)k\left(x,y\right).\label{eq:d31}$$ But $\left\langle \delta_{x_{1}},k_{y}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}=\delta_{x_{1},y}=\begin{cases}
1 & y=x_{1}\\
0 & y\neq x_{1}
\end{cases}$; hence $\left\langle \delta_{x_{1}},h_{\xi}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}=\xi\left(x_{1}\right)$, and so (\[eq:d31\]) implies (\[eq:d1\]).
**\[enu:d2\]$\Rightarrow$\[enu:d3\]** Recall the matrix $$K_{F}:=\left(\left\langle k_{x},k_{y}\right\rangle \right)_{\left(x,y\right)\in F\times F}$$ as a linear operator $l^{2}\left(F\right)\rightarrow l^{2}\left(F\right)$, where $$\left(K_{F}\varphi\right)\left(x\right)=\sum_{y\in F}K_{F}\left(x,y\right)\varphi\left(y\right),\;\varphi\in l^{2}\left(F\right).$$ By (\[eq:d1\]), we have $$\ker\left(K_{F}\right)\subset\left\{ \varphi\in l^{2}\left(F\right):\varphi\left(x_{1}\right)=0\right\} .$$ Equivalently, $$\ker\left(K_{F}\right)\subset\left\{ \delta_{x_{1}}\right\} ^{\perp}$$ and so $\delta_{x_{1}}\Big|_{F}\in\ker\left(K_{F}\right)^{\perp}=\mbox{ran}\left(K_{F}\right)$, and $\exists$ $\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\in l^{2}\left(F\right)$ s.t. $$\delta_{x_{1}}\Big|_{F}=\underset{=:h_{F}}{\underbrace{\sum_{y\in F}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(y\right)k\left(\cdot,y\right)}}.\label{eq:t0}$$
$P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)=h_{F}$, where $P_{F}=$ projection onto $\mathscr{H}_{F}$; see (\[eq:pd4\]) and Lemma \[lem:proj1\]. (See Fig \[fig:proj\].)
![\[fig:proj\]$h_{F}:=P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)$](proj){width="40.00000%"}
We only need to prove that $\delta_{x_{1}}-h_{F}\in\mathscr{H}\ominus\mathscr{H}_{F}$, i.e., $$\left\langle \delta_{x_{1}}-h_{F},k_{z}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}=0,\;\forall z\in F.\label{eq:t1}$$ But, by (\[eq:t0\]), $$\text{LHS}_{\left(\ref{eq:t1}\right)}=\delta_{x_{1},z}-\sum_{y\in F}k\left(z,y\right)\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(y\right)=0.$$
If $F\subset F'$, $F,F'\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, then $\mathscr{H}_{F}\subset\mathscr{H}_{F'}$, and $P_{F}P_{F'}=P_{F}$ by easy facts for projections. Hence $$\left\Vert P_{F}\delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\leq\left\Vert P_{F'}\delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2},\quad h_{F}:=P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)$$ and $$\lim_{F\nearrow V}\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}-h_{F}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}=0.$$
**\[enu:d3\]$\Rightarrow$\[enu:d1\]** Follows from Lemma \[lem:proj2\] and Corollary \[cor:proj1\].
The numbers $\left(\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(y\right)\right)_{y\in F}$ in (\[eq:t0\]) satisfies $$\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)=\underset{\left(y,z\right)\in F\times F}{\sum\sum}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(y\right)\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(z\right)k\left(y,z\right).$$
Multiply (\[eq:t0\]) by $\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(z\right)$ and carry out the summation.
To see that (\[eq:t0\]) is a solution to a linear algebra problem, with $F=\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{n}$, note that (\[eq:t0\]) $\Longleftrightarrow$ $$\begin{bmatrix}k\left(x_{1},x_{1}\right) & k\left(x_{1},x_{2}\right) & \cdots & k\left(x_{1},x_{n}\right)\\
k\left(x_{2},x_{1}\right) & k\left(x_{2},x_{2}\right) & \cdots & k\left(x_{2},x_{n}\right)\\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
k\left(x_{n},x_{1}\right) & k\left(x_{n},x_{2}\right) & \cdots & k\left(x_{n},x_{n}\right)
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)\\
\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{2}\right)\\
\vdots\\
\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{n-1}\right)\\
\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{n}\right)
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}1\\
0\\
\vdots\\
0\\
0
\end{bmatrix}\label{eq:p1}$$
We now resume the general case of $k$ given and positive definite on $V\times V$.
We have $$\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)=\left\Vert P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}$$ where $$P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)=\sum_{y\in F}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(y\right)k_{y}\left(\cdot\right)$$ and $$\zeta^{\left(F\right)}=K_{N}^{-1}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right),\quad N:=\#F.$$
It follows from (\[eq:p1\]) that $$\sum_{j}k\left(x_{i},x_{j}\right)\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{j}\right)=\delta_{1,i}$$ and so multiplying by $\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(i\right)$, and summing over $i$, gives $$\underset{=\left\Vert P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}}{\underbrace{\sum_{i}\sum_{j}k\left(x_{i},x_{j}\right)\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{i}\right)\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{j}\right)}}=\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{1}\right).$$
We have
1. $$P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)=\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)k_{x_{1}}+\sum_{y\in F\backslash\left\{ x_{1}\right\} }\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(y\right)k_{y}$$
where $\zeta_{F}$ solves (\[eq:p1\]), for all $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$;
2. $$\left\Vert P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)\label{eq:p4}$$
and so in particular:
3. $$0<\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)\leq\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\label{eq:p3}$$
Formula (\[eq:p4\]) follows from the definition of $\zeta^{\left(F\right)}$ as a solution to the matrix problem $K_{N}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}=\delta_{x_{1}}$, but we may also prove (\[eq:p4\]) directly from $$P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)=\sum_{y}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(y\right)k_{y}\,.\label{eq:p5}$$ Apply $\left\langle \cdot,\delta_{x_{1}}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}$ to both sides in (\[eq:p5\]), we get $$\underset{\left\Vert P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}}{\underbrace{\left\langle \delta_{x_{1}},P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}}}=\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)$$ since $P_{F}=P_{F}^{*}=P_{F}^{2}$; i.e., a projection in the RKHS $\mathscr{H}=\mathscr{H}_{V}$ of $k$.
Let $F=\left\{ x_{1},x_{2}\right\} $, $K_{F}=\left(k_{ij}\right)_{i,j=1}^{2}$, where $k_{ij}:=k\left(x_{i},x_{j}\right)$. Then (\[eq:p1\]) reads $$\begin{bmatrix}k_{11} & k_{12}\\
k_{21} & k_{22}
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\zeta_{F}\left(x_{1}\right)\\
\zeta_{F}\left(x_{2}\right)
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}1\\
0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Set $D:=\det\left(K_{F}\right)=k_{11}k_{22}-k_{12}k_{21}$, then: $$\zeta_{F}\left(x_{1}\right)=\frac{k_{22}}{D},\quad\zeta_{F}\left(x_{2}\right)=-\frac{k_{21}}{D}.$$
Let $V=\left\{ x_{1},x_{2},\ldots\right\} $ be an ordered set. Set $F_{n}:=\left\{ x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}\right\} $. Note that with $$D_{n}=\det\left(K_{F_{n}}\right)=\det\left(\left(k\left(x_{i},x_{j}\right)\right)_{i,j=1}^{n}\right),\;\mbox{and}$$ $$D'_{n-1}=\left(1,1\right)\;\text{minor of }K_{F_{n}}=\det\left(\left(k\left(x_{i},x_{j}\right)\right)_{i,j=2}^{n}\right);$$ then $$\zeta^{\left(F_{n}\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)=\frac{D'_{n-1}}{D_{n}}=\left(K_{F_{n}}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right).\label{eq:p2}$$
We have $$\frac{1}{k\left(x_{1},x_{1}\right)}\leq\frac{k\left(x_{2},x_{2}\right)}{D_{2}}\leq\cdots\leq\frac{D'_{n-1}}{D_{n}}\leq\cdots\leq\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}.$$
Follows from (\[eq:p2\]), and if $F\subset F'$ are two finite subsets, then $$\left\Vert P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\leq\left\Vert P_{F'}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\leq\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}.$$
Let $k:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be as specified above. Let $\mathscr{H}=\mathscr{H}\left(k\right)$ be the RKHS. We set $\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$:= all finite subsets of $V$; and if $x\in V$ is fixed, $\mathscr{F}_{x}\left(V\right):=\left\{ F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)\:|\: x\in F\right\} $.
For $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, let $K_{F}$ be the $\#F\times\#F$ matrix given by $\left(k\left(x,y\right)\right)_{\left(x,y\right)\in F\times F}$. Following [@KZ96], we say that $k$ is *strictly positive* iff (Def.) $\det K_{F}>0$ for all $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$.
Set $D_{F}:=\det K_{F}$. If $x\in V$, and $F\in\mathscr{F}_{x}\left(V\right)$, set $K'_{F}:=$ the minor in $K_{F}$ obtained by omitting row $x$ and column $x$, see Fig \[fig:minor\].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:minor\]The $\left(x,x\right)$ minors, $K_{F}\rightarrow K_{F}'$. ](minor1 "fig:"){width="0.3\columnwidth"} ![\[fig:minor\]The $\left(x,x\right)$ minors, $K_{F}\rightarrow K_{F}'$. ](minor2 "fig:"){width="0.3\columnwidth"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[cor:sp\]Suppose $k:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is strictly positive. Let $x\in V$. Then $$\delta_{x}\in\mathscr{H}\Longleftrightarrow\sup_{F\in\mathscr{F}_{x}\left(V\right)}\frac{D'_{F}}{D_{F}}<\infty.$$
Unbounded containment in RKHSs
------------------------------
Let $\mathscr{K}$ and $\mathscr{H}$ be two Hilbert spaces. We say that $\mathscr{K}$ is *unboundedly contained* in $\mathscr{H}$ if there is a dense subspace $\mathscr{K}_{0}\subset\mathscr{K}$ such that $\mathscr{K}_{0}\subset\mathscr{H}$; and the inclusion operator, with $\mathscr{K}_{0}$ as its dense domain, is *closed*, i.e., $$\mathscr{K}\overset{incl}{\hookrightarrow}\mathscr{H},\quad dom\left(incl\right)=\mathscr{K}_{0}.$$ Let $k:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a p.d. kernel, and let $\mathscr{H}$ be the corresponding RKHS. Set $\mathscr{K}=l^{2}\left(V\right)$, and $$\mathscr{K}_{0}=span\left\{ \delta_{x}\:|\: x\in V\right\} .\label{eq:in1}$$
\[prop:ubc\]If $\delta_{x}\in\mathscr{H}$ for $\forall x\in V$, then $l^{2}\left(V\right)$ is unboundedly contained in $\mathscr{H}$.
Recall that $\mathscr{H}$ is the RKHS defined for a fixed p.d. kernel $k:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. Let $k_{x}$ be the vector in $\mathscr{H}$, given by $k_{x}\left(y\right)=k\left(x,y\right)$, s.t. $$f\left(x\right)=\left\langle k_{x},f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}},\quad\forall f\in\mathscr{H}.\label{eq:in2}$$ To finish the proof we will need:
\[lem:in1\]The following equation $$\left\langle \delta_{x},k_{y}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}=\delta_{x,y}\label{eq:in3}$$ holds if $\delta_{x}\in\mathscr{H}$ for $\forall x\in V$.
(\[eq:in3\]) is immediate from (\[eq:in2\]).
On $$span\left\{ k_{x}\:|\: x\in V\right\} \subset\mathscr{H}\label{eq:in4}$$ define $Mk_{x}:=\delta_{x}$, then by Lemma \[lem:in1\], $M$ extends to be a well defined operator $M:\mathscr{H}\rightarrow l^{2}\left(V\right)$ with dense domain (\[eq:in4\]). We have $$\left\langle k,Mf\right\rangle _{l^{2}\left(V\right)}=\left\langle k,f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}},\quad\forall k\in span\left\{ \delta_{x}\right\} ,\;\forall f\in dom\left(M\right).\label{eq:in5}$$
By linearity, it is enough to prove that $$\left\langle \delta_{x},\delta_{y}\right\rangle _{l^{2}}=\left\langle \delta_{x},k_{y}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\label{eq:in6}$$ holds for $\forall x,y\in V$. But (\[eq:in6\]) follows immediate from Lemma \[lem:in1\].
If $L:l^{2}\left(V\right)\rightarrow\mathscr{H}$ denotes the inclusion mapping with $dom\left(L\right)=span\left\{ \delta_{x}:x\in V\right\} $, then we conclude that $$L\subset M^{*},\;\mbox{and}\; M\subset L^{*}.$$ Since $dom\left(M\right)$ is dense in $\mathscr{H}$, it follows that $L^{*}$ has dense domain; and that therefore $L$ is closable.
This also completes the proof of Proposition \[prop:ubc\].
Suppose $k:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is as given, and that $\mathscr{H}=RKHS\left(k\right)$. Let $L$ be the densely defined inclusion mapping $l^{2}\left(V\right)\rightarrow\mathscr{H}$. Then $L^{*}L$ is selfadjoint with dense domain in $l^{2}\left(V\right)$; and $LL^{*}$ is selfadjoint with dense domain in $\mathscr{H}$. Moreover, the following polar decomposition holds: $$L=U\left(L^{*}L\right)^{1/2}=\left(LL^{*}\right)^{1/2}U$$ where $U$ is a partial isometry $l^{2}\left(V\right)\rightarrow\mathscr{H}$.
\[sec:egs\]Point-masses in concrete models
==========================================
Suppose $V\subset D\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}$ where $V$ is countable and discrete, but $D$ is open. In this case, we get two kernels: $k$ on $D\times D$, and $k_{V}:=k\big|_{V\times V}$ on $V\times V$ by restriction. If $x\in V$, then $k_{x}^{\left(V\right)}\left(\cdot\right)=k\left(\cdot,x\right)$ is a function on $V$, while $k_{x}\left(\cdot\right)=k\left(\cdot,x\right)$ is a function on $D$.
This means that the corresponding RKHSs are different, $\mathscr{H}_{V}$ vs $\mathscr{H}$, where $\mathscr{H}_{V}=$ a RKHS of functions on $V$, and $\mathscr{H}=$ a RKHS of functions on $D$.
\[lem:mc1\]$\mathscr{H}_{V}$ is isometrically contained in $\mathscr{H}$ via $k_{x}^{\left(V\right)}\longmapsto k_{x}$, $x\in V$.
If $F\subset V$ is a finite subset, and $\xi=\xi_{F}$ is a function on $F$, then $$\left\Vert \sum\nolimits _{x\in F}\xi\left(x\right)k_{x}^{\left(V\right)}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{V}}=\left\Vert \sum\nolimits _{x\in F}\xi\left(x\right)k_{x}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}.$$ The desired result follows from this.
We are concerned with cases of kernels $k:D\times D\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ with restriction $k_{V}:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, where $V$ is a countable discrete subset of $D$. Typically, for $x\in V$, we may have (restriction) $\delta_{x}\big|_{V}\in\mathscr{H}_{V}$, but $\delta_{x}\notin\mathscr{H}$; indeed this happens for the kernel $k$ of standard Brownian motion:
$D=\mathbb{R}_{+}$;
$V=$ an ordered subset $0<x_{1}<x_{2}<\cdots<x_{i}<x_{i+1}<\cdots$, $V=\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty}$.
In this case, we compute $\mathscr{H}_{V}$, and we show that $\delta_{x_{i}}\big|_{V}\in\mathscr{H}_{V}$; while for $\mathscr{H}_{m}=$ the Cameron-Martin Hilbert space, we have $\delta_{x_{i}}\notin\mathscr{H}_{m}$.
Also note that $\delta_{x_{1}}$ has a different meaning with reference to $\mathscr{H}_{V}$ vs $\mathscr{H}_{m}$. In the first case, it is simply $\delta_{x_{1}}\left(y\right)=\begin{cases}
1 & y=x_{1}\\
0 & y\in V\backslash\left\{ x_{1}\right\}
\end{cases}$. In the second case, $\delta_{x_{1}}$ is a Schwartz distribution. We shall abuse notation, writing $\delta_{x}$ in both cases.
In the following, we will consider restriction to $V\times V$ of a special continuous p.d. kernel $k$ on $\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R}_{+}$. It is $k\left(s,t\right)=s\wedge t=\min\left(s,t\right)$. Before we restrict, note that the RKHS of this $k$ is the Cameron-Martin Hilbert space of function $f$ on $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ with distribution derivative $f'\in L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}_{+}\right)$, and $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}:=\int_{0}^{\infty}\left|f'\left(t\right)\right|^{2}dt<\infty.\label{eq:cm1}$$ For details, see below.
**Application.** The Hilbert space given by $\left\Vert \cdot\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}$ in (\[eq:cm1\]) is called the Cameron-Martin Hilbert space, and, as noted, it is the RKHS of $k:\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R}_{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}:$ $k\left(s,t\right):=s\wedge t$. Now pick a discrete subset $V\subset\mathbb{R}_{+}$; then Lemma \[lem:mc1\] states that the RKHS of the $V\times V$ restricted kernel, $k^{\left(V\right)}$ is isometrically embedded into $\mathscr{H}$, i.e., setting $$J^{\left(V\right)}\left(k_{x}^{\left(V\right)}\right)=k_{x},\quad\forall x\in V;\label{eq:cm2}$$ $J^{\left(V\right)}$ extends by “closed span” to an isometry $\mathscr{H}_{V}\xrightarrow{J^{\left(V\right)}}\mathscr{H}$. It further follows from the lemma, that the range of $J^{\left(V\right)}$ may have infinite co-dimension.
Note that $P_{V}:=J^{\left(V\right)}\left(J^{\left(V\right)}\right)^{*}$ is the projection onto the range of $J^{\left(V\right)}$. The ortho-complement is as follow: $$\mathscr{H}\ominus\mathscr{H}_{V}=\left\{ \psi\in\mathscr{H}\:\big|\:\psi\left(x\right)=0,\;\forall x\in V\right\} .\label{eq:cm3}$$
Let $k$ and $k^{\left(V\right)}$ be as in (\[eq:cm2\]), and set $V:=\pi\mathbb{Z}_{+}$, i.e., integer multiples of $\pi$. Then easy generators of wavelet functions (see e.g., [@BJ02]) yield non-zero functions $\psi$ on $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ such that $$\psi\in\mathscr{H}\ominus\mathscr{H}_{V}.\label{eq:cm4}$$ More precisely, $$0<\int_{0}^{\infty}\left|\psi'\left(t\right)\right|^{2}dt<\infty,\label{eq:cm5}$$ where $\psi'$ is the distribution (weak) derivative; and $$\psi\left(n\pi\right)=0,\quad\forall n\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}.\label{eq:cm6}$$ An explicit solution to (\[eq:cm4\])-(\[eq:cm6\]) is $$\psi\left(t\right)=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\cos\left(\frac{t}{2^{n}}\right)=\frac{\sin t}{t},\quad\forall t\in\mathbb{R}.\label{eq:cm7}$$ From this, one easily generates an infinite-dimensional set of solutions.
\[sub:bm\]Brownian motion
-------------------------
Consider the covariance function of standard Brownian motion $B_{t}$, $t\in[0,\infty)$, i.e., a Gaussian process $\left\{ B_{t}\right\} $ with mean zero and covariance function $$\mathbb{E}\left(B_{s}B_{t}\right)=s\wedge t=\min\left(s,t\right).\label{eq:bm1}$$ We now show that the restriction of (\[eq:bm1\]) to $V\times V$ for an ordered subset (we fix such a set $V$): $$V:\;0<x_{1}<x_{2}<\cdots<x_{i}<x_{i+1}<\cdots\label{eq:bm2}$$ has the discrete mass property (Def. \[def:dmp\]).
Set $\mathscr{H}_{V}=RKHS(k\big|_{V\times V})$, $$k_{V}\left(x_{i},x_{j}\right)=x_{i}\wedge x_{j}.\label{eq:bm3}$$ We consider the set $F_{n}=\left\{ x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}\right\} $ of finite subsets of $V$, and $$K_{n}=k^{\left(F_{n}\right)}=\begin{bmatrix}x_{1} & x_{1} & x_{1} & \cdots & x_{1}\\
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{2} & \cdots & x_{2}\\
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & \cdots & x_{3}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & \cdots & x_{n}
\end{bmatrix}=\left(x_{i}\wedge x_{j}\right)_{i,j=1}^{n}.\label{eq:bm4}$$ We will show that condition \[enu:d3\] in Theorem \[thm:del\] holds for $k_{V}$. For this, we must compute all the determinants, $D_{n}=\det\left(K_{F}\right)$ etc. ($n=\#F$), see Corollary \[cor:sp\].
$$D_{n}=\det\left(\left(x_{i}\wedge x_{j}\right)_{i,j=1}^{n}\right)=x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)\left(x_{3}-x_{2}\right)\cdots\left(x_{n}-x_{n-1}\right).\label{eq:bm5}$$
Induction. In fact, $$\begin{bmatrix}x_{1} & x_{1} & x_{1} & \cdots & x_{1}\\
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{2} & \cdots & x_{2}\\
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & \cdots & x_{3}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & \cdots & x_{n}
\end{bmatrix}\sim\begin{bmatrix}x_{1} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & x_{2}-x_{1} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & 0 & x_{3}-x_{2} & \cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & \cdots & 0 & \cdots & x_{n}-x_{n-1}
\end{bmatrix},$$ unitary equivalence in finite dimensions.
Let $$\zeta_{\left(n\right)}:=K_{n}^{-1}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(\cdot\right)\label{eq:bm7}$$ be as in eq. (\[eq:pd8\]), so that $$\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{V}}^{2}=\zeta_{\left(n\right)}\left(x_{1}\right).\label{eq:bm8}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{\left(1\right)}\left(x_{1}\right) & = & \frac{1}{x_{1}}\\
\zeta_{\left(n\right)}\left(x_{1}\right) & = & \frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)},\quad\text{for}\; n=2,3,\ldots,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{V}}^{2}=\frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)}.$$
A direct computation shows the $\left(1,1\right)$ minor of the matrix $K_{n}^{-1}$ is $$D'_{n-1}=\det\left(\left(x_{i}\wedge x_{j}\right)_{i,j=2}^{n}\right)=x_{2}\left(x_{3}-x_{2}\right)\left(x_{4}-x_{3}\right)\cdots\left(x_{n}-x_{n-1}\right)\label{eq:bm6}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{\left(1\right)}\left(x_{1}\right) & = & \frac{1}{x_{1}},\quad\mbox{and}\\
\zeta_{\left(2\right)}\left(x_{1}\right) & = & \frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)}\\
\zeta_{\left(3\right)}\left(x_{1}\right) & = & \frac{x_{2}\left(x_{3}-x_{2}\right)}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)\left(x_{3}-x_{2}\right)}=\frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)}\\
\zeta_{\left(4\right)}\left(x_{1}\right) & = & \frac{x_{2}\left(x_{3}-x_{2}\right)\left(x_{4}-x_{3}\right)}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)\left(x_{3}-x_{2}\right)\left(x_{4}-x_{3}\right)}=\frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)}\\
& \vdots\end{aligned}$$ The result follows from this, and from Corollary \[cor:proj1\].
\[cor:proj\]$P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)=P_{F_{2}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)$, $\forall n\geq2$. Therefore, $$\delta_{x_{1}}\in\mathscr{H}_{V}^{\left(F_{2}\right)}:=span\{k_{x_{1}}^{\left(V\right)},k_{x_{2}}^{\left(V\right)}\}$$ and $$\delta_{x_{1}}=\zeta_{\left(2\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)k_{x_{1}}^{\left(V\right)}+\zeta_{\left(2\right)}\left(x_{2}\right)k_{x_{2}}^{\left(V\right)}$$ where $$\zeta_{\left(2\right)}\left(x_{i}\right)=K_{2}^{-1}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{i}\right),\; i=1,2.$$ Specifically, $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{\left(2\right)}\left(x_{1}\right) & = & \frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)}\\
\zeta_{\left(2\right)}\left(x_{2}\right) & = & \frac{-1}{x_{2}-x_{1}};\end{aligned}$$ and $$\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{V}}^{2}=\frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)}.\label{eq:dn}$$
Follows from the lemma. Note that $$\zeta_{n}\left(x_{1}\right)=\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}$$ and $\zeta_{\left(1\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)\leq\zeta_{\left(2\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)\leq\cdots$, since $F_{n}=\left\{ x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}\right\} $. In particular, $\frac{1}{x_{1}}\leq\frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)}$, which yields (\[eq:dn\]).
We showed that $\delta_{x_{1}}\in\mathscr{H}_{V}$, $V=\left\{ x_{1}<x_{2}<\cdots\right\} \subset\mathbb{R}_{+}$, with the restriction of $s\wedge t$ = the covariance kernel of Brownian motion.
The same argument also shows that $\delta_{x_{i}}\in\mathscr{H}_{V}$ when $i>1$. We only need to modify the index notation from the case of the proof for $\delta_{x_{1}}\in\mathscr{H}_{V}$. The details are sketched below.
Fix $V=\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty}$, $x_{1}<x_{2}<\cdots$, then $$P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{i}}\right)=\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if \ensuremath{n<i-1}}\\
\sum_{s=1}^{n}\left(K_{F_{n}}^{-1}\delta_{x_{i}}\right)\left(x_{s}\right)k_{x_{s}} & \text{if \ensuremath{n\geq i}}
\end{cases}$$ and $$\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{i}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if \ensuremath{n<i-1}}\\
\frac{1}{x_{i}-x_{i-1}} & \text{if \ensuremath{n=i}}\\
\frac{x_{i+1}-x_{i-1}}{\left(x_{i}-x_{i-1}\right)\left(x_{i+1}-x_{i}\right)} & \text{if \ensuremath{n>i}}
\end{cases}$$ **Conclusion.** $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{x_{i}} & \in & span\left\{ k_{x_{i-1}}^{\left(V\right)},k_{x_{i}}^{\left(V\right)},k_{x_{i+1}}^{\left(V\right)}\right\} ,\quad\mbox{and}\\
\left\Vert \delta_{x_{i}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2} & = & \frac{x_{i+1}-x_{i-1}}{\left(x_{i}-x_{i-1}\right)\left(x_{i+1}-x_{i}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $V\subset\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be countable. If $x_{a}\in V$ is an accumulation point (from $V$), then $\left\Vert \delta_{a}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{V}}=\infty$.
This computation will be revisited in sect. \[sec:net\], in a much wider context.
An illustration for $0<x_{1}<x_{2}<x_{3}<x_{4}$: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{F}\left(\delta_{x_{3}}\right) & = & \sum_{y\in F}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(y\right)k_{y}\left(\cdot\right)\\
\zeta^{\left(F\right)} & = & K_{F}^{-1}\delta_{x_{3}}\;.\end{aligned}$$ That is, $$\underset{\left(K_{F}\left(x_{i},x_{j}\right)\right)_{i,j=1}^{4}}{\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}x_{1} & x_{1} & x_{1} & x_{1}\\
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{2} & x_{2}\\
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & x_{3}\\
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & x_{4}
\end{bmatrix}}}\begin{bmatrix}\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{1}\right)\\
\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{2}\right)\\
\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{3}\right)\\
\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{4}\right)
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}0\\
0\\
1\\
0
\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta^{\left(F\right)}\left(x_{3}\right) & = & \frac{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)\left(x_{4}-x_{2}\right)}{x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)\left(x_{3}-x_{2}\right)\left(x_{4}-x_{3}\right)}\\
& = & \frac{x_{4}-x_{2}}{\left(x_{3}-x_{2}\right)\left(x_{4}-x_{3}\right)}=\left\Vert \delta_{x_{3}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $V=\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty}$, where $$x_{i}=\frac{i\left(i-1\right)}{2},\quad i\in\mathbb{N}.$$ It follows that $x_{i+1}-x_{i}=i$, and so $$\left\Vert \delta_{x_{i}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\frac{x_{i+1}-x_{i}}{\left(x_{i}-x_{i-1}\right)\left(x_{i+1}-x_{i}\right)}=\frac{2i-1}{\left(i-1\right)i}\xrightarrow[i\rightarrow\infty]{}0.$$ **Conclusion.** $\left\Vert \delta_{x_{i}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}\xrightarrow[i\rightarrow\infty]{}0$ if the set $V=\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty}\subset\mathbb{R}_{+}$ is sparse.
Now, some general facts:
Let $k:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ be p.d., and let $\mathscr{H}$ be the corresponding RKHS. If $x_{1}\in V$, and if $\delta_{x_{1}}$ has a representation as follows: $$\delta_{x_{1}}=\sum_{y\in V}\zeta^{\left(x_{1}\right)}\left(y\right)k_{y}\;,\label{eq:pr1}$$ then $$\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\zeta^{\left(x_{1}\right)}\left(x_{1}\right).\label{eq:pr2}$$
Substitute both sides of (\[eq:pr1\]) into $\left\langle \delta_{x_{1}},\cdot\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}$ where $\left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}$ denotes the inner product in $\mathscr{H}$.
**Application.** Suppose $V=\cup_{n}F_{n}$, $F_{n}\subset F_{n+1}$, where each $F_{n}\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, then if $x_{1}\in F_{n}$, we have $$P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)=\sum_{y\in F_{n}}\left\langle x_{1},K_{F_{n}}^{-1}y\right\rangle _{l^{2}}k_{y}\label{eq:pr3}$$ and $$\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\left\langle x_{1},K_{F_{n}}^{-1}x_{1}\right\rangle _{l^{2}}=\left(K_{F_{n}}^{-1}\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\left(x_{1}\right)\label{eq:pr4}$$ and the expression $\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}$ is monotone in $n$, i.e., $$\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\leq\left\Vert P_{F_{n+1}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\leq\cdots\leq\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}$$ with $$\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}.$$
Let $k:\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be positive definite, and let $V\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}$ be a countable discrete subset, e.g., $V=\mathbb{Z}^{d}$. When does $k\big|_{V\times V}$ have the property?
Examples of the affirmative, or not, will be discussed below.
Discrete RKHS from restrictions
-------------------------------
Let $D:=[0,\infty)$, and $k:D\times D\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, with $$k\left(x,y\right)=x\wedge y=\min\left(x,y\right).$$ Restrict to $V:=\left\{ 0\right\} \cup\mathbb{Z}_{+}\subset D$, i.e., consider $$k^{\left(V\right)}=k\big|_{V\times V}.$$ $\mathscr{H}\left(k\right)$: Cameron-Martin Hilbert space, consisting of functions $f\in L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ s.t. $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\left|f'\left(x\right)\right|^{2}dx<\infty,\quad f\left(0\right)=0.$$ $\mathscr{H}_{V}:=\mathscr{H}\left(k_{V}\right)$. Note that $$f\in\mathscr{H}\left(k_{V}\right)\Longleftrightarrow\sum_{n}\left|f\left(n\right)-f\left(n+1\right)\right|^{2}<\infty.$$
We have $\delta_{n}=2k_{n}-k_{n+1}-k_{n-1}$.
Introduce the discrete Laplacian $\Delta$, where $$\left(\Delta f\right)\left(n\right)=2f\left(n\right)-f\left(n-1\right)-f\left(n+1\right),$$ then $\Delta k_{n}=\delta_{n}$, and $$\left\langle 2k_{n}-k_{n+1}-k_{n-1},k_{m}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}_{V}}=\left\langle \delta_{n},k_{m}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}_{V}}=\delta_{n,m}.$$
The same argument as in the proof of the lemma shows (*mutatis mutandis*) that any ordered discrete countable infinite subset $V\subset[0,\infty)$ yields $$\mathscr{H}_{V}:=\mathscr{H}\left(k\big|_{V\times V}\right)$$ as a RKHS which is discrete in that (Def. \[def:dmp\]) if $V=\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty}$, $x_{i}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}$, then $\delta_{x_{i}}\in\mathscr{H}_{V}$, $\forall i\in\mathbb{N}$.
Fix vertices $V=\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty}$, $$0<x_{1}<x_{2}<\cdots<x_{i}<x_{i+1}<\infty,\quad x_{i}\rightarrow\infty.$$ Assign conductance $$c_{i,i+1}=c_{i+1,i}=\frac{1}{x_{i+1}-x_{i}}\left(=\frac{1}{\text{dist}}\right)$$ Let $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Delta f\right)\left(x_{i}\right) & = & \left(\frac{1}{x_{i+1}-x_{i}}+\frac{1}{x_{i}-x_{i-1}}\right)f\left(x_{i}\right)\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{x_{i}-x_{i-1}}f\left(x_{i-1}\right)-\frac{1}{x_{i+1}-x_{i}}f\left(x_{i+1}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Equivalently, $$\left(\Delta f\right)\left(x_{i}\right)=\left(c_{i,i+1}+c_{i,i-1}\right)f\left(x_{i}\right)-c_{i,i-1}f\left(x_{i-1}\right)-c_{i,i+1}f\left(x_{i+1}\right).\label{eq:glap}$$
The most general graph-Laplacians will be discussed in detail in sect. \[sec:net\] below.
Then, with (\[eq:glap\]) we have: $$\Delta k_{x_{i}}=\delta_{x_{i}}$$ where $k\left(\cdot,\cdot\right)=$ restriction of $s\wedge t$ from $[0,\infty)\times[0,\infty)$ to $V\times V$; and therefore $$\delta_{x_{i}}=\left(c_{i,i+1}+c_{i,i-1}\right)k_{x_{i}}-c_{i,i+1}k_{x_{i+1}}-c_{i,i-1}k_{x_{i-1}}\in\mathscr{H}_{V}$$ as the RHS in the last equation is a finite sum. Note that now the RKHS is $$\mathscr{H}_{V}=\left\{ f:V\rightarrow\mathbb{C}\:\big|\:\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}c_{i,i+1}\left|f\left(x_{i+1}\right)-f\left(x_{i}\right)\right|^{2}<\infty\right\} .$$
The Brownian bridge
-------------------
Let $D:=\left(0,1\right)=$ the open interval $0<t<1$, and set $$k_{bridge}\left(s,t\right):=s\wedge t-st;\label{eq:bb1}$$ then (\[eq:bb1\]) is the covariance function for the Brownian bridge $B_{bri}\left(t\right)$, i.e., $$B_{bri}\left(0\right)=B_{bri}\left(1\right)=0\label{eq:bb2}$$
![\[fig:bb\]Brownian bridge $B_{bri}\left(t\right)$, a simulation of three sample paths of the Brownian bridge.](bb){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
$$B_{bri}\left(t\right)=\left(1-t\right)B\left(\frac{t}{1-t}\right),\quad0<t<1;\label{eq:bb3}$$
where $B\left(t\right)$ is Brownian motion; see Lemma \[lem:mc1\].
The corresponding Cameron-Martin space is now $$\mathscr{H}_{bri}=\left\{ f\;\mbox{on}\:\left[0,1\right];f'\in L^{2}\left(0,1\right),f\left(0\right)=f\left(1\right)=0\right\} \label{eq:bb4}$$ with $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{bri}}^{2}:=\int_{0}^{1}\left|f'\left(s\right)\right|^{2}ds<\infty.\label{eq:bb5}$$
If $V=\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty}$, $x_{1}<x_{2}<\cdots<1$, is the discrete subset of $D$, then we have for $F_{n}\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, $F_{n}=\left\{ x_{1},x_{2},\cdots,x_{n}\right\} $, $$K_{F_{n}}=\left(k_{bridge}\left(x_{i},x_{j}\right)\right)_{i,j=1}^{n},\label{eq:bb6}$$ see (\[eq:bb1\]), and $$\det K_{F_{n}}=x_{1}\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)\cdots\left(x_{n}-x_{n-1}\right)\left(1-x_{n}\right).\label{eq:bb7}$$
As a result, we get $\delta_{x_{i}}\in\mathscr{H}_{V}^{\left(bri\right)}$ for all $i$, and $$\left\Vert \delta_{x_{i}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{V}^{\left(bri\right)}}^{2}=\frac{x_{i+1}-x_{i-1}}{\left(x_{i+1}-x_{i}\right)\left(x_{i}-x_{i-1}\right)}.$$ Note $\lim_{x_{i}\rightarrow1}\left\Vert \delta_{x_{i}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{V}^{\left(bri\right)}}^{2}=\infty$.
Binomial RKHS
-------------
Let $V=\mathbb{Z}_{+}\cup\left\{ 0\right\} $; and $$k_{b}\left(x,y\right):=\sum_{n=0}^{x\wedge y}\binom{x}{n}\binom{y}{n},\quad\left(x,y\right)\in V\times V.$$ where $\binom{x}{n}=\frac{x\left(x-1\right)\cdots\left(x-n+1\right)}{n!}$ denotes the standard binomial coefficient from the binomial expansion.
Let $\mathscr{H}=\mathscr{H}\left(k_{b}\right)$ be the corresponding RKHS. Set $$e_{n}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
\binom{x}{n} & \text{if \ensuremath{n\leq x}}\\
0 & \text{if \ensuremath{n>x}}.
\end{cases}\label{eq:b1}$$
\[lem:b1\]
1. $e_{n}\left(\cdot\right)\in\mathscr{H}$, $n\in V$;
2. $\left\{ e_{n}\right\} _{n\in V}$ is an orthonormal basis (ONB) in the Hilbert space $\mathscr{H}$.
3. Set $F_{n}=\left\{ 0,1,2,\ldots,n\right\} $, and $$P_{F_{n}}=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left|e_{k}\left\rangle \right\langle e_{k}\right|\label{eq:b2}$$ or equivalently $$P_{F_{n}}f=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left\langle e_{k},f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}e_{k}\,.\label{eq:b3}$$
then,
1. Formula (\[eq:b3\]) is well defined for all functions $f:V\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$, $f\in\mathscr{F}unc\left(V\right)$.
<!-- -->
1. Given $f\in\mathscr{F}unc\left(V\right)$; then $$f\in\mathscr{H}\Longleftrightarrow\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left|\left\langle e_{k},f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\right|^{2}<\infty;\label{eq:b4}$$ and, in this case, $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left|\left\langle e_{k},f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\right|^{2}.$$
Fix $x_{1}\in V$, then we shall apply Lemma \[lem:b1\] to the function $f_{1}=\delta_{x_{1}}$ (in $\mathscr{F}unc\left(V\right)$), $f_{1}\left(y\right)=\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if \ensuremath{y=x_{1}}}\\
0 & \text{if \ensuremath{y\neq x_{1}}.}
\end{cases}$
\[thm:bino\]We have $$\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\sum_{k=x_{1}}^{n}\binom{k}{x_{1}}^{2}.$$
The proof of the theorem will be subdivided in steps; see below.
1. \[enu:b1\]For $\forall m,n\in V$, such that $m\leq n$, we have $$\delta_{m,n}=\sum_{j=m}^{n}\left(-1\right)^{m+j}\binom{n}{j}\binom{j}{m}.\label{eq:b5}$$
2. \[enu:b2\]For all $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}$, the inverse of the following lower triangle matrix is this: With (see Fig \[fig:L\]) $$L_{xy}^{\left(n\right)}=\begin{cases}
\binom{x}{y} & \text{if \ensuremath{y\leq x\leq n}}\\
0 & \text{if \ensuremath{x<y}}
\end{cases}\label{eq:b6}$$ we have: $$\left(L^{\left(n\right)}\right)_{xy}^{-1}=\begin{cases}
\left(-1\right)^{x-y}\binom{x}{y} & \text{if \ensuremath{y\leq x\leq n}}\\
0 & \text{if \ensuremath{x<y}}.
\end{cases}\label{eq:b7}$$
Notation: The numbers in (\[eq:b7\]) are the entries of the matrix $\left(L^{\left(n\right)}\right)^{-1}$.
We refer to [@AJ15]. In rough outline, \[enu:b2\] follows from \[enu:b1\].
$$L^{\left(n\right)}=\begin{bmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & \cdots & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & \cdots & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
1 & 2 & 1 & 0 & & & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots\\
1 & 3 & 3 & 1 & \ddots & & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & 1 & 0 & & \vdots & \vdots\\
1 & \cdots & \binom{x}{y} & \binom{x}{y+1} & \cdots & * & 1 & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & & & \ddots & 0 & \vdots\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & & & & 1 & 0\\
1 & \cdots & \binom{n}{y} & \binom{n}{y+1} & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & n & 1
\end{bmatrix}$$
\[cor:bino\]Let $k_{b}$, $\mathscr{H}$, and $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ be as above with the lower triangle matrix $L_{n}$. Set $$K_{n}\left(x,y\right)=k_{b}\left(x,y\right),\quad\left(x,y\right)\in F_{n}\times F_{n},\label{eq:b8}$$ i.e., an $\left(n+1\right)\times\left(n+1\right)$ matrix.
1. Then $K_{n}$ is invertible with $$K_{n}^{-1}=\left(L_{n}^{tr}\right)^{-1}\left(L_{n}\right)^{-1};\label{eq:b9}$$ an $(\text{upper triangle})\times(\text{lower triangle})$ factorization.
2. For the diagonal entries in the $\left(n+1\right)\times\left(n+1\right)$ matrix $K_{n}^{-1}$, we have: $$\left\langle x,K_{n}^{-1}x\right\rangle _{l^{2}}=\sum_{k=x}^{n}\binom{k}{x}^{2}$$
**Conclusion.** Since $$\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\left\langle x_{1},K_{n}^{-1}x_{1}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}\label{eq:b11}$$ for all $x_{1}\in F_{n}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert P_{F_{n}}\left(\delta_{x_{1}}\right)\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2} & = & \sum_{k=x_{1}}^{n}\binom{k}{x_{1}}^{2}\nonumber \\
& = & 1+\binom{x_{1}+1}{x_{1}}^{2}+\binom{x_{1}+2}{x_{1}}^{2}+\cdots+\binom{n}{x_{1}}^{2};\label{eq:b12}\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, $$\left\Vert \delta_{x_{1}}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\sum_{k=x_{1}}^{\infty}\binom{k}{x_{1}}^{2}=\infty.$$ In other words, no $\delta_{x}$ is in $\mathscr{H}$.
\[sec:net\]Infinite network of resistors
========================================
Here we introduce a family of positive definite kernels $k:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, defined on infinite sets $V$ of vertices for a given graph $G=\left(V,E\right)$ with edges $E\subset V\times V\backslash(\text{diagonal})$.
There is a large literature dealing with analysis on infinite graphs; see e.g., [@JP10; @JP11; @JP13]; see also [@OS05; @BCF07; @CJ11].
Our main purpose here is to point out that every assignment of resistors on the edges $E$ in $G$ yields a p.d. kernel $k$, and an associated RKHS $\mathscr{H}=\mathscr{H}\left(k\right)$ such that $$\delta_{x}\in\mathscr{H},\quad\text{for all \ensuremath{x\in V}.}\label{eq:g1}$$
\[def:g\]Let $G=\left(V,E\right)$ be as above. Assume
1. $\left(x,y\right)\in E\Longleftrightarrow\left(y,x\right)\in E$;
2. $\exists c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ (a conductance function = 1 / resistance) such that
1. \[enu:g1\] $c_{\left(xy\right)}=c_{\left(yx\right)}$, $\forall\left(xy\right)\in E$;
2. \[enu:g2\]for all $x\in V$, $\#\left\{ y\in V\:|\: c_{\left(xy\right)}>0\right\} <\infty$; and
3. $\exists o\in V$ s.t. for $\forall x\in V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} $, $\exists$ edges $\left(x_{i},x_{i+1}\right)_{0}^{n-1}\in E$ s.t. $x_{o}=0$, and $x_{n}=x$; called connectedness.
Given $G=\left(V,E\right)$, and a fixed conductance function $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ as specified above, we now define a corresponding Laplace operator $\Delta=\Delta^{\left(c\right)}$ acting on functions on $V$, i.e., on $\mathscr{F}unc\left(V\right)$ by $$\left(\Delta f\right)\left(x\right)=\sum_{y\sim x}c_{xy}\left(f\left(x\right)-f\left(y\right)\right).\label{eq:g2}$$
Let $\mathscr{H}$ be the Hilbert space defined as follows: A function $f$ on $V$ is in $\mathscr{H}$ iff $f\left(o\right)=0$, and $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}:=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\underset{\subset V\times V}{\left(x,y\right)\in E}}{\sum\sum}c_{xy}\left|f\left(x\right)-f\left(y\right)\right|^{2}<\infty.\label{eq:g3}$$
\[lem:lap2\]For all $x\in V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} $, $\exists v_{x}\in\mathscr{H}$ s.t. $$f\left(x\right)-f\left(o\right)=\left\langle v_{x},f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}},\quad\forall f\in\mathscr{H}\label{eq:g4}$$ where $$\left\langle h,f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\left(x,y\right)\in E}{\sum\sum}c_{xy}\left(\overline{h\left(x\right)}-\overline{h\left(y\right)}\right)\left(f\left(x\right)-f\left(y\right)\right),\quad\forall h,f\in\mathscr{H}.\label{eq:g41}$$ (The system $\left\{ v_{x}\right\} $ is called a system of . )
Let $x\in V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} $, and use (\[eq:g2\]) together with the Schwarz-inequality to show that $$\left|f\left(x\right)-f\left(o\right)\right|^{2}\leq\sum_{i}\frac{1}{c_{x_{i}x_{i+1}}}\sum_{i}c_{x_{i}x_{i+1}}\left|f\left(x_{i}\right)-f\left(x_{i+1}\right)\right|^{2}.$$ An application of Riesz’ lemma then yields the desired conclusion.
Note that $v_{x}=v_{x}^{\left(c\right)}$ depends on the choice of base point $o\in V$, and on conductance function $c$; see \[enu:g1\]-\[enu:g2\] and (\[eq:g3\]).
Now set $$k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)=\left\langle v_{x},v_{y}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}},\quad\forall\left(xy\right)\in\left(V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} \right)\times\left(V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} \right).\label{eq:g5}$$ It follows from a theorem that $k^{\left(c\right)}$ is a Green’s function for the Laplacian $\Delta^{\left(c\right)}$ in the sense that $$\Delta^{\left(c\right)}k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,\cdot\right)=\delta_{x}\label{eq:g6}$$ where the dot in (\[eq:g6\]) is the dummy-variable in the action. (Note that the solution to (\[eq:g6\]) is not unique.)
Let $G=\left(V,E\right)$, and conductance function $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be a s specified above; then $k^{\left(c\right)}$ in (\[eq:g5\]) is positive definite, and the corresponding RKHS $\mathscr{H}\left(k^{\left(c\right)}\right)$ is the Hilbert space introduced in (\[eq:g3\]) and (\[eq:g41\]), called the energy-Hilbert space.
See [@JP10; @JP11; @JP13].
Let $x\in V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} $, and let $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be specified as above. Let $\mathscr{H}=\mathscr{H}\left(k^{c}\right)$ be the corresponding RKHS. Then $\delta_{x}\in\mathscr{H}$, and $$\left\Vert \delta_{x}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\sum_{y\sim x}c_{\left(xy\right)}=:c\left(x\right).\label{eq:g7}$$
We study the finite matrices, defined for $\forall F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, by $$K_{F}\left(x,y\right)=k^{c}\left(x,y\right),\quad\left(x,y\right)\in F\times F.\label{eq:g8}$$ Fix $x\in V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} $, and pick $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$ such that $$\left\{ x\right\} \cup\left\{ y\in V\:|\: y\sim x\right\} \subset F,\label{eq:g9}$$ see Fig \[fig:nb\]; an interior point:
![\[fig:nb\]Neighborhood of $x$, see Def. \[def:g\] \[enu:g2\]. An interior point $x$. ](nhb){width="60.00000%"}
Let $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$ be as in (\[eq:g8\]) and in Fig \[fig:nb\], and let $\Delta=\Delta^{\left(c\right)}$ be the Laplace operator (\[eq:g2\]), then for all $\left(x,y\right)\in F\times F$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle x,K_{F}^{-1}y\right\rangle _{l^{2}} & = & \left\langle \delta_{x},\Delta\delta_{y}\right\rangle _{l^{2}}\nonumber \\
& = & \left(\Delta\delta_{y}\right)\left(x\right)\nonumber \\
& = & \begin{cases}
c\left(x\right) & \text{if \ensuremath{y=x}; see }\left(\ref{eq:g7}\right)\\
-c_{\left(xy\right)} & \text{if \ensuremath{y\sim x}}\\
0 & \text{for all other values of \ensuremath{y}}
\end{cases}\label{eq:g10}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\sup_{F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)}\left(K_{F}\delta_{x}\right)\left(x\right)<\infty;$$ and in fact, $$\left\Vert \delta_{x}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=c\left(x\right),\;\text{for all \ensuremath{x\in V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} },}$$ as claimed in the Proposition.
The last step in the present proof uses the equivalence \[enu:d1\]$\Leftrightarrow$\[enu:d2\]$\Leftrightarrow$\[enu:d3\] from Theorem \[thm:del\] above.
Finally, we note that the assertion in (\[eq:g10\]) follows from $$\Delta v_{x}=\delta_{x}-\delta_{o},\quad\forall x\in V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} .\label{eq:g11}$$ And (\[eq:g11\]) in turn follows from (\[eq:g4\]), (\[eq:g2\]) and a straightforward computation.
\[cor:lap1\]Let $G=\left(V,E\right)$ and conductance $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be as specified above. Let $\Delta=\Delta^{\left(c\right)}$ be the corresponding Laplace operator. Let $\mathscr{H}=\mathscr{H}\left(k^{c}\right)$ be the RKHS. Then $$\left\langle \delta_{x},f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}}=\left(\Delta f\right)\left(x\right)\label{eq:g12}$$ and $$\delta_{x}=c\left(x\right)v_{x}-\sum_{y\sim x}c_{xy}v_{y}\label{eq:g121}$$ holds for all $x\in V$.
Since the system $\left\{ v_{x}\right\} $ of dipoles (see (\[eq:g4\])) span a dense subspace in $\mathscr{H}$, it is enough to verify (\[eq:g12\]) when $f=v_{y}$ for $y\in V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} $. But in this case, (\[eq:g12\]) follows from (\[eq:g6\]) and (\[eq:g10\]).
\[cor:lap4\]Let $G=\left(V,E\right)$, and conductance $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be as before; let $\Delta^{\left(c\right)}$ be the Laplace operator, and $\mathscr{H}_{E}^{\left(c\right)}$ the energy-Hilbert space in Definition \[def:g\] (see (\[eq:g3\])). Let $k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)=\left\langle v_{x},v_{y}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}$ be the kernel from (\[eq:g5\]), i.e., the Green’s function of $\Delta^{\left(c\right)}$. Then the two Hilbert spaces $\mathscr{H}_{E}$, and $\mathscr{H}\left(k^{\left(c\right)}\right)=RKHS\left(k^{\left(c\right)}\right)$, are naturally isometrically isomorphic via $v_{x}\longmapsto k_{x}^{\left(c\right)}$ where $k_{x}^{\left(c\right)}=k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,\cdot\right)$ for all $x\in V$.
Let $F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, and let $\xi$ be a function on $F$; then $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert \sum\nolimits _{x\in F}\xi\left(x\right)k_{x}^{\left(c\right)}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}\left(k^{\left(c\right)}\right)}^{2} & = & \underset{F\times F}{\sum\sum}\overline{\xi\left(x\right)}\xi\left(y\right)k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)\\
& \underset{\left(\ref{eq:g5}\right)}{=} & \underset{F\times F}{\sum\sum}\overline{\xi\left(x\right)}\xi\left(y\right)\left\langle v_{x},v_{y}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}\\
& = & \left\Vert \sum\nolimits _{x\in F}\xi\left(x\right)v_{x}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
The remaining steps in the proof of the Corollary now follows from the standard completion from dense subspaces in the respective two Hilbert spaces $\mathscr{H}_{E}$ and $\mathscr{H}\left(k^{\left(c\right)}\right)$.
In the following we show how the kernels $k^{\left(c\right)}:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ from (\[eq:g5\]) in Lemma \[lem:lap2\] are related to metrics on $V$; so called *resistance metrics* (see, e.g., [@JP10; @AJSV13].)
\[cor:lap2\]Let $G=\left(V,E\right)$, and conductance $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be as above; and let $k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right):=\left\langle v_{x},v_{y}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}$ be the corresponding Green’s function for the graph Laplacian $\Delta^{\left(c\right)}$.
Then there is a $R\left(=R^{\left(c\right)}=\mbox{the resistance metric}\right)$, such that $$k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)=\frac{R^{\left(c\right)}\left(o,x\right)+R^{\left(c\right)}\left(o,y\right)-R^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)}{2}\label{eq:gm1}$$ holds on $V\times V$. Here the base-point $o\in V$ is chosen and fixed s.t. $$\left\langle V_{x},f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}=f\left(x\right)-f\left(o\right),\quad\forall f\in\mathscr{H}_{E},\;\forall x\in V.\label{eq:gm2}$$
See [@JP10]. Set $$R^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)=\left\Vert v_{x}-v_{y}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}^{2}.\label{eq:gm3}$$ We proved in [@JP10] that $R^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)$ in (\[eq:gm3\]) indeed defines a metric on $V$; the so called *resistance metric*. It represents the voltage-drop from $x$ to $y$ when 1 Amp is fed into $\left(G,c\right)$ at the point $x$, and then extracted at $y$.
The verification of (\[eq:gm1\]) is now an easy computation, as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{R^{\left(c\right)}\left(o,x\right)+R^{\left(c\right)}\left(o,y\right)-R^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)}{2}\\
& = & \frac{\left\Vert v_{x}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}^{2}+\left\Vert v_{y}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}^{2}-\left\Vert v_{x}-v_{y}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}^{2}}{2}\\
& = & \left\langle v_{x},v_{y}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}\\
& = & k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)\quad\mbox{by \ensuremath{\left(\ref{eq:g5}\right)}.}\end{aligned}$$
In the two cases: (i) $B\left(t\right)$, Brownian motion on $0<t<\infty$; and (ii) the Brownian bridge $B_{bri}\left(t\right)$, $0<t<1$, from sect. \[sec:egs\], the corresponding resistance metric $R$ is as follows:
1. If $V=\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty}\subset\left(0,\infty\right)$, $x_{1}<x_{2}<\cdots$, then $$R_{B}^{\left(V\right)}\left(x_{i},x_{j}\right)=\left|x_{i}-x_{j}\right|.$$
2. If $W=\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty}\subset\left(0,1\right)$, $0<x_{1}<x_{2}<\cdots<1$, then $$R_{bridge}^{\left(W\right)}\left(x_{i},x_{j}\right)=\left|x_{i}-x_{j}\right|\cdot\left(1-\left|x_{i}-x_{j}\right|\right).$$ In the completion w.r.t. the resistance metric $R_{bridge}^{\left(W\right)}$, the two endpoints $x=0$ and $x=1$ are identified; see also Fig \[fig:bb\].
Gaussian Processes
------------------
A *Gaussian realization* of an infinite graph-network $G=\left(V,E\right)$, with prescribed conductance function $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$, and *dipoles* $\left(v_{x}^{c}\right)_{x\in V\backslash\left\{ o\right\} }$, is a Gaussian process $\left(X_{x}\right)_{x\in V}$ on a probability space $\left(\Omega,\mathscr{F},\mathbb{P}\right)$, where $\Omega$ is a sample space; $\mathscr{F}$ a sigma-algebra of events, and $\mathbb{P}$ a probability measure s.t., for $\forall F\in\mathscr{F}\left(V\right)$, the random variables $\left(X_{x}\right)_{x\in F}$, are jointly Gaussian with $$\mathbb{E}\left(X_{x}\right)=\int_{\Omega}X_{x}d\mathbb{P}=0$$ and covariance $$\mathbb{E}\left(X_{x}X_{y}\right)=k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)=\left\langle v_{x}^{\left(c\right)},v_{y}^{\left(c\right)}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}_{E}};\label{eq:gfc}$$ i.e., the covariance matrix $\left(\mathbb{E}\left(X_{x}X_{y}\right)\right)_{\left(x,y\right)\in F\times F}$ is $$K_{F}\left(x,y\right):=k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)\;\mbox{on \ensuremath{F\times F.}}$$
For all $G=\left(V,E\right)$, and $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$, as specified, Gaussian realizations exist; they are called .
\[cor:lap3\]Let $G=\left(V,E\right)$, $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be as above; and let $\left(X_{x}\right)_{x\in V}$ be an associated Gaussian free field. Then the point Dirac-masses $\left(\delta_{x}\right)_{x\in V}$ have Gaussian realizations $$\widetilde{\delta_{x}}=c\left(x\right)X_{x}-\sum_{y\sim x}c_{xy}X_{y},\quad\forall x\in V.$$
\[cor:Lap3\]Let $G=\left(V,E\right)$, and $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be as above. Let $\left\{ X_{x}\right\} _{x\in V}$ be the corresponding Gaussian free field, i.e., with correlation $$\mathbb{E}\left(X_{x}X_{y}\right)=k^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)=\left\langle v_{x}^{\left(c\right)},v_{y}^{\left(c\right)}\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}\label{eq:gf1}$$ where the dipoles $\{v_{x}^{\left(c\right)}\}\subset\mathscr{H}_{E}$ are computed w.r.t. a chosen (and fixed) based-point $o\in V$, i.e., $$\left\langle v_{x}^{\left(c\right)},f\right\rangle _{\mathscr{H}_{E}}=f\left(x\right)-f\left(o\right),\quad\forall f\in\mathscr{H}_{E},\; x\in V.\label{eq:gf2}$$ Finally, let $R^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right)$ be the corresponding resistance metric on $V$. Then $$\mathbb{E}\left(X_{x}X_{z}\right)+\mathbb{E}\left(X_{z}X_{y}\right)\leq\mathbb{E}\left(X_{x}X_{y}\right)+R^{\left(c\right)}\left(o,z\right)\label{eq:gf3}$$ holds for all vertices $x,y,z\in V$; see Fig \[fig:gf\].
Use Corollary \[cor:lap2\], and (\[eq:gm3\]). We have $$\left\Vert v_{x}-v_{y}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\leq\left\Vert v_{x}-v_{z}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}+\left\Vert v_{z}-v_{y}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2},$$ and (\[eq:gf3\]) now follows from (\[eq:gfc\]).
![\[fig:gf\]Covariance vs resistance distance $R^{\left(c\right)}\left(o,z\right)$ for three vertices $x,y,z\in V$.](gfield){width="50.00000%"}
Metric Completion
-----------------
The next theorem illustrates a connection between the universal property of a kernel in a RKHS $\mathscr{H}$, on the one hand, and the distribution of the Dirac point-masses $\delta_{x}$, on the other. We make distribution precise by the quantity $E\left(x\right):=\Vert\delta_{x}\Vert_{\mathscr{H}}^{2}$, the energy of the point-mass at the vertex point $x$. We introduce a metric completion $M$, and the universal property of the RKHS $\mathscr{H}$ asserts that the functions from $\mathscr{H}$ are continuous and $1/2$-Lipschitz on $M$, and that they approximate every continuous function on $M$ in the uniform norm. Recall, the vertex set $V$ is equipped with its resistance metric. The universal property here refers to the corresponding metric completion $M$ of the discrete vertex set. In the interesting cases (see e.g., Example \[exa:btree\]), $M$ is a continuum; – in the case of the example below, the boundary of $V$ is a Cantor set. One expects the value of $E\left(x\right)$ to go to infinity as $x$ approaches the boundary $M$, and this is illustrated in the example; with an explicit formula for $E\left(x\right)$.
Of special interest is the class of networks $(V,E)$ where the resistance metric $R$ (on the given vertex vertex-set $V$) is bounded; see \[enu:m2\] in Theorem \[thm:mc\] below. This class of networks, for which the diameter of $V$ measured in the resistance metric $R$ is bounded, includes networks having lots of edges with resistors occurring in parallel; see e.g., [@JP11].
\[thm:mc\]Let $G=\left(V,E\right)$, $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be as above, and let $R^{\left(c\right)}:V\times V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be the resistance-metric (see (\[eq:gm3\])). Let $M$ be the metric completion of $\left(V,R^{\left(c\right)}\right)$. Then:
1. \[enu:m1\] For every $f\in\mathscr{H}$, the function $$V\ni x\longmapsto f\left(x\right)\in\mathbb{C}\label{eq:m1}$$ extends by closure to a uniformly continuous function $\widetilde{f}:M\mapsto\mathbb{C}$.
2. \[enu:m2\]If $R^{\left(c\right)}$ is assumed , then the RKHS $\mathscr{H}$ is an algebra under point-wise product: $$\left(f_{1}f_{2}\right)\left(x\right)=f_{1}\left(x\right)f_{2}\left(x\right),\quad f_{i}\in\mathscr{H},\: i=1,2,\: x\in V.\label{eq:m2}$$
3. \[enu:m3\]If $M$ is , then $\{\widetilde{f}\:|\: f\in\mathscr{H}\}$ is dense in $C\left(M\right)$ in the uniform norm.
The assertions in \[enu:m1\] follow from the following two estimates:
Let $f\in\mathscr{H}$, then $$\left|f\left(x\right)-f\left(y\right)\right|^{2}\leq\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}R^{\left(c\right)}\left(x,y\right),\quad\forall x,y\in V;\label{eq:m3}$$ and $$\left|f\left(x\right)\right|\leq\left|f\left(o\right)\right|+R^{\left(c\right)}\left(o,x\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\label{eq:m4}$$ The estimates in (\[eq:m3\])-(\[eq:m4\]), in turn, follow from Corollaries \[cor:lap4\] and \[cor:lap2\].
To prove \[enu:m2\], we compute the energy-norm of the product $f_{1}\cdot f_{2}$ where $f_{i}\in\mathscr{H}$, $i=1,2$; and we use Corollary \[cor:lap4\]: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum_{x}\sum_{y}c_{xy}\left|f_{1}\left(x\right)f_{2}\left(x\right)-f_{1}\left(y\right)f_{2}\left(y\right)\right|^{2}\\
& = & \sum_{x}\sum_{y}c_{xy}\left|\left(f_{1}\left(x\right)-f_{1}\left(y\right)\right)f_{2}\left(x\right)+f_{1}\left(y\right)\left(f_{2}\left(x\right)-f_{2}\left(y\right)\right)\right|^{2}\\
& \leq & \sum_{x}\sum_{y}c_{xy}\left(\left|f_{1}\left(x\right)-f_{1}\left(y\right)\right|^{2}+\left|f_{2}\left(x\right)-f_{2}\left(y\right)\right|^{2}\right)\cdot\left(\left|f_{2}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}+\left|f_{1}\left(y\right)\right|^{2}\right)\\
& & \left(\text{by Schwarz inside}\right)\\
& \leq & \left(\left\Vert f_{1}\right\Vert _{\infty}^{2}+\left\Vert f_{2}\right\Vert _{\infty}^{2}\right)\cdot\left(\left\Vert f_{1}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}+\left\Vert f_{2}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\right);\end{aligned}$$ and we note that the RHS is finite subject to the assumption in \[enu:m2\].
Proof of \[enu:m3\]: We are assuming here that $M$ is *compact*, and we shall apply the Stone-Weierstrass theorem to the subalgebra $$\left\{ \widetilde{f}\:\big|\: f\in\mathscr{H}\right\} \subset C\left(M\right).\label{eq:m5}$$ Indeed, the conditions for Stone-Weierstrass are satisfied: The functions on LHS in (\[eq:m5\]) form an algebra, by \[enu:m2\], closed under complex conjugation; and it separates points in $M$ by Corollary \[cor:lap2\].
\[exa:btree\] Let $A=\left\{ 0,1\right\} $, and $M:=\prod_{\mathbb{N}}A$ the infinite Cartesian product, as a Cantor space. Set $V:=$ all finite words: $$V=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left\{ \left(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\cdots,\alpha_{n}\right)\:\big|\:\alpha_{i}\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} \right\} ;\label{eq:bt1}$$ and set $l\left(\left(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\cdots,\alpha_{n}\right)\right)=:n$.
For $\omega=\left(\omega_{k}\right)_{1}^{\infty}\in M$, set $$\omega\big|_{n}:=\left(\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\cdots,\omega_{n}\right)\in V.\label{eq:bt2}$$ For two points $\omega,\omega'\in M$, we shall need the number $$l\left(\omega\cap\omega'\right)=\sup\left\{ n\::\:\omega\big|_{n}=\omega'\big|_{n}\right\} .\label{eq:bt3}$$
Let $r:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be given such that $$r\left(\emptyset\right)=0,\quad\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}r\left(n\right)<\infty.\label{eq:bt4}$$ For conductance function $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$, set $$c_{\alpha,\left(\alpha t\right)}=\frac{1}{r\left(l\left(\alpha\right)\right)},\quad\forall\alpha\in V,\: t\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} .\label{eq:bt5}$$ One checks that, when (\[eq:bt4\]) holds, then $$\lim_{n,m\rightarrow\infty}R^{\left(c\right)}\left(\omega\big|_{n},\omega\big|_{m}\right)=0.$$
Consider the graph $G_{2}=\left(V,E\right)$ where the edges are “lines” between $\alpha$ and $\left(\alpha t\right)$, where $t\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} $. See Fig \[fig:bt1\].
With the settings above, the metric completion $\widetilde{R^{\left(c\right)}}$ w.r.t. the resistance metric on $V$ is as follows: For $\omega,\omega'\in M$ (see Fig \[fig:bt2\]), $$\widetilde{R^{\left(c\right)}}\left(\omega,\omega'\right)=2\sum_{n=l\left(\omega\cap\omega'\right)}^{\infty}r\left(n\right).\label{eq:bt6}$$ Let $\mathscr{H}$ be the corresponding energy-Hilbert space $\simeq$ the RKHS of $k_{c}$. For $\alpha\in V$, let $\delta_{\alpha}$ be the Dirac-mass at the vertex point $\alpha$. Then $$\left\Vert \delta_{\alpha}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}=\frac{2}{r\left(l\left(\alpha\right)\right)}+\frac{1}{r\left(l\left(\alpha\right)-1\right)}\:.\label{eq:bt7}$$
To see this, note that $\alpha$ has the three neighbors sketched in Fig \[fig:bt1\], i.e., $\alpha^{*}$, $\left(\alpha0\right)$, and $\left(\alpha1\right)$, where $\alpha^{*}$ is the one-truncated word, $$\widetilde{R^{\left(c\right)}}\left(\omega,\omega'\right)=2\sum_{n=l\left(\omega\cap\omega'\right)}^{\infty}r\left(n\right).\label{eq:bt8}$$
One checks that when (\[eq:bt4\]) is assumed, then the conditions in point \[enu:m3\] of the theorem are satisfied.
![\[fig:bt1\]Edges in $G_{2}$.](bt1){width="0.3\columnwidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:bt3\]Histogram for $\left\Vert \delta_{\alpha}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}$ as vertices $\alpha\in V$ approach the boundary. See (\[eq:bt7\]), and note $\left\Vert \delta_{\alpha}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\rightarrow\infty$ as $\alpha\rightarrow M$. ](bt2 "fig:"){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
(a)
![\[fig:bt3\]Histogram for $\left\Vert \delta_{\alpha}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}$ as vertices $\alpha\in V$ approach the boundary. See (\[eq:bt7\]), and note $\left\Vert \delta_{\alpha}\right\Vert _{\mathscr{H}}^{2}\rightarrow\infty$ as $\alpha\rightarrow M$. ](bt3 "fig:"){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
(b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:bt2\]The binary tree and its boundary, the Cantor-set. ](mc){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
\[cor:lap\]Now return to the discrete restriction of Brownian motion in sect. \[sub:bm\]. Set $V=\left\{ x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},\cdots\right\} $ where the points $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{\infty}$ are prescribed such that $x_{1}<x_{2}<\cdots<x_{i}<x_{i+1}<\cdots$. We turn $V$ into a weighted graph $G$ as follows: The edges $E$ in $G$ are nearest neighbors; and we define a conductance function $c:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ by setting $$c_{x_{i}x_{i+1}}:=\frac{1}{x_{i+1}-x_{i}},\label{eq:g13}$$ and Laplace operator, $$\left(\Delta f\right)\left(x_{i}\right)=\frac{1}{x_{i+1}-x_{i}}\left(f\left(x_{i}\right)-f\left(x_{i+1}\right)\right)+\frac{1}{x_{i}-x_{i-1}}\left(f\left(x_{i}\right)-f\left(x_{i-1}\right)\right).\label{eq:g14}$$
Then the RKHS associated with the Green’s function of $\Delta$ in (\[eq:g14\]) agrees with that from the kernel construction in sect. \[sub:bm\], i.e., the discrete Cameron-Martin Hilbert space.
Immediate from the previous Proposition and its corollaries.
The co-authors thank the following colleagues for helpful and enlightening discussions: Professors Daniel Alpay, Sergii Bezuglyi, Ilwoo Cho, Ka Sing Lau, Paul Muhly, Myung-Sin Song, Wayne Polyzou, Gestur Olafsson, Keri Kornelson, and members in the Math Physics seminar at the University of Iowa.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[We report the first detection of CO in M31’s bulge. The $^{12}$CO (1-0) and (2-1) lines are both detected in the dust complex D395A/393/384, at 1$\farcm$3 ($\sim 0.35$ kpc) from the centre. From these data and from visual extinction data, we derive a CO-luminosity to reddening ratio (and a CO-luminosity to H$_2$ column density ratio) quite similar to that observed in the local Galactic clouds. The (2-1) to (1-0) line intensity ratio points to a CO rotational temperature and a gas kinetic temperature $> 10$ K. The molecular mass of the complex, inside a 25$\arcsec$ (100 pc) region, is 1.5 10$^4$ $M_\odot$.]{}'
author:
- |
A.-L. Melchior,$^1$ F. Viallefond,$^2$ M. Guélin,$^3$ N. Neininger$^4$\
$^1$Astronomy Unit, Queen Mary and Westfield College, Mile End Road, London E14NS, UK\
$^2$DEMIRM, Observatoire de Paris, UMR8540, 61 Avenue de l’Observatoire, 75014 PARIS CEDEX, France\
$^3$IRAM, 300 rue de la piscine, F-38406 St.Martin d’Hères, France\
$^4$Radioastronomisches Institut der Universität Bonn, Auf dem Hügel 71, D-53121 Bonn, Germany\
date: accepted
nocite:
- '[@Dame:1993; @Neininger:1998]'
- '[@O''Connell:1992; @Davidge:1997]'
- '[@Sofue:1993]'
- '[@Loinard:1996]'
- '[@Holland:1998; @Stanek:1998c]'
- '[@Allen:1993; @Loinard:1998]'
- '[@Loinard:1996]'
- '[@Ciardullo:1988]'
- '[@Ansari:1997; @Ansari:1999]'
- '[@Metzger:1993]'
- '[@Jedrzejewski:1987]'
- '[@Ciardullo:1988]'
- '[@Crane:1992]'
- '[@Mauersberger:1989]'
- '[@Loinard:1996]'
- '[@Sofue:1993]'
- '[@Boulesteix:1987]'
- '[@Ciardullo:1988]'
- '[@Greve:1998]'
- '[@Neininger:1998]'
- '[@Loinard:1996]'
- '[@Fitzpatrick:1999]'
- '[@Walterbos:1988]'
- '[@Binney:1997]'
- '[@Massey:1995]'
- '[@Szomoru:1999]'
- '[@Bohlin:1978]'
- '[@Solomon:1987]'
- '[@Oka:1998]'
- '[@Morris:1996]'
- '[@Garcia-Burillo:1993]'
- '[@Loinard:1996]'
title: 'Detection of CO in the inner part of M31’s bulge'
---
== == == ==
\#1[[ \#1]{}]{} \#1[[ \#1]{}]{} @mathgroup@group @mathgroup@normal@group[eur]{}[m]{}[n]{} @mathgroup@bold@group[eur]{}[b]{}[n]{} @mathgroup@group @mathgroup@normal@group[msa]{}[m]{}[n]{} @mathgroup@bold@group[msa]{}[m]{}[n]{} =“019 =”016 =“040 =”336 ="33E == == == ==
\#1[[ \#1]{}]{} \#1[[ \#1]{}]{} == == == ==
\[firstpage\]
ISM: clouds – (ISM:) dust, extinction – Galaxies: individual: M31 – Radio lines: galaxies – Methods: observational
Introduction
============
The bulk of gas of M31
lies between 6 and 18 kpc and follows a pattern of thin spiral arms (e.g. Dame et al. 1993, Neininger et al. 1998) . Despite the presence of dust lanes, massive stars, and evolved stars (e.g. O’Connell et al. 1992; Davidge et al. 1997), there is little HI atomic gas in the inner bulge and, up to now, molecular gas had escaped detection: Sofue & Yoshida (1993) reported the detection the $^{12}$CO(1-0) line in the dust complex D395/393 at less than 1 kpc from the centre, but this detection was invalidated by Loinard, Allen & Lequeux (1996) who re-observed the same complex with a much better sensitivity. So, the detection of CO in the dust complexes D 478 and D 268, at 2-4 kpc from the centre[^1], by Allen & Lequeux (1993) and Loinard & Allen (1998), was the closest to the centre ever reported. Noting that the CO (1-0) to (2–1) intensity ratio was lower in these clouds than in the Galactic Giant Molecular Clouds, these authors concluded that CO may be so cold in the [*inner disc*]{} of M31, that its excitation temperature barely exceeds the cosmic background temperature. They thus suggested that although molecular gas and CO could be abundant, the CO mm lines are so weak that they escape detection.
In order to better understand the gas budget at the centre of M31, we have embarked on a reanalysis of the optical data. We found that the positions observed by Loinard, Allen & Lequeux (1996) were not centred on the darkest dust patches, which prompted us, taking advantage of the installation of new generation mm-wave receivers on the IRAM 30-m telescope, to make new CO observations.
Observations {#sect:obs}
============
Distribution of the extinction in the bulge {#ssect:ext}
-------------------------------------------
We used a compilation of optical images of M31 [with resolutions (FWHM) close to 1arc-sec to locate regions with significant absorption in the bulge of M31:]{} (1) a $B$ frame ($0\farcs9$/pixel) covering a field of $22\farcm9 \times 17\farcm9$ obtained during the course of a 5 yr nova search by Ciardullo et al.(1988); (2) $B$ and $R$ images ($0\farcs3$/pixel), covering a field of $12'\times9'$, collected during an intensive monitoring of M31’s bulge aimed at micro-lensing detections (Ansari et al. 1997, 1999), hereafter the AGAPE data; (3) $BVRI$ images from J. Tonry covering a $4'\times4'$ field (Metzger, Tonry & Luppino 1993). The astrometry (M. Aurière, private communication) of the optical data presents small ($\sim 1$ arcsec) distortions on the degree scale; this is insignificant given the size of the beam of the radio telescope ($21\arcsec$ at 115 GHz and $11\arcsec$ at 230 GHz). We model the photometry of M31’s bulge with [elliptical annuli]{} using the standard surface photometry algorithm developed for IRAF (Jedrzejewski 1987). [This model intends to reproduce the light profile along M31’s bulge without extinction. Hence, the ellipse geometry parameters (centre, ellipticity, position angle) are fitted in this procedure. In addition, to avoid possible perturbations of the fit due to extincted areas, only the median intensity over the elliptical annulus sectors is used.]{} The observed extinction is [then]{} defined as A$_\lambda=-2.5\log_{10}(\phi_{\rm
obs}/\phi_{\rm model})$ where $\phi_{\rm obs}$ is the observed brightness and $\phi_{\rm model}$ the brightness in the model. [ This derivation of A$_\lambda$, which assumes that the dusty cloud is in front of the bulge, provides a lower bound of the true internal extinction.]{}
The comparison of 3 completely independent $B$ data sets shows that no significant observational artifacts are introduced in the extinction maps. The nominal centre of M31 is taken as the optical nucleus at $\alpha_{J2000.0}=00^{\rm h}~42^{\rm m}~44^{\rm s}.371$ and $\delta_{J2000.0}=41^{\circ}~16'~08\farcs34$ following Crane, Dickel $\&$ Cowan (1992). Figure\[fig:mapbig\] shows the extinction obtained in $B$, centred on the dust patch D395A/393. All the structures seen here are well correlated with those seen in $B-R$. [We note]{} that the procedure defining the ellipses tends to remove any smooth structures within 10 arcsec from the centre. The structure in the north-western part is the edge of a much larger extinction [pattern]{}; the most prominent structure detected near the centre is D395A/393/384 with a typical size of 95 pc ($25$ arcsec). It is centred at $-26\arcsec$,$+76\arcsec$ from the nucleus, [and consists of several dark patches or clumps.]{}
Radio observations
------------------
The observations were carried out on 1999 June 13-14 with the IRAM 30-m telescope. Most of the observing was made in the symmetrical wobbler switching mode [ where]{} the secondary [ mirror nutates]{} up to a maximum limit of $\pm 240\arcsec$ in azimuth. [ The beam throw was determined as a function of the hour angle in such a way that OFF positions lie in extinction-free regions (see Fig.\[fig:mapbig\]).]{} Near transit, we had to use position switching mode, taking an extinction-free OFF position located at $122\arcsec$,$321\arcsec$ from the nucleus. Figure\[fig:mapsmall\] show the areas covered by the telescope beam [ (HPBW) in]{} the ON position at 115 and 230 GHz. [ The beam]{} is centred as best as possible on the dust complex, and encompasses most of D395A ([ and also, at 115 GHz, parts of D393 and D384]{}). The telescope pointing [ was]{} checked every hour on [ nearby]{} quasars [ and found to be]{} accurate within [ 3 arcsec]{}.
We used [ four]{} receivers simultaneously, [ two]{} for $^{12}$CO(1-0) at 115 GHz and [ two]{} for $^{12}$CO(2-1) at 230 GHz. [ Each 115 GHz receiver]{} was connected to [ two autocorrelator sub-bands, shifted by 40 MHz from each other]{}. Each sub-band consisted of 225 channels separated by 1.25 MHz. A very simple algorithm, combining such a pair of settings, [ was used to remove occasional “platforming” between the 80 MHz wide units which compose the sub-bands]{}. [ Each 230 GHz receiver]{} was connected to a filter-bank consisting of [ 512 1-MHz-wide channels]{}. Linear baselines were fitted and subtracted [ from]{} the spectra registered every 60 s, after the platforming correction for the data at 115 GHz. Some spectra were flagged, especially for one of the receivers at 230 GHz, due to temporary instabilities. The spectra were then combined, [using inverse variance weights, which correspond]{} to the residuals about the baselines.
The resulting spectra are displayed in Fig.\[fig:spectra\] and the lines parameters are summarised in Table\[tab:data\]. We estimate that [ even if the gas in]{} the OFF positions had the same velocity [ as in the ON position]{} and if the CO luminosity was proportional to A$_B$, we would have decreased at most by $6$ per cent the 115 GHz line intensity (see the red contours in Fig.\[fig:mapbig\]). The [ uncertainties]{} on the line intensities quoted in Table\[tab:data\] account for the [ r.m.s.]{} noise and for baseline uncertainties; [ they do not include calibration uncertainties]{} which, according to a check on the standard source DR21, should be $\leq 10$ per cent. (We adopted a T$_A^*$ flux scale corresponding to integrated $^{12}$CO(1-0) and $^{12}$CO(2-1) emissions of respectively $410$ K km s$^{-1}$ and $360$ K km s$^{-1}$ at the centre of DR21 – [ see Mauersberger et al. 1989]{}). [ We note that, although the spectra of Fig.\[fig:spectra\] were observed only 15$''$ away from those of Loinard, Allen & Lequeux (1996), the line intensities are much weaker and the velocities completely different from those reported by Sofue & Yoshida (1993). Hence, our detection is more in agreement with the former authors, given their level of sensitivity.]{}
[lllcr]{} $^{12}{\rm CO}$ & $\langle v \rangle$ [ $\sigma_{\rm FWHM}$]{} & $I_{\rm
CO}$ & $S_{\rm CO}$ & $\eta_a$\
\
\
(1-0) & -156 $\sim$35 & 0.56$\pm
0.04$& 3.54 & 0.57\
(2-1) & -154 $\sim$23 & 0.36$\pm
0.05$& 3.81 & 0.32\
Discussion {#sect:discu}
==========
Characteristics of the CO emission {#ssect:char}
----------------------------------
The spectra displayed in Fig.\[fig:spectra\] show [ that the $^{12}$CO(1-0) and $^{12}$CO(2-1) emission is detected in the heliocentric velocity range]{} $V_{\rm Helio}=-130,-190$ km s$^{-1}$. The measured centroid velocities are in good agreement with the velocities of the ionised gas published by Boulesteix et al.(1987). This suggests that the molecular clouds [ lie]{} in the same plane as the ionised gas; the latter is thought to be inclined by 45$^\circ$ in the region of interest (see [ the discussion]{} by Ciardullo et al.1988). [ At the position observed, the ionised gas presents a velocity gradient of $\sim$30 km$~$s$^{-1}$ over the 21$\arcsec$-wide telescope beam. This is consistent with the FWHM of the CO(1-0) line profile (31 km$~$s$^{-1}$) measured for the molecular complex. This suggests that we are observing not one single, but several clouds distributed across the telescope beam.]{}
The comparison of the intensities expressed as the $^{12}$CO(2-1) to (1-0) line ratio R is not straightforward as the beams are different and the geometry of the emitting regions is a priori unknown. If the emitting region [ were]{} uniform and much larger than the beams, the line intensity ratio would simply be R=T$_A^*$(2-1)/T$_A^*$(1-0)=0.6. We [ adopt]{} the more realistic assumption [ suggested above that the dust follows the gas distribution.]{} Integrating the extinction distribution (Fig.\[fig:mapsmall\]) over the telescope beam and taking into account the difference in telescope beam shapes and efficiencies between 115 and 230 GHz (Greve, Kramer & Wild 1998), we arrive at a ratio R=0.5. This value is typical of those observed in M31’s molecular arms (Neininger et al.1998) but is larger than those observed by Loinard et al. (1996).
The extinction curve for D395A/393/394
--------------------------------------
The extinction curve is determined by comparing the extinction in $B$, $V$, $R$ and $I$ on a pixel basis. Figure\[fig:ext\] shows that the A$_V$/$E(B-V)$ ratio R$_V$ is closer to 2.0 than to the canonical value of 3.1. This cannot be accounted by the geometry of the dust distribution (see Walterbos & Kennicutt (1988) for a comprehensive review). If dust and stars are uniformly mixed along the line of sight, the true extinction would then be increased by a factor of 2, but the extinction curve would still present the same R$_V$. If the dust is located in a thin layer, which is rather plausible if associated with the molecular and ionised gases, the observed extinction, as defined in Sect. \[ssect:ext\], then corresponds to $-2.5\log_{10}(x+(1-x)\times \exp(-\tau))$, where $\tau$ is the real optical depth at a given wavelength and $x$ the fraction of light in front of the dust. As observed extinctions as large as 0.49 mag are measured in $B$, the fraction of foreground light $x$ has to be smaller than 0.6. This fraction is 0.3 and 0.02 if the dust patch lies in a plane inclined by 45$^{\circ}$ and 77$^{\circ}$ respectively, when using Galactic bulge and disc models from Binney, Gerhard & Spergel (1997). Similar deviations from the average R$_{V}$ have already been reported in a few lines of sight across M31’s disc (Massey et al. 1995, and references therein): like what is observed in the Galaxy (e.g. Szomoru & Guhathakurta 1999), local fluctuations are also present in M31.
For $x=0$, we estimate the extinction A$_V$=0.06 mag beam$^{-1}$ when averaged over the 115 GHz beam, corresponding to $E(B-V)$=0.0285 mag beam$^{-1}$. Given the arguments discussed above, the uncertainties affecting these values are negligible for the following.
The gas-dust connection
-----------------------
Although it is very dubious to interpret the observed CO luminosity in terms of mass of molecular hydrogen, the I$_{\rm CO}$/$E(B-V)$=9.8 K km s$^{-1}$ mag$^{-1}$ ratio measured here is remarkably similar to the value observed for the molecular clouds in our Galaxy. Hence, the most direct method to get the order of magnitude for the mass of the gas in this complex is to assume a standard dust-to-gas mass ratio, N$_{\rm H}$/$E(B-V)$ = 5.8 10$^{21}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ (Bohlin, Savage $\&$ Drake, 1978). Integrating directly over the distribution of extinction, we derive a mass of 1.5 $10^4$ M$_\odot$ (10$^4$ M$_\odot$ in the main solid angle of the beam at 115 GHz). This mass could be [ overestimated if the metallicity is larger than 1 in the central region of M31]{}. Continuing, based on the optical extinction map, we find that the size of this complex is about 60 pc; this is typical for a giant molecular complex. However, its average volume density ($\sim
1$ cm$^{-3}$) is extremely low: two orders of magnitude lower than the typical densities in giant molecular clouds. For this reason, this complex must be highly clumped as supported by the detection of these CO lines.
If these clumps are gravitationally bound together, we estimate a virial mass [ $M_{\rm vir}/$M$_\odot \sim 200 r/{\rm (pc)}
(\sigma_{\rm FWHM}/{\rm (km/s)})^2$, i.e. $M_{\rm vir} \sim
1.6~10^7$ M$_\odot$]{}. The difference of [ three]{} orders of magnitude compared to the above result based on the optical extinction is so large that either these clumps are not bound together or the mass is not dominated by the gaseous component. For the very same reason, this complex does not follow the velocity line-width versus diameter relationship found by Solomon et al. (1987) for Galactic molecular clouds near virial equilibrium, but presents similar characteristics to the clouds studied by Oka et al.(1998) in the Galactic centre.
Conclusions
===========
Emission of the (1-0) and (2-1) [ lines]{} of the $^{12}$CO molecule has been detected near the centre of M31 at $15\sigma$ and $10\sigma$ respectively. The CO centroid velocity of $-155$ km s$^{-1}$ suggests that this molecular gas could be located in the ionised gas disc detected in these regions. [ The observed velocity dispersion of the molecular gas in the beam is compatible with the velocity gradient of the ionised gas. Together with the patchy appearance of the extinction map, this indicates the presence of several clouds distributed over the beam.]{} The I$_{\rm
CO}$/$E(B-V)$ ratio is remarkably similar to the values observed in molecular clouds in the Galaxy and M31’s disc. Based on a standard gas-to-dust ratio, the mass of the molecular complex is of order 10$^4$ M$_{\odot}$. [ In order to reach densities compatible with the excitation of the CO lines,]{} the complex must be highly clumped. As previous studies with poorer resolution have shown, the mass inferred is small compared to the mass content of the Galactic centre (Morris & Serabyn 1996). With such a mass the line-width of the CO line is by far too broad for a gravitationally bound complex, which explains previous inconsistencies based on this assumption.
Accordingly, we modelled the extinction with a random distribution of small spherical clumps, all identical with a size $r$ and density $\rho$. They all lie in a sphere of radius 13$\arcsec$, tracing a total mass of $10^4$ M$_\odot$. Models with $\sim$250 clumps reproduce the main features of the histogram of measured extinctions. With the previous assumption of a common location for the molecular, ionised gas and the dust, the configuration (r,$\rho$) which reproduces best the measured extinction correspond to clumps with r$\sim$2.6$\arcsec$ and $\rho\sim$400 H cm$^{-3}$. Following the LVG homogeneous cloud models of García-Burillo, Guélin $\&$ Cernicharo (1993), the measured line ratio corresponds to CO (1-0) and (2-1) line excitation temperatures and to a kinetic temperature all $\geq$10 K. This modelling will be further discussed in a subsequent paper.
The “standard” CO-luminosity to visual extinction ratio and the relatively high CO (1-0) excitation temperature seem to rule out the presence of large amounts of hidden CO and H$_2$ in the inner bulge of M31, in apparent disagreement with the result of Loinard et al. (1996) in the inner disc.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank the AGAPE collaboration, R. Ciardullo, G. Jacoby, E. Magnier and J. Tonry for providing their optical data. We are grateful to J. Lequeux for valuable comments. It is a pleasure to thank Richard Frewin for his help with various software issues. During this work, A.-L. Melchior has been supported by a European contract ERBFMBICT972375 at QMW.
Allen R. J., Lequeux J., 1993, , [410]{}, L15
Ansari R. et al., 1997, , [324]{}, 843
Ansari R. et al., 1999, , [344]{}, L49
Binney J., Gerhard O., Spergel D., 1997, , [288]{}, 365
Bohlin R. C., Savage B. D., Drake J. F., 1978, , [224]{}, 132
Boulesteix J., Georgelin Y. P., Lecoarer E., Marcelin M., Monnet G., 1987, , [178]{}, 91
Ciardullo R., Rubin V. C., Kent W. J., Jacoby G. H., Ford H. C., 1988, , [95]{}, 438
Crane P. C., Dickel J. R., Cowan J. J., 1992, , [390]{}, L9
Dame T. M., Koper E., Israel F. P., Thaddeus P., 1993, , [418]{}, 730
Davidge T. J., Rigaut F., Doyon R., Crampton D., 1997, , [113]{}, 2094
Fitzpatrick, E. L., 1999, , [111]{}, 63
García-Burillo S., Guélin M., Cernicharo J., 1993, , [274]{}, 123
Greve A., Kramer C., Wild W., 1998, , [133]{}, 271
Holland S., 1998, , [115]{}, 1916
Jedrzejewski R. I., 1987, , [226]{}, 747
Loinard L., Allen R. J., 1998, , [499]{}, 227
Loinard L., Allen R. J., Lequeux J., 1996, , [310]{}, 93
Massey P., Armandroff T. E., Pyke R., Patel K., Wilson C. D., 1995, , [110]{}, 2715
Mauersberger R. et al., 1989, , [79]{}, 217
Metzger M. R., Tonry J. L., Luppino G. A., 1993, in [Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, A.S.P. Conference Series 52, p. 300]{}, R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, and Jeannette Barnes, eds.
Morris M., Serabyn E., 1996, , [34]{}, 645
Neininger N., Guélin M., Ungerechts H., Lucas R., Wielenbinski R., 1998, , [395]{}, 871
O’Connell R. W. et al., 1992, , [395]{}, L45
Oka T., Hasegawa T., Hayashi M., Handa T., Sakamoto S., 1998, , [493]{}, 730
Sofue Y., Yoshida S., 1993, , [417]{}, L63
Solomon P. M., Rivolo A. R., Barrett J., Yahil A., 1987, , [319]{}, 730
Stanek K. Z., Garnavich P. M., 1998, , [503]{}, L131
Szomoru A., Guhathakurta P., 1999, , [117]{}, 2226
Walterbos R. A. M., Kennicutt R. C., 1988, , 61
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: We assume a distance to M31 of 780 kpc (e.g. Holland 1998; Stanek & Garnavich 1998), i.e. 1$\farcs$=3.8pc.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'C. Harold Horvat, Matthew Stoffregen'
title: A Proof of The Lonely Runner Conjecture for Almost All Points
---
The Lonely Runner Conjecture
============================
Consider k + 1 runners on a circular track of circumference 1, and the vector $$v = [v_1,v_2,...,v_{k+1}], v_i\in \mathbb{R}^+$$ Let d(a,b) = $||a-b||_{1}$\
$\textbf{Conjecture}$: $\exists t_i \in \mathbb{R}^+ \textrm{such that }\min(d(x_i,x_j))_{i \neq j}\geq \frac{1}{k+1}.$
A Solution for Almost All Points
================================
Suppose the components of $v$ are linearly independent. Consider the family of discrete mappings $T_i: \mathbb{S}^1 \rightarrow \mathbb{S}^1.$ defined by $$T_i(x)= ||x + \alpha*v_i||$$
Where
$$\alpha \in (0,\frac{1}{\max{v_i}}) \backslash \mathbb{Q}, \frac{v_i}{\alpha} \notin \mathbb{N} \forall i.$$
Individiually, each $T_i$ represents the irrational rotation map on $\mathbb{S}^1$ with angle $\beta = \alpha*v_i$. The trajectory of $x_i$ is dense over $\mathbb{S}^1$. Further, the product of N such rotations is dense on the torus $\mathbb{T}^k$.
The density over $\mathbb{T}^k$ forces that every possible configuration $(x_1,x_2,...,x_k)$ is approximated arbitrarily well in finite time. Therefore, $$\forall i, \forall \epsilon, \exists n_i \in \mathbb{N}: T_{j,j\neq i}^{n_i}(0) \in (-\epsilon, \epsilon), T_i^{n_i}(0) \in (.5 - \epsilon, .5 + \epsilon)$$ We have found a time, t = $n_i * \alpha$ where runner i is lonely. Any similar bound will be surpassed, as well.
The set of excluded points has Lebesgue measure zero. Consider that any rationally dependent velocity vector must be orthogonal to a different rational vector. Therefore it lies in a hyperplane of dimension n-1. This hyperplane has measure zero in $\mathbb{R}^n$. As each such hyperplane is identified by a rational vector orthogonal to it, there are countably many. Thus the set of all such hyperplanes, which contains the set of rationally dependent vectors, is measure zero as well.
Coprime points
==============
Consider the n+1-runner Lonely Runner Conjecture, set one of the runners velocities to 0. Now observe that we need only consider the case of : $$(1/D_1,...1/D_n)$$ where the $ D_i $ are pairwise relatively prime integers. (WLOG, $D_i<D_{i+1} $) Call such sets “best”. Then we want a time $ T $ with $ T/D_i = X_i \pmod{1}$, where the $X_i$ are rational numbers between $ 1/(n+1), n/(n+1) $. If we choose the $ X_i $ so that $ D_iX_i $ is an integer for all i, then we have that this is equivalent to: $ T=X_iD_i \pmod{D_i} $ for all i. By the Chinese Remainder Theorem, we have that there exists such a $T<\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n D_i.$ (and moreover, T is an integer).
Now, if we have maps determined by the sets of initial velocities, and some time T, then the change of position of the nth runner due to the change in initial velocities is $ \delta v * T $. So if we choose $\delta v$ less than
$$(1/2-1/(n+1)-1/2D_i)/\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n D_i$$
then the set of new initial velocities is also good. This requires some explanation. We choose the $ X_i $ to be the closest approximation to 1/2 that the given $ D_i $ will permit. This is reasonable, because it keeps us the farthest from going out-of-bounds on the circle. The maximum error in approximating 1/2 by $ a/D_i) $ for some integer a, is $ 1/2D_i $. Thus, with the given $ \delta v $, the maximum error incurred at the time T, when the original map was best, for the velopcity $ D_i $ is:
$$((1/2-1/(n+1)-1/2D_i)/\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n D_i)T< 1/2-1/(n+1)-1/2D_i$$
The distance from $X_iD_i $ to 1/n or n/(n+1), on the other hand, is at least:
$$1/2-1/(n+1)-1/2D_i$$
by our above argument, so indeed, if the $ \delta v $ is as small as demanded above, then the new set of velocities is “good”.
However, we are only concerned with the ratios between velocities. We will find the maximum and minimum velocity ratios of the good sets generated above from the best sets. Any set that has all of its velocity ratios lying between the maximum and minimum for each of the i in 1,...,n-1, must be good.
A velocity vector $ (x_1,...,x_n) $ is completely determined by the ratios $$(x_2/x_1, x_3/x_2,...x_n/x_{n-1})$$ We will now specify the *most* that each of these ratios can be for a good x-vector generated from a given best vector.
Consider the ratio $ x_{i+1}/x_i $: The maximum velocity for the ith component $ 1/D_i $ is $$1/(D_i-\delta v_i)$$
And the minimum for the $ D_{i+1} $ component is: $$1/(D_{i+1}+\delta v_{i+1})$$
Then, if the ith ratio for some given x-vector is greater than $$\frac{D_{i}-\delta v_{i}}{D_{i+1}+\delta v_{i+1}}$$ we are halfway there. It is easy to see by a similar calculation that if each ratio of the x-vector is less than $$\frac{D_{i}+\delta v_{i}}{D_{i+1}-\delta v_{i+1}}$$ then it indeed lies in the appropriate ratio zone.
From this we can now reformulate the conjecture: A vector is good (with ratios $ (R_1,...R_{n-1})$, all nonzero rational) if there exist pairwise relatively prime $ D_i $ i=1,...n-1, with:
$$\frac{D_{i}-\delta v_{i}}{D_{i+1}+\delta v_{i+1}} < R_i < \frac{D_{i}+\delta v_{i}}{D_{i+1}-\delta v_{i+1}}$$
where $$\delta v_i = ((1/2-1/(n+1)-1/2D_i)/\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n D_i$$
Small Strategy for this Style
=============================
Define the Quality $ Q(D_i,D_{i+1}) $ of an approximation $ D_i/D_{i+1} $ to $R_i$ as the maximum that $$\displaystyle\prod_{j=1}^n (D_j)/D_iD_{i+1}$$ may be and to still have: $$\frac{D_{i}-\delta v_{i}}{D_{i+1}+\delta v_{i+1}} < R_i < \frac{D_{i}+\delta v_{i}}{D_{i+1}-\delta v_{i+1}}$$
It is a quick observation to see that if $ \displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^n (D_j)/D_iD_{i+1} <Q(D_i,D_{i+1}) $, for all i, then the ratio vector is good. I think this is probably the ideal way to go about this route, if to go about it at all.
Further, it can be shown that all the Q’s are almost completely determined once you have selected merely one of the D to do the approximating. Haven’t gotten to that yet.
Problems
========
We will generate the volume of all such points formed by the quality approach. For a given vector $ (P_1/D_1,...,P_n/D_n) $ the (projective) volume of the set of good velocities generated by this vector is the n Recall:
$$\frac{D_{i}-\delta v_{i}}{D_{i+1}+\delta v_{i+1}} < R_i < \frac{D_{i}+\delta v_{i}}{D_{i+1}-\delta v_{i+1}}$$
For all the good vectors (written as only ratios $ R_i $). The volume is then merely the volume of the intervals of good $ R_i$. These are:
$$\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(\frac{D_{i}+\delta v_{i}}{D_{i+1}-\delta v_{i+1}}-\frac{D_{i}-\delta v_{i}}{D_{i+1}+\delta v_{i+1}})=\frac{\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}2(\delta v_{i+1}D_i-\delta v_iD_{i+1})}{\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(D_{i+1}-\delta v_{i+1})(D_{i+1}+\delta v_{i+1})}$$
This then needs to be summed over all possible choices for $ P_i, D_i $. We here order the fractions with the least $D_i$ first, allowing negatives in the $P_i$ only. We will index by the number of negatives in the velocity vector. Now, we have the following sum:
$$2^{n-1}\sum_{D_1,D_2,...D_{n} coprime}\sum_{P_1,...,P_n}\frac{\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(\delta v_{i+1}D_i-\delta v_iD_{i+1})}{\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(D_{i+1}-\delta v_{i+1})(D_{i+1}+\delta v_{i+1})}$$
Going About it Backwards
========================
Here we will display an alternative approach to the Conjecture and provide a strategy for further efforts. Consider once again $R^n$, where one runner’s velocity has been set to zero.
Some definitions are in order. Let $ ||x|| $ for $x\in R$ be the least distance from $||x||$ to an integer. An “exact case” will be any velocity vector $(v_1,...v_n)$in $R^n$ that has $$sup_{t\in(0,\inf)}inf_{i=1,...,n}(||v_i*t||)=1/(n+1)$$
A “pseudo-exact case” will be any velocity vector, which is not an exact case, $v_1,...v_n$ in $R^n$ that has $$sup_{t\in(0,T)}inf_{i=1,...,n}(||v_i*t||)=1/(n+1)$$ and $$sup_{t\in(0,T+\epsilon)}inf_{i=1,...,n}(||v_i*t||)=1/(n+1)$$ for some T, and some $\epsilon>0$. First, observe that no rationally independent vector, say $V=(v_1,...,v_n)$, can be pseudo-exact. For then, we would need both $||v_i*T||$ and $||v_j*T||$ to be rational, for some i and j. Then $v_i$ and $v_j$ would be rational multiples of each other, a contradiction.
Suppose there exists some rational point in the velocity space$ P=(p_1/q_1,...,p_n/q_n) $ for which the Conjecture does not hold. Then, for any rationally independent point $ A=(a_1...,a_n) )$, let $ l $ denote the line from $P$ to $A$. It is known that for $A$ there exists some time $T_1$ for which $T(A)$ has each runner at least a distance $1/(n+1) $ from the start of the track, where $T:R^n->R^n (v_1,v_2,...,v_n)->(||v_1*T||,...||v_N*T||)$ takes velocities to the position each of their runners has at time T. Define the map $F_1$ as follows: $$F_1=inf_{t\in(0,T_1)} sup_{i=1,...,n}(||v_i*t||)$$ Then $F_1(A)>1/(n+1)$. We also verify that $F_1$ is continuous. Indeed, the sup and inf, taken on finite intervals, are continuous, and we merely have a composition of continuous functions. By hypothesis, $$F_1(P)<1/(n+1)$$ Thus, there exists some point $B$ on $ l $ with $F_1(B)=1/(n+1)$. Either it is exact, or it is pseudo-exact. However, this point cannot be rational (by construction
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Statistical properties of the site frequency spectrum associated with Lambda-coalescents are our objects of study. In particular, we derive recursions for the expected value, variance, and covariance of the spectrum, extending earlier results of Fu (1995) for the classical Kingman coalescent. Estimating coalescent parameters introduced by certain Lambda-coalescents for datasets too large for full likelihood methods is our focus. The recursions for the expected values we obtain can be used to find the parameter values which give the best fit to the observed frequency spectrum. The expected values are also used to approximate the probability a (derived) mutation arises on a branch subtending a given number of leaves (DNA sequences), allowing us to apply a pseudo-likelihood inference to estimate coalescence parameters associated with certain subclasses of Lambda coalescents. The properties of the pseudo-likelihood approach are investigated on simulated as well as real mtDNA datasets for the high fecundity Atlantic cod (*Gadus morhua*). Our results for two subclasses of Lambda coalescents show that one can distinguish these subclasses from the Kingman coalescent, as well as between the Lambda-subclasses, even for moderate sample sizes.'
author:
- |
Matthias Birkner\
Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität\
Institut für Mathematik\
55099 Mainz, Germany\
\
Jochen Blath und Bjarki Eldon\
TU Berlin\
Institut für Mathematik\
10623 Berlin, Germany
title: 'Statistical properties of the site-frequency spectrum associated with Lambda-coalescents'
---
Running title: Lambda-coalescents and inference\
keywords: Lambda-coalescents, site-frequency spectrum, covariance, Atlantic cod, pseudo-likelihood\
\
corresponding author:\
Bjarki Eldon\
TU Berlin, Institut für Mathematik\
Stra[ß]{}e des 17. Juni 136\
10623 Berlin, Germany\
Email: [email protected]\
Phone: +49 303 1425 762\
Fax: +49 +(0) 30 314 21695\
Large offspring number population models have recently been proposed as appropriate models with which to investigate high fecundity natural populations. Some marine populations may belong to the class of high fecundity populations, including Pacific oysters [*Crassostrea gigas*; @li98; @B94; @BCCHB02], white sea bream [*Diplodus sargus*; @PL02], and Atlantic cod [*Gadus morhua*; @A04]. Oysters feature in [@Wi75]’s elm and oyster model as an example of a high fecundity population. Indeed, high fecundity populations are discussed at length by [@Wi75] when comparing the benefits of sexual versus asexual reproduction. [@A88] compares genetic distances for mtDNA variation for three vertebrate species, american eels (*Anguilla rostrata*), hardhead catfish (*Arius felis*), and red-winged blackbirds (*Agelaius phoeniceus*), and conclude that historical effective population sizes may have been much lower than current census size. Low effective population size compared to census population size observed for certain marine populations in particular [e.g. @HCW92], and reviewed by [@HP11], may be evidence of high variance in offspring distribution. Indeed, [@H05] observes that low effective population size results from high variance in reproductive success in a population with large census size. High fecundity may also be a way for certain marine organisms with broadcast spawning to compensate for high mortality rate among juveniles, and thus exhibiting Type III survivorship curves.
Multiple merger coalescent processes, so-called Lambda- and Xi-coalescents, arise naturally from large offspring number models [@S99; @DK99; @MS01; @S03; @EW06; @SW08; @BB09; @HM11]. A key assumption to obtain multiple merger coalescent process from a large offspring number model is that the number of offspring of an individual can be up to the order of the population size with non-negligible probability. In contrast to the classical Kingman coalescent framework, which has served as the standard null-model in population genetics since its introduction [@K82], Lambda-coalescents allow multiple instead of only binary collisions of ancestral lineages, in which the group of lineages coalescing in a given instance may include anywhere from two to all of the current active lineages. Selective sweeps [@DS04; @DS05; @CR12], or large-scale spatial extinction and recolonisation events [@BEV10; @BEV13], can also give rise to multiple merger coalescent processes. In some cases, one naturally encounters the even more general Xi-coalescents [@S00] allowing [*simultaneous*]{} multiple mergers at a time, i.e., when distinct groups of ancestral lineages coalesce at the same time to distinct ancestors. Models of severe bottlenecks [@BBMST09], or diploidy [@MS03] and recombination in conjunction with distinct loci can give rise to Xi-coalescents. By way of example, a Xi-coalescent admitting up to quadrifold simultaneous mergers is obtained from a diploid multi-locus model with a skewed (high variance) offspring distribution [@BBE13]. [@MS01] provide a full mathematical classification of coalescent limits (as population size tends to infinity) of Cannings’s exchangeable population models.
The statistical methodology to test for the presence and particularities of the effects of multiple mergers, or to distinguish between different underlying Lambda- and Xi-coalescents within a family of models, is, however, still largely missing. [@HP11] argue that large offspring number models are the right framework in which to study high fecundity marine populations. Some large offspring number models [e.g. @S03; @EW06] introduce new parameters (*coalescence* parameters) determining the size and intensity of large offspring number events, i.e. when individuals have very many offspring. Estimating the coalescence parameters from genetic data may give us a way to distinguish between different population models. Indeed, [@HP11] call for the development of such inference methods, in particular to infer parameters, assess the quality of the estimators, and to construct hypothesis tests and confidence bounds.
On one hand are summary-statistics based estimators for the parameter of certain classes of Lambda-coalescents [@E11] in the infinite-sites model, such as the number of segregating sites, which may not represent a sufficient statistic, but are computationally efficient, and could be used to obtain prior information. On the other hand, there are full-likelihood-based point estimators, derived via relatively complex recursions - which are, in principle, amenable to Monte-Carlo methods - taking all available information into account, but whose practical treatment becomes computationally prohibitive even for medium-sized datasets [@BB08; @BBS11]. A small empirical simulation study for the latter can be found in [@S09]. For both types of estimators, an analysis of their statistical properties in the Lambda-case is still largely missing.
A summary statistic that contains much of the essential (in particular, topological) information of the underlying genealogical tree of the data is the [*site frequency spectrum (SFS)*]{} (however, one may want to consult e.g. [@M07] for theoretical limitations). The spectrum is a key quantity when applying coalescent theory in inference, see e.g. [@W07] for an overview and a discussion of the relation of the SFS with various other (simpler) summary statistics. The statistical properties of the SFS under the Kingman coalescent have been investigated in several studies [@F95; @GT98; @A09; @ZW08; @ST11]. Extending in particular the results of [@F95] to Lambda coalescents is our aim. Recursions for the expected value, the variance and the covariance of the number of derived mutations in the SFS, are derived for a general Lambda coalescent.
Substantial theoretical research has been undertaken in order to identify the asymptotic behaviour of the frequency spectrum associated with Lambda-coalescents, culminating in the recent a.s. convergence results, as sample size tends to infinity, contained in [@BBL12]. However, so far it is not known how large samples need to be in order for the spectrum to be well-approximated by the limiting asymptotic results of [@BBL12], or, indeed, if the approximation is equally good for all values of the relevant coalescent parameter. This question is addressed using simulations.
Finally, as an illustration we apply our methods to site-frequency spectra obtained for Atlantic cod [@A00; @SA03; @A04] and fit Lambda coalescents to the data. The problem of distinguishing between coalescent classes by means of observing a realisation of the SFS is also addressed using simulations.
[Setup and previously known results]{}
[**Notation**]{} A formal definition of the site frequency spectrum (SFS) is our starting point. We assume the [*infinitely-many-sites model*]{} [@K69; @W75] of population genetics, where the genealogy of a sample of size $n$ is described by an $n$-$\Lambda$-coalescent. Mutations occur at a rate $\theta/2$ on the coalescent branches. Suppose further that we can distinguish between mutant and wild-type, e.g. with the help of an outgroup. Then, the SFS of an $n$-sample is given by $${\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(n)} := \big(\xi_1^{(n)}, \dots, \xi^{(n)}_{n-1}\big),$$ where the $\xi^{(n)}_i, i=1,\dots, n-1$ denote the number of sites at which variants appear $i$-times in our sample. The $\xi_i^{(n)}$ are also referred to as the number of [*derived*]{} mutations in $i$ copies, when the ancestral state is known. The vector $\boldsymbol{\xi}^{(n)}$ is called the [*unfolded*]{} site-frequency spectrum of the $n$-sample.
In the case where the ancestral state (variant) is unknown, one often considers $\eta^{(n)}_i = \xi_i^{(n)} $ for $i=1, \dots, {\ensuremath{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}}$, which is the number of sites at which the less frequent variant (the minor allele) is present in $i$ sequences, and ${\ensuremath{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}}:= {\ensuremath{ \boldsymbol{1}_{\left( \textrm{$n$
even} \right) } } } n/2 + {\ensuremath{ \boldsymbol{1}_{\left( \textrm{$n$ odd} \right) } } }(n-1)/2$, where ${\ensuremath{ \boldsymbol{1}_{\left( A \right) } } } = 1$ if event $A$ is true, and zero otherwise. The observed polymorphisms become ‘few and far between’ with corresponding small expected values as $i$ increases, at least for the Atlantic cod data we investigate. Thus, for $i > \hat{\imath}$ for some suitable $\hat{\imath}$, we lump them together into one class labelled as $\hat{\imath}_+$. Considering only the first few classes and lumping the rest also speeds up the computations.
Then, ${\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{(n)}:= \left(\eta_1^{(n)}, \dots,
\eta^{(n)}_{{\ensuremath{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}}}\right)$ is called the [*folded*]{} site frequency spectrum of an $n$-sample.
A [*Lambda-coalescent*]{} is a partition-valued (one can think of enumerated DNA sequences and their ancestral relationships) exchangeable coalescent process determined by a finite measure $\Lambda$ on $[0, 1]$ [@P99; @S99; @DK99]. For a comprehensive overview see e.g. [@B09]. If there are currently $n$ blocks in the partition (ie. $n$ active ancestral lineages), any particular set of $k$ blocks merges into one at rate $$\label{eq:lambdarates}
\lambda_{n,k} = \int_{[0,1]} x^{k-2} (1-x)^{n-k} \Lambda(dx), \quad k=2,..,n.$$ Certain special cases of a Lambda-coalescent include the following, some of which we will use in our examples below:
- One recovers the Kingman coalescent for $$\label{eq:Kingman}
\Lambda(dx)= \delta_0(dx),$$ i.e. when the measure $\Lambda$ is concentrated at the point $0$.
- The Beta$(2-\alpha, \alpha)$-coalescent [@schweinsberg03] is a Lambda-coalescent characterised by the $\Lambda$-measure $$\label{eq:betameasure}
\Lambda(dx) = \frac{\Gamma(2)}{\Gamma(2-\alpha)\Gamma(\alpha)} x^{1-\alpha} (1-x)^{\alpha-1} \,dx,$$ with $\alpha \in (0,2)$; i.e. when the measure $\Lambda$ is associated with the beta distribution with parameters $2-\alpha$ and $\alpha$. The limiting case $\alpha=2$ (in the sense of weak convergence of measures) corresponds to the Kingman coalescent.
- [@EW06] considered purely atomic Lambda coalescents of the following types: $$\label{eq:EWoneatom}\Lambda(dx) = \delta_\psi(dx),$$ and $$\label{eq:EWtwoatom}
\Lambda(dx) =\frac{2}{2+\psi^2} \delta_0(dx) + \frac{\psi^2}{2+\psi^2} \delta_\psi(dx),$$ with $\psi \in [0,1]$, where $\psi=0$ gives the Kingman coalescent.
In the application examples that follow, we will mainly be concerned with coalescents and . Thus, the parameter $\alpha$ $(1 < \alpha \leq 2)$ refers exclusively to coalescent , and the parameter $\psi$ $(0 < \psi
< 1)$ to coalescent .
For $\alpha$, we focus our attention on the parameter range $1 < \alpha
< 2$, since this corresponds to Beta-coalescents which “come down from infinity”, i.e. admit a unique most-recent common ancestor even in the infinite-sample limit [@P99; @S00]. It can be argued whether this property is necessary from a biological point of view. However, our empirical results for real datasets yields so far only estimates of $\alpha$ between 1 and 2. In addition, the coalescent process derived form [@schweinsberg03]’s population model converges to coalescent only when $1 \le \alpha < 2$. For $0 < \alpha
< 1$, the coalescent process is a discrete-time Xi-coalescent [@schweinsberg03].
[**Related asymptotic results**]{}
In inference, one often relies on asymptotic results. The asymptotic behaviour of the site- and allele frequency spectrum of Lambda coalescents for (very) large sample sizes (as $n \to \infty$), as well as related asymptotic results concerning the distributions of tree-lengths or the “speed of coming down from infinity”, i.e. when the sample size is infinite (a mathematical peculiarity) how long it takes the ancestral lineages to become finite in number, is an active field of mathematical research. The concept of ‘coming down from infinity’ may yet have real implications for inference. By way of example, the point-mass coalescent does not come down from infinity, which implies that external branches become more dominating as sample size increases, regardless of the value of $\psi$. On the other hand, the beta-coalescent does come down from infinity, as does the Kingman coalescent.
Important asymptotic results regarding the SFS are obtained by [@BBL12 Theorem 3], who provide convergence results (in the almost sure sense), as sample size tends to infinity, of the scaled SFS for an important class of Lambda-coalescents, including the beta-coalescent , as will now be explained. We say that the measure $\Lambda$ has (strong) $\alpha$-regular variation at zero if $$\Lambda(dx) = f(x)dx, \quad
\mbox{ where } f(x) \sim A x^{1- \alpha} \mbox{ as } x \to 0,$$ for some $\alpha \in (1,2)$ and $A > 0$. This holds for the Beta$(2-\alpha, \alpha)$-coalescent from . Then, the almost sure asymptotic behaviour of each $\xi^{(n)}_i$ as $n
\to \infty$ is determined by the behaviour of $f(x)$ as $x \downarrow 0$ for a large class of Lambda-coalescents:
[@BBL12] \[thm:bbl\]Assume that $\Lambda$ has (strong) $\alpha$-regular variation at zero for some $1 < \alpha < 2$ and $A > 0$. Then, for the site frequency spectrum of an $n$-sample, where the underlying genealogy is governed by a Lambda-coalescent and mutation rate $\theta/2$, $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\xi^{(n)}_i}{n^{2-\alpha}} = \frac{\theta}{2} C_{A, \alpha} \frac{(2-\alpha)\Gamma(i+\alpha-2)}{i! \Gamma(\alpha-1)}
= \frac{\theta}{2} C_{A, \alpha} (2-\alpha)\frac{(\alpha-1)\cdots (\alpha+i-3)}{i!},$$ in the almost sure sense, for $i =1, \dots , n$, where $$C_{A, \alpha}= \frac{\alpha(\alpha-1)}{A \Gamma (2-\alpha)(2-\alpha)}.$$
We formulate Thm. with a mutation rate $\theta/2$ instead of $\theta$ as in [@BBL12] in order to be consistent with [@F95] and other literature. The asymptotic results should be of direct relevance for us in the case of large sample sizes. However, the rate of convergence of the asymptotic results in terms of sample size $n$ and the parameter $\alpha$ seems to be unresolved. The issue of rate of convergence will be investigated below using simulations.
From a statistical point of view an ideal result would be an (asymptotic) result for the joint distribution of the normalized SFS for general Lambda-coalescents, and this may well soon be within reach. For the Kingman case, this has already been achieved: There is asymptotic normality for the joint distribution of tree-lengths. [@KS13] obtain an asymptotic normality result for the scaled branch lengths associated with the Kingman coalescent, from which Kersting and Stanciu deduce that the asymptotic joint distribution of the frequency spectrum is independent Poisson.
As a partial analogue, [@KSW12] prove convergence of the total length of [*external*]{} branches of the beta-coalescent in distribution to a stable random variable with index $\alpha$. Their result indicates that the joint distribution of the branch lengths associated with a Lambda-coalescent will not be asymptotically normal, but might instead be a multivariate stable distribution. However, the rate of convergence is not known in the results of [@KSW12].
[The expected value, variance and covariance of derived mutations in the SFS associated with a Lambda-coalescent ]{}
In this section we compute the expected value ${\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ \xi^{(n)}_i \right] }}$, the variance ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Var}\!\left( \xi^{(n)}_i\right) } }$, and the covariance ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Cov}\!\left(\xi^{(n)}_i, \xi^{(n)}_j \right) } }$ of the SFS associated with Lambda coalescents. While exact solutions for a finite sample size $n$ appear quite hard to obtain due to the multiple-merger property of Lambda-coalescents, we derive recursions for these quantities. [@F95] (cf. Theorem \[thm:Fu\] in Appendix for reference) obtained closed-form expressions for these quantities when associated with the Kingman coalescent.
As above, let $\xi^{(n)}_i$ denote the random number of derived mutations in $i$ copies in a $n$ sample with mutation rate $\theta/2$ and genealogy governed by a Lambda-coalescent. Before stating our first result, we recall some simple properties of the block-counting process associated with a Lambda-coalescent from [@BB08]. The block-counting process $(Y_t)$ simply counts the number of ancestral lineages present each time. Recall the corresponding rates $\lambda_{n,k}$ from . When we refer to number of ‘leaves’ $(n)$, we will mean the initial sample size. Thus, a ‘leaf’ will refer to one sampled (DNA) sequence. Thus, by using leaves rather than sequences we emphasize that we are thinking of the sequences as vertices in a graph describing the ancestral relations of the leaves. Let $(Y_t)_{t \ge 0}$ be the block counting process of our Lambda-coalescent, which is a continuous-time Markov chain on ${{\mathbb N}}$ with jump rates $$q_{ij} = {i \choose i-j+1} \lambda_{i, i-j+1}, \quad i > j \ge 1.$$
The total jump rate away from state $i$ is $-q_{ii} = \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} q_{ij}$. By $$\label{def:pij}
p_{ij} := \frac{q_{ij}}{-q_{ii}}$$ we denote the transition probabilities of the embedded discrete skeleton chain. Let $$g(n,m) := {\mathbb{E}}_n\left[ \int_0^\infty {\mathbf{1}}_{( Y_s = m )} \, ds \right]
\quad \mbox{for $\quad n \ge m \ge 2$}$$be the expected amount of time that $Y_t$, starting from $n$, spends in $m$. Decomposing according to the first jump of $Y_t$ gives a recursion for $g(n,m)$, $$\label{eq:grec}
g(n,m) = \sum_{k=m}^{n-1} p_{nk} g(k,m), \quad
n > m \ge 2, \quad \mbox{ and } \quad
g(m,m) = \frac{1}{-q_{mm}}, \quad m \ge 2.$$
**The expected value ${\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ \xi^{(n)}_i \right] }}$ of derived mutations**
For $1 < k \le n$, as in [@F95], an important quantity will be the probability $${p^{(n)}[k,b]}, \quad \mbox{ for } b\in \{1, \dots, n-(k-1)\},$$ that [*in a $\Lambda$-coalescent starting from $n$ leaves, conditioned that there are at some point in time exactly $k$ branches, a given one of these $k$ branches (e.g. the first, if we think of some ordering) subtends exactly $b$ leaves*]{} (see Figure \[fig:illustr1\]).
![Illustration of the occurrence of an event with probability $p^{(n)}[k,b]$, with $k = 2$, and $2 \le b = n - 3$. Ancestral lineage labelled as (2,1), present when there are only two active ancestral lineages, is ancestral to $b$ leaves ($b$ sampled sequences). In this example, the first merger in the genealogical history of the $n$ leaves is a 3-merger not involving any of the encircled $b$ leaves. The second event is a $b$-merger with $b$ edges subtending the encircled $b$ leaves merging to block $(2,1)$ (square). A ‘level’ refers to the values of the lineage-counting process $Y_t$. []{data-label="fig:illustr1"}](new_illustr){width="6.5in" height="8in"}
A recursion for $p^{(n)}[k,b]$ (\[eq:rnk\]), given in Appendix (prop. \[prop:r\]), can be solved numerically, separately for each $k$. Proposition \[prop:r\] allows us to derive a recursion for the expected frequency spectrum associated with Lambda-coalescents, given in the following proposition.
\[prop:Exi\] Under the above assumptions, we have, for $i = 1, \dots, n-1$, $${\mathbb{E}}\left[\xi_i^{(n)}\right] = \frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{k=2}^{n-i+1} {p^{(n)}[k,i]} \cdot k \cdot g(n,k).$$
The proof proceeds by decomposing according to the ‘level’ (the values taken by the lineage-counting process $Y_t$) of the coalescent tree where a mutation arises - see Appendix for details. Proposition \[prop:Exi\] and its proof are a natural extension of the arguments of [@GT98] to the multiple merger case.
The expression in Prop. can be used to define a quantity $(\varphi_n(i))$, the ‘expected normalized frequency spectrum’, which describes the shape of the genealogy and does not depend on $\theta$, as follows. Let $B_i^{(n)}$ denote the random total length of branches subtending $i$ leaves, for $1 \le i <
n$. Then, clearly, ${\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ \xi_i^{(n)} \right] }} = (\theta/2){\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ B_i^{(n)} \right] }}$, with $${\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ B_i^{(n)} \right] }} = \sum_{k=2}^{n-i+1} {p^{(n)}[k,i]} \cdot k \cdot g(n,k).$$ If we now let $B^{(n)}$ denote the random total length of the genealogy started from $n$ leaves, and by $\xi^{(n)} = \xi_1^{(n)} + \cdots + \xi_{n-1}^{(n)}$ we denote the random total number of segregating sites in a sample of size $n$ gene copies (DNA sequences), we have $${\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ \xi^{(n)} \right] }} = (\theta/2){\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ B^{(n)} \right] }}.$$ If $T_\ell$ denotes the random time during which there are $\ell$ active lineages, for $2 \le \ell \le n$, we have $${\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ B^{(n)} \right] }} = \sum_{\ell=2}^{n} \ell {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ T_\ell \right] }}.$$ We define $\varphi$ as $$\label{eq:expnorm}\varphi_n(i) := \frac{{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \xi_i^{(n)} \right] }{\sum_{\ell=2}^{n} \ell {\mathbb{E}}\big[ T_\ell \big]}
= \frac{\sum_{k=2}^{n-i+1} {p^{(n)}[k,i]}\, \cdot \, k\, \cdot \, g(n,k)}{\sum_{\ell=2}^{n} \ell g(n,\ell)}.$$ Loosely speaking, the probability that a mutation, under the infinitely many sites assumption [@K69; @W75], with known ancestral types, appears $i$ times in a sample of size $n$ is $\varphi_n(i)$. The quantity $\varphi_n(i)$ is a quotient of expectations which can be interpreted as size-biasing - it should not be confused with averaging over the quotient of these quantities, e.g. obtained from an empirical study, which has a different interpretation and will, at least for finite sample sizes, take different values. However, one can apply $\varphi_n(i)$ as the main ingredient in a pseudo-likelihood approach to infer coalescence parameters, as we do below.
The covariance ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Cov}_{}\!\left(\xi_i^{(n)}, \xi_j^{(n)} \right) } }$ of derived mutations {#the-covariance-ensuremathmathrmcov_leftxi_in-xi_jn-right-of-derived-mutations .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to compute covariances one needs to compute the probability that two edges (ancestral lineages) drawn at random without replacement (ordered sampling) from the past, say from $Y$-states $k$ and $\ell \le n$, produce $i$ resp. $j$ subtended leaves. To this end, we need to distinguish three situations, namely whether our two edges are taken from the same ‘layer’ (that is, when $Y$ is in the same state $k$ for both edges), or, if this is not the case, whether one of our two edges is a descendant of the other (‘nested case’), or not (‘unnested case’). In our calculations the leaves are [ *unlabelled*]{}.
#### Case 1: two edges in the same layer
For $2 \le k \le n$ let ${p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}[k; i,j]$ be the probability that in an $n$-$\Lambda$-coalescent, conditioned on there being $k \ge 2$ ancestral lineages at some time in the past, if we draw two of the $k$ lines at random without replacement from these $k$ (ordered sample), the first drawn line has $i$ and the second $j$ subtended leaves (see Figure \[fig:peqill\]). A recursion for $p_{\mathrm{eq}}^{(n)}$ (prop. \[prop:1\]) and proof are given in Appendix.
![Illustration of the occurrence of the event with probability $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}[k;i,j]$ with $i = j = 1$. The ancestral lines $(k,1)$ and $(k,2)$ are each ancestral to one leaf. Level $k$ is reached in one $n-k+1$-merger not involving the two leaves subtended by $(k,1)$ or $(k,2)$. []{data-label="fig:peqill"}](new_peq_ill){width="6.5in" height="8in"}
#### Case 2: Two edges in different layers, unnested case
For $2\le k < \ell \le n$ let ${p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}[k, i; \ell ,j]$ be the probability that in an $n$-$\Lambda$-coalescent, conditioned on there being $k$ lines at some time in the past and $\ell$ lines at some (other) time in the past, if we draw one of the $k$ lines at random and independently one of the $\ell$ lines at random (ordered sample), the first drawn line has $i$ and the second $j$ subtended leaves, and the second is not a descendant of the first (see Figure \[fig:punillustr\]). A recursion for $p_{\mathrm{un}}^{(n)}$ (prop. \[prop:2\]) is obtained in a similar way as for $p_{\mathrm{eq}}^{(n)}$, and is given in Appendix along with a proof.
![Illustration of the occurrence of the event with probability $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}[k,i;\ell,j]$. Edge $(\ell,1)$ in level $\ell$ subtends $j$ leaves, while edge $(k,1)$ in level $k$ subtends $i$ leaves; $2 \le k < \ell \le n$, and the two encircled groups of $i$ and $j$ leaves are distinct. Level $\ell$ is reached in one merger including all of the $j$ leaves. The following merger includes all of the $i$ leaves. []{data-label="fig:punillustr"}](new_illustrb){width="6.5in" height="8in"}
#### Case 3: Two edges in different layers, nested case.
For $2\le k<\ell\le n$ let ${p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}[k, i; \ell,j]$ be the probability that in an $n$-$\Lambda$-coalescent, conditioned on there being $k$ lines at some time in the past and $\ell > k$ lines at some more recent time in the past, if we draw (ordered sample) one of the $k$ lines at random ($(k,1)$, say, see Figure \[fig:punillustr2\]) and independently one of the $\ell$ lines ($(\ell, 1)$, say, see Figure \[fig:punillustr2\]) at random, the first drawn line has $i$ and the second $j$ subtended leaves, and the second $(\ell, 1)$ is a descendant of the first ($(k,1)$; so necessarily $i \ge j$, otherwise the probability is zero; see Figure \[fig:punillustr2\]). The recursion for $p_{\mathrm{ne}}^{(n)}$ is given in proposition \[prop:3\] in Appendix, with the proof following similar arguments to proofs of propositions and .
![Illustration of the occurrence of the event with probability $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}[k,i;\ell,j]$. Edge $(\ell,1)$ in level $\ell$ subtends the encircled subset of $j$ leaves, while edge $(k,1)$ in level $k$ subtends $(\ell,1)$ and the larger encircled set of $i$ leaves necessarily containing the set of $j$ leaves. []{data-label="fig:punillustr2"}](new_pne_ill){width="6.5in" height="8in"}
Unfortunately, the computational complexity of the recursions for $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}$ , $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}$ , and $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}$ , as they stand, is $O(n^5)$, thus restricting numerical computations to relatively small values of $n$.
#### Second moments and covariance of the frequency spectrum
Now we can put our recursions for $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}$, $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}} $, and $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}$, together to obtain the covariances ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Cov}\!\left(\xi_i^{(n)}, \xi_{j}^{(n)} \right) } }$. Our main result on the site frequency spectrum associated with Lambda-coalescents, an expression for ${\mathbb{E}}\left[\xi_i^{(n)}\xi_j^{(n)}\right]$ in terms of $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}$, $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}} $, $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}$, $p^{(n)}[k,i]$, and $g(n,m)$, will now be stated - a proof is in Appendix (section \[sec:proofcov\]).
\[thm:cov\] For $1 \le i, j < n$, $2 \le i + j \le n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}&\big[\xi^{(n)}_i \xi^{(n)}_j \big] \\
&= \, \frac{\theta^2}{4} \sum_{k=2}^n k(k-1)
{p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}[k; i,j]
\frac{g(n,k)}{g(k,k)}
\frac{2}{(-q_{kk})^2} \\
& \,\;\; + {\mathbf{1}}_{(i=j)} \sum_{k=2}^n k {p^{(n)}[k,i]} \frac{g(n,k)}{g(k,k)}
\Big( \frac{\theta}{2} \frac{1}{-q_{kk}} +
\frac{\theta^2}{4}\frac{2}{(-q_{kk})^2} \Big)\\
& \;\; +
\frac{\theta^2}{4} \sum_{k=3}^n \sum_{\ell=2}^{k-1} k \, k'
\frac{{p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}[k,i ; \ell,j]
+ {p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}[k,i ; \ell,j] +
{p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}[k,j ; \ell, i]
+ {p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}[k,j ; \ell, i]}{(-q_{kk})(-q_{\ell\ell})} \\
& \phantom{MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM} \times
\frac{g(n,\ell)}{g(\ell,\ell)} \frac{g(\ell,k)}{g(k,k)}.\end{aligned}$$
In Figures \[cov1\] and \[cov2\] we graph the covariances of the branch lengths $B_i^{(n)}$ and $B_j^{(n)}$, where $B_i^{(n)}$ denotes the total length of branches subtending $i$ of $n$ leaves, and the coalescent process is the Beta$(2-\alpha,
\alpha)$-coalescent. The variances and covariances become completely dominated by the variance of the length of external branches when multiple mergers are more prominent in the genealogy, i.e. when $\alpha$ is close to 1 (Figure \[cov1\]). This means that the variances and covariances of the SFS will be dominated by the variance in the number of singletons, when associated with Lambda-coalescents, and multiple mergers dominate the genealogy, as would occur in a high fecundity population with frequent occurrence of large offspring number events. In the beta coalescent , large offspring number events become more prominent as $\alpha$ approaches 1, and less prominent as $\alpha$ approaches 2. And even when $\alpha$ is more ‘modest’ at $1.5$, the covariances are still quite small compared to the variances. Figure \[cov2\] shows the covariances on their own scale, i.e. with the variances and the diagonal covariances ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Cov}\!\left(B_i^{(n)}, B_{n-i}^{(n)} \right) } }$ set at zero. These results suggest that one may model the site-frequency spectrum of an $n$-$\Lambda$-coalescent as composed of uncorrelated (but not independent) components $\xi_i^{(n)}$ for $n$ large enough.
For fixed $n$, the covariances between $B_i^{(n)}$ and $B_{n-i}^{(n)}$ seem to be larger than the covariances off the diagonals. As for the Kingman case, this can be explained by considering the first branching event in the coalescent history forward in time after the root. This has substantial probability to be a binary split, say in subfamilies of size $i$ and $n-i$, which yields a positive correlation between $B_i^{(n)}$ and $B_{n-i}^{(n)}$.
![The covariance ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Cov}\!\left(B_i^{(n)}, B_j^{(n)} \right) } }$ $(C)$ for sample size $n = 40$ for the Beta$(2-\alpha, \alpha)$-coalescent with $\alpha$ as shown. The lower panels show only the covariance terms, with the variance terms ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Var}\!\left( B_i^{(n)}\right) } }$ set equal to zero. The covariances range between $-0.094$ and $14.85$ when $\alpha = 1.05$, and between $-0.045$ and $2.06$ when $\alpha = 1.5$. One has ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Cov}\!\left(\xi_i^{(n)}, \xi_j^{(n)} \right) } } = (\theta^2/4){\ensuremath{\mathrm{Cov}\!\left(B_i^{(n)}, B_j^{(n)} \right) } }$ for $i \neq j$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Var}\!\left( \xi_i^{(n)}\right) } } = (\theta/2){\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ B_i^{(n)} \right] }} + (\theta^2 /4){\ensuremath{\mathrm{Var}\!\left( B_i^{(n)}\right) } }$. []{data-label="cov1"}](new_covbeta){width="7in" height="7in"}
\[cov2\] {width="7in" height="7in"}
Extending our results to the case of Xi-coalescents and multiple loci is a natural follow-up task, but lies beyond the scope of the current discussion and will be part of future research.
[Simulation studies and data analysis]{}
[**Reliability of the asymptotic results of [@BBL12]**]{}
The asymptotic results obtained by [@BBL12] (see Theorem ) can be used to obtain estimates of $\alpha$ provided the asymptotic results are ‘close’ to the true value, *and* one has an estimate of $\theta$. Ideally, such inference should take into account correlation between loci. Now we address the question how large the sample must be for the SFS to be well approximated by the asymptotic results of [@BBL12], and, indeed, if one can trust the asymptotic results for all values of $\alpha$.
Figure \[fig:bblfitnmed\] compares the asymptotic results in Theorem to simulated values for sample size $n=500$ (left column) and $n=1000$ (right column), and with $\alpha$ varying as shown. Even though we have recursions to obtain the exact expected values for finite $n$, we were not able, with present computer power, to compute covariances for $n \ge 100$. The estimated expected values and the ones from the recursions are in agreement (results not shown). Even for $n=10^4$ (Figures \[fig:bblfitnbig1\] and \[fig:bblfitnbig2\]), which would be a rather large sample, the asymptotic results (grey bars) match the simulated ones (white bars) rather poorly when $\alpha < 1.5$, but the correspondence improves as $\alpha$ increases, and at $\alpha = 1.5$ the match is already quite good. For more common sample sizes $n \le 10^3$ (Figures \[fig:bblfitnsmall\] and \[fig:bblfitnmed\]) the match is not very good for $\alpha \le 1.5$. Relying on asymptotic results to estimate $\alpha$ might thus give misleading results, even when sample size is quite large, as demonstrated in Figure \[fig:bblsingles\] which compares the asymptotic results for the singletons to the scaled (with $n^{\alpha - 2}$) exact expected values as sample size $n$ and $\alpha$ vary as shown. The poor fit of the asymptotic results to exact values of the SFS, at least for lower values of $\alpha$, suggest that exact results for the SFS, if only in the form of recursions, may be a better choice for inference methods.
![The results of [@BBL12] (Thm. \[thm:bbl\]) regarding convergence of the scaled unfolded frequency spectrum (grey bars) compared to simulations (white bars) varying over $\alpha$ as shown, with $\theta = 1$. Panels in left column are for sample size $n=500$, panels in right column are for sample size $n=1000$. The whiskers represent standard deviation. []{data-label="fig:bblfitnmed"}](new_graph_bblfit4){width="8.5in" height="9in"}
![The asymptotic results of [@BBL12] (Thm. \[thm:bbl\]) for the scaled singletons (lines) compared to the corresponding scaled exact expected values (symbols) as a function of sample size $n \in \{10,20,50,100,200,300,500,1000,2000,10000\}$ on log-scale, and varying over $\alpha$ as shown. Thus, the solid line and circles refer to $\alpha = 1.05$, the short-dashed line and squares to $\alpha = 1.25$, and so on. []{data-label="fig:bblsingles"}](graph_fig8){width="5in" height="5in"}
[Inference methods and data analysis]{}
Before we discuss our results on the analysis of the Atlantic cod data, we introduce our two inference methods, comparing observed and expected values using an $\ell^2$-distance, and a pseudo-likelihood approach.
[**The $\ell^2$-distance**]{} The simplest way to find a value of $\alpha$ or $\psi$ that gives the best fit to the data would be to compare the expected values of the frequency spectrum to the observed one, and report the parameter value that minimizes the sum of squares . In order to avoid having to jointly estimate the mutation rate, we can define the scaled frequency spectrum $\zeta_i^{(n)}$ as $$\zeta_i^{(n)} := \frac{\eta_{i}^{(n)} }{ \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}\eta_i^{(n)} }$$ The observed $\zeta_i^{(n)}$ are compared to the ratio of expected values $$r_i^{(n)} := \frac{{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ \eta_{i}^{(n)} \right] }} }{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ \eta_{i}^{(n)} \right] }} }.$$ Although clearly one should compare $\zeta_i^{(n)}$ to its actual expected value, simulation results indicate that our approximation is quite good (results not shown). A natural distance measure to compare $\zeta_i^{(n)}$ and $r_i^{(n)}$ is the $\ell^2$-distance $$\label{eq:ltwodist}\ell^2 = \sqrt{ \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}\left( \zeta_i - r_i\right)^2 }$$A similar distance measure is the $G_\xi$ statistic proposed by [@F96], in which each term in the sum is weighted by the variance of $\xi_i^{(n)}$ $\left( \eta_i^{(n)} \right)$. The computational cost of computing the variances for a Lambda-coalescent prevents us from considering an identical statistic for Lambda-coalescents. A drawback of [@F96]’s $G_\xi$ statistic is that it depends on the mutation rate $\theta$. Ideally, one would want to apply a statistic that did not depend on $\theta$. Instead, a statistic that reflects the topology of the underlying genealogy is desirable, since the processes that one usually tries to learn about in population genetics affect the topology of the genealogy of a sample in one way or another. Determining statistical significance levels of the $\ell^2$-distance will be postponed for now; however one may apply the approach of [@F96] to determine significance levels and statistical power.
[**The pseudo-likelihood approach**]{}
A more fundamental statistical inference procedure than simply applying the $\ell^2$-statistic is a likelihood inference. Ideally, in our case, to construct a likelihood function, one would have a way of writing down the probability of observing a mutation $i$ times in a sample in terms of the coalescence parameters. However, these probabilities depend on the coalescence parameters in a way that is hard to make explicit, and therefore we approximate them with the quantity $\varphi_n(i)$ . We interpret the observed site-frequency spectrum as an observation from a multinomial distribution, in which the probability of each class is estimated using $\varphi_n(i)$. For $1 \le i < n$, $\varphi_n(i)$ is the expected number of mutations in $i$ copies scaled by the expected total number of segregating sites, which corresponds to the expected total number of branches subtending $i$ leaves scaled by the expected total size of the genealogy. Since we can only compute $\varphi_n(i)$ numerically, Fisher Information cannot be computed easily, and it would not be a priori clear if the variance and confidence bounds derived therefrom via classical statistical theory would be valid. Finally, we refer to our likelihood approach as a pseudo-likelihood inference.
Now we state our pseudo-likelihood function. Let $s$ denote the total number of segregating sites, and let $\boldsymbol{s} = (s_1, \ldots,
s_k, s_{k+})$ the observed folded frequency spectrum, where $s_{k_{+}}$ denotes the collapsed class. Write $\varphi_i :=
\varphi_n(i)$, and define $\varphi_{k_+} = 1 - \varphi_1 - \cdots -
\varphi_k$. The pseudo-likelihood function $L\left(\pi |
\boldsymbol{s} \right)$ takes a multinomial form, in which $\pi$ denotes the appropriate coalescence parameter ($\psi$ or $\alpha$): $$\label{eq:likelihoodfunc}L\left(\pi | \boldsymbol{s} \right) = \binom{s}{s_1 \cdots s_k s_{k_+}}\varphi_1^{s_1}\cdots\varphi_k^{s_k}\varphi_{k_+}^{s_{k_+}}.$$The form of $L$ can be seen from the way we view the data $\boldsymbol{s}$: as an observation from a multinomial distribution in which the probability of each class is estimated with $\varphi_i$. It suffices to consider the pseudo-log-likelihood function $$\ell \left(\pi | \boldsymbol{s} \right) = s_1\log\left( \varphi_1\right) + \cdots + {s_{k_+}}\log\left(\varphi_{k_+}\right).$$ As in the case of the statistics $\zeta_i^{(n)}$ and $r_i^{(n)}$, this pseudo-likelihood approach does not require an estimate of $\theta$. In Table \[tab:Echi3\] we do show that the pseudo-likelihood performs as it should, when applied to the expected site-frequency spectrum of different coalescent processes.
Table \[tab:Echi3\] shows maximum likelihood estimates of the coalescence parameters $\alpha$ and $\psi$, when the data are the expected values of the site frequency spectrum, obtained for given values of the appropriate coalescent parameter, denoted by $\pi$ in Table \[tab:Echi3\], and computed using our recursion (prop. \[prop:Exi\]). Thus, $\pi = \alpha$ when $\pi \in (1,2)$, and $\pi = \psi$ when $\pi
\in (0,1)$. For each combination of sample size $n$ and $\pi$, the log-likelihood values are compared with the ones obtained for the Kingman coalescent $\log L(0)$. Highest log-likelihood values are always obtained for the correct parameter value even for sample size $n$ as low as ten. And for modest sample sizes, one should be able to correctly identify the Kingman coalescent ($\pi = 0$ in Table \[tab:Echi3\]).
In Figures \[fig:graphlBBab\]–\[fig:mlekingman\] in Supporting Information we estimate the distribution of the maximum-likelihood estimator for different values of $n$, $\theta$, and the coalescence parameters $\alpha$ and $\psi$. As one expects, the performance of the pseudo-likelihood is better for larger values of $n$ and $\theta$.
A natural question to address is how well do the probabilities $\varphi_n(i)$ actually fit with the correct values ${\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ \zeta_i^{(n)} \right] }}$ In Figures \[fig:errfit0\] and \[fig:errfit1\] in Supporting Information we address this issue via simulations. The agreement between $p_i$ and $\overline{R_i}$ is best when the number $n$ of leaves (sample size) is large, and $\alpha$ closer to 2 than to 1.
The C code written to carry out the computations is available upon request.
[lllllllll]{}\
$n$ & $\pi$ & $\hat{\alpha}$ & $\hat{\psi}$ & $\log L(\hat{\alpha})$ & $\log L(\hat{\psi})$ & $\log L(0)$\
10 & 0 & $1.96$ & $0.02$ & $-5.404$ & $-5.405$ & $-5.404$\
100 & & $1.96$ & $0.02$ & $ -19.027$ & $ -19.176$ & $ -19.021$\
1000& & $1.96$ & $0.02$ & $ -38.868$ & $-43.281$ & $ -38.847$\
10 & $1.05$ & $1.06$ & $0.30$ & $-5.122$ & $-5.159$ & $-5.583$\
100& & $1.06$ & $0.12$ & $-26.179$ & $-27.483$ & $ -35.3964 $\
1000&& $1.04$ &$0.04$ & $-106.80$ & $-120.525$ & $ -204.1335$\
10 & $1.5$ & $1.50$ & $0.14$ & $-5.410$ & $-5.419$ & $ -5.508$\
100& & $1.50$ & $0.04$ & $-23.731$ & $-24.163$ & $ -25.272$\
1000&& $1.50$ & $0.02$ & $-71.143$ & $-78.175$ & $ -81.3238$\
10 & $0.01$ & $1.96$ & $0.02$ & $-54110.92$ & $-54113.630$ & $-54113.59$\
100& & $1.90$ & $0.02$ & $-194644.8$ & $-194884.834$ & $-194951.4$\
1000& & $1.62$ & $0.02$ & $-440572.40$& $-432453.967$ & $ -466074.3$\
10 & $0.5$& $1.02$ & $0.5$ & $-19.219$ & $-18.378$ & $ -23.28243$\
100 & & $1.02$ & $0.5$ & $-85.749$ & $-63.553$ & $ -207.8592$\
1000& & $1.02$ & $0.5$ & $-329.189$ & $-130.413$ & $ -2099.191$\
[**Atlantic cod mtDNA data analysis** ]{}
An application of the recursion (Prop. ) for the exact expected values for the site-frequency spectrum will now be illustrated using data on Atlantic cod obtained from various localities in the North-Atlantic [@A00; @SA03; @A04]. The shallow gene genealogies observed among the haplotypes sampled, coupled with very high fecundity of Atlantic cod, lead [@A04] to argue that the Kingman coalescent may not be an appropriate null-model for Atlantic cod. Later studies [@E11; @SBB13] support that conclusion by finding better match between the data and the beta-coalescent, than obtained for the Kingman coalescent. [@E11] employ the asymptotic results of [@BBL12] on the site-frequency spectrum obtained from [@A04], while [@SBB13] employ full-likelihood methods on the sequence data of Atlantic cod datasets of smaller size than in [@A04].
The Atlantic cod mtDNA datasets we analyse are summarized in Table \[tab:coddata\]. The sequence data from the Faroe Islands [@SA03] consist of a 250 bp segment from the mitochondrial *cytochrome* b gene in addition to 242bp and 74bp segments for a total of 566bp. The data from Greenland and Iceland described in [@A00] consist of the 250bp segment, and so does the combined data described in [@A04].
source $s$ $\eta_1$ $\eta_2$ $\eta_3$ $\eta_4$ $\eta_5$ $\eta_6$ $\eta_7$ $\eta_8$ $\eta_9$ $\eta_{10}$ $\eta_{11+}$
-------------------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------------
[@A00]
Greenland (78) 9 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
Iceland (519) 23 12 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
joint (597) 24 11 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5
[@SA03]
Faroe Islands (74) 44 23 9 1 1 1 0 9 0 0 0 0
[@A04] ($1278$) 39 17 4 4 2 4 1 0 1 0 0 6
: The folded frequency spectrum for the Atlantic cod data in [@A00], [@SA03], and [@A04]. The sample size of each dataset is given in parentheses. Mutations of frequency classes from 11 onwards are lumped together in the $11_+$ class except for the data from Faroe Islands, in which mutations from seven onwards are lumped into the $7_+$ class. The symbol $s$ denotes the total number of segregating sites. []{data-label="tab:coddata"}
In Figures \[fig:rltd\_a\] and \[fig:rltd\_p\] the $\ell^2$-distances comparing $\zeta_i^{(n)}$ and $r_i^{(n)}$ obtained for the different Atlantic cod datasets are compared. The corresponding parameter estimates are reported in Table \[tab:ltwomin\]. For the larger datasets one observes much ‘sharper’ curves than for the smaller ones as one would expect, since the larger datasets carry more information. The difference in $\ell^2$-distance between the coalescent processes is also biggest for the larger datasets, with the beta-coalescent showing the best fit for all the datasets, although the difference between the two Lambda-coalescents is not always large. However, based on this simple parameter estimation method, one would clearly prefer one of the two Lambda-coalescents over the Kingman coalescent.
![The $\ell^2$-distance between $\zeta_i$ and $r_i$ for the five different Atlantic cod datasets, with expected values obtained for the beta-coalescent. The values associated with the Kingman coalescent are obtained for $\alpha = 2$. The A04 dataset refers to the one in [@A04]. []{data-label="fig:rltd_a"}](graph_rltda){width="5in" height="5in"}
![The $\ell^2$-distance between $\zeta_i$ and $r_i$ for the five different Atlantic cod datasets, with expected values obtained for the point-mass coalescent. See Figure \[fig:rltd\_a\] for explanation of symbols. []{data-label="fig:rltd_p"}](graph_rltdp){width="5in" height="5in"}
data $\hat{\alpha}$ $\hat{\psi}$ $\ell^2(\hat{\alpha})$ $\ell^2(\hat{\psi})$ $\ell^2(0)$
--------------- ---------------- -------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- -------------
Faroe Islands $1.35$ $0.084$ $0.113$ $0.165$ $0.371$
Greenland (G) $1.65$ $0.036$ $0.200$ $0.217$ $0.272$
Iceland (I) $1.45$ $0.022$ $0.154$ $0.172$ $0.473$
G + I $1.50$ $0.016$ $0.077$ $0.180$ $0.429$
A04 $1.50$ $0.012$ $0.121$ $0.278$ $0.569$
: The parameter values minimizing the $\ell^2$ distance. The $\ell^2$-distance $\ell^2(0)$ associated with the Kingman coalescent is given for reference. The reference ‘A04’ refers to the large dataset in [@A04]. []{data-label="tab:ltwomin"}
The maximum-likelihood estimates (Table \[tab:mlecod\]) agree quite well with the $\ell^2$-distance approach in Table \[tab:ltwomin\]. [@SBB13] apply full-likelihood methods on small Atlantic cod datasets, including the Faroe Islands dataset [@SA03], and the Greenland subsample of [@A00] to obtain estimates of $\alpha$. Their estimates $(\hat{\alpha} = 1.5)$ for the Greenland subsample, and $\hat{\alpha} = 1.3$ for the Faroe Islands sample, agree with our estimates, in particular the Faroe Islands sample.
data $\hat{\alpha}$ $\log L(\hat{\alpha})$ $\hat{\psi}$ $\log L(\hat{\psi})$ $\log L(0)$ $\hat{\theta}$ $\ell^2_B$ $\ell^2_K$
--------------- ---------------- ------------------------ -------------- ---------------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------ -- --
Faroe Islands $1.28$ $-82.239$ $0.06$ $-89.634$ $-97.543$ $4.577$ $4.730$ $16.441$
Greenland (G) $1.70$ $-21.445$ $0.03$ $-21.615$ $-21.963$ $1.409$ $2.394$ $2.470$
Iceland (I) $1.38$ $-29.895$ $0.02$ $-32.452$ $-40.547$ $0.982$ $3.683$ $10.880$
G + I $1.47$ $-55.557$ $0.01$ $-60.403$ $-68.523$ $1.179$ $5.204$ $13.247$
[@A04] $1.48$ $-71.099$ $0.005$ $-81.846$ $-90.594$ $1.373$ $4.625$ $19.448$
: Estimates $(\hat{\alpha}, \hat{\psi})$ based on the pseudo-likelihood for the Atlantic cod data in [@A00], [@SA03], and [@A04]. The estimate $\hat{\theta}$ of $\theta$ is the one associated with the Beta$(2-\alpha,\alpha)$-coalescent. The maximum pseudo-log-likelihood values $\log L(\cdot)$, along with the corresponding value $\log L(0)$ associated with the Kingman coalescent, are given. The $\ell^2$ distances between the observed and expected site-frequency spectrum computed for the maximum pseudo-likelihood estimates are given for the beta-coalescent $\left(\ell_B^2\right)$, and the Kingman coalescent $\left(\ell_K^2\right)$. The estimate $\hat{\theta}$ of $\theta$ is the one associated with the beta-coalescent based on the total number of segregating sites. []{data-label="tab:mlecod"}
data AIC$(\alpha)$ AIC$(\psi)$ AIC$(0)$
--------------- --------------- ------------- ----------- -- --
Faroe Islands $166.478$ $181.268$ $195.086$
Greenland (G) $44.89$ $45.23$ $43.926$
Iceland (I) $61.79$ $66.904$ $81.094$
G + I $113.114$ $122.806$ $137.046$
[@A04] $144.198$ $165.692$ $181.188$
: Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) for the five cod datasets. By AIC$(0)$ we denote the AIC associated with the Kingman coalescent. []{data-label="tab:aic"}
The beta-coalescent yields the highest likelihood for all the datasets (Table \[tab:mlecod\]). The fit to the dataset reported in [@A04] is, in particular, much better than for the Kingman coalescent, as measured by the $\ell^2$-distance. The superior fit of the beta-coalescent is further illustrated in Figure \[fig:codalldata\], in which the expected site-frequency spectrum of the beta-coalescent and the Kingman coalescent is compared to the observed one of [@A04]. A similar graph (Figure \[fig:farisdata\]) for the Faroe Islands data of [@SA03] is given in Supporting Information. Comparing [@A73]’s Information Criterion (Table \[tab:aic\]) between models tells the same story (except for the Greenland data).
![The folded freq. spectrum (white bars) of the data of [@A04] along with predictions of the Kingman coalescent (dark-grey bars), and the Beta$(2-\hat{\alpha},\hat{\alpha})$-coalescent (light-grey bars). The vertical lines represent the standard deviation; obtained for the Beta$(2-\hat{\alpha},\hat{\alpha})$-coalescent from $10^5$ iterations. The class labelled ‘11’ represents the collated tail of the spectrum, from 11 to 1278/2. []{data-label="fig:codalldata"}](graphcodalldata){width="5in" height="5in"}
[Discussion]{}
Inferring coalescence parameters of Lambda-coalescents from large samples is our main focus. To this end we derive recursions for the expected values and covariances of the site-frequency spectrum associated with a Lambda-coalescent. The multiple-merger property of Lambda-coalescents makes obtaining closed-form solutions, as done by [@F95] for the Kingman coalescent, prohibitively hard. The value of the recursions in obtaining point-estimates of coalescent parameters for two specific Lambda-coalescents is then illustrated in two ways, utilising mtDNA data on Atlantic cod.
Asymptotic results play a key role in inference. Knowing for what regions of the parameter space the asymptotic results approximate the true values ‘well enough’, in some sense, in other words knowing the rate of convergence, is also quite important for inference. We investigate the rate of convergence for recent asymptotic results, as sample size $n \to \infty$, of [@BBL12] regarding the scaled site-frequency spectrum associated with Lambda-coalescents, since we do not have an expression for the error in the asymptotic results. Our results show that the rate of convergence, in terms of sample size, is quite slow for low values of the coalescence parameter $\alpha$. Thus, exact inference methods appear preferable.
A simple distance measure is employed on the scaled frequency spectrum, removing the need to jointly estimate the mutation rate. The observed spectrum is compared to the expected values for different values of the coalescence parameters, and the value that minimizes the distance is reported. A straightforward pseudo-likelihood approach is also applied, where the probabilities of mutations to be in different classes are estimated from the recursions for the expected values of the spectrum. These two different approaches give very similar estimates for the two Lambda-coalescents we consider. In addition, they are shown to be capable of distinguishing Lambda-coalescents from the Kingman coalescent, as well as distinguishing between the two Lambda-coalescents when sample size is not too small. Both approaches also show promise in distinguishing between different Lambda-coalescents, and they do not require estimates of the mutation rate. Our results open up new possibilities to construct test statistics to test for ‘neutrality’ when the underlying population model admits large offspring numbers, i.e. in highly fecund natural populations such as Atlantic cod [@A04]. One could, by way of example, consider linear weighted combinations of the site frequency spectrum to construct tests for ‘neutrality’ in high fecundity populations, in the spirit of [@A09]. The present discussion will not address the statistical power of different statistics one could construct using our recursions, and their performance under various scenarios, such as population expansion. This will be the subject of future work. Our aim here is to illustrate the wide applicability of the recursions we obtain for the mean and variance of the site-frequency spectrum associated with Lambda-coalescents.
Lambda-coalescents are essentially single-locus models, as they admit only one merger each time. Models for multiple loci would naturally involve Xi-coalescents admitting simultaneous multiple mergers. Intuitively, one might think that multi-loci inference methods would be better able to distinguish between different coalescent processes, and, indeed, the underlying population models, than single-locus approaches. A natural question to address is the sample size, as well as the number of loci, one would recommend in order to identify the appropriate coalescent process. Such issues are truly relevant, not least in part by advances in DNA sequencing technology. Our partial response is that our results indicate that one may only need moderate sample sizes in order to distinguish between Lambda-coalescents. The question on the number of loci required is still very much open, not least because the development of ancestral recombination graphs admitting simultaneous multiple mergers is only in it’s early stages [@EW08; @BBE13].
A key distinguishing feature of the site-frequency spectrum drawn from a large offspring number population is the excess of singletons compared to the spectrum one expects in an ordinary Wright-Fisher population. When data contains sequencing errors, some authors have proposed analysing the data without the singletons, leading to corresponding test statistics which exclude the singletons [@A08]. At present we do not address the issue of sequencing errors, but we point out that for many natural high-fecundity populations, and with advances in DNA sequencing techniques, this may not be an issue. However, the issue of sequencing errors remains an important subject for future analysis.
The role of mtDNA as a suitable genetic marker for studying population history in general has been subject to some criticism [@BW04; @BGG06; @B10]. A single genetic marker may not be sufficient to infer population history, due to stochasticity in the effects of a populations’ demography on the genome [@BW04]. Natural selection may be continously acting on (at least) parts of the mitochondrial genome of Atlantic cod, thus biasing any inference made on supposedly ‘neutral’ segments of the non-recombining mitochondrial genome [@SH74; @G00; @DS05]. In addition, we have not compared the data to models of population growth, which may mimic the effects of high fecundity. However, overfishing of Atlantic cod may have significantly diminished cod stocks throughout its’ range in the North-Atlantic, which suggests that population expansion may not be an appropriate model for Atlantic cod. In addition, as mtDNA is inherited maternally, and female cods may lay millions of eggs annually [@M67; @A04], our fit with Lambda coalescents might represent sweepstakes reproduction. Whatever the main reasons for the observed patterns of genetic diversity observed (see [@A04], in particular the discussion on pp. 1882 – 3), we stress that our purpose is simply to illustrate our inference methods, rather than reach a firm conclusion on the main mechanism shaping mtDNA diversity in Atlantic cod.
The two specific Lambda-coalescents we consider will certainly not (one hopes) be the only Lambda-coalescents ever applied to highly-fecund natural populations. Recent work [@HM11; @HM11b; @M11] introduces specific Lambda-coalescent processes not considered in the present discussion. It remains an important exercise to compare all those new processes to actual data. In conclusion, we emphasize that even though one finds that one particular coalescent process fits the data better than another one, this does not automatically mean that one has found the correct model. Biological knowledge and insight remain key factors in identifying appropriate population models for natural populations. By way of example, the haploid population models underlying the two Lambda-coalescents we focus on - and - are very different. In the model underlying , the key assumption is about the distribution of the number of viable (potential) offspring each individual contributes to the population [@schweinsberg03]. In the model underlying , a single parent contributes a fixed number of offspring in each reproduction event [@EW06]. Such assumptions about the population model must form an integral part of any inference study.
[We thank two referees for insightful comments which improved the presentation. M. Birkner was supported in part by DFG grant BI 1058/2-1. J. Blath and B. Eldon were supported in part by DFG grant BL 1105/3-1. ]{}
[53]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, 2008 Testing for neutrality in samples with sequencing errors. Genetics [**179**]{}: 1409–1424.
, 2009 Frequency spectrum neutrality tests: One for all and all for one. Genetics [**183**]{}: 249–258.
, 1973 Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In *Second International Symposium on Information Theory*, eds [B.N. Petrov]{} and [F. Czáki]{}, pp. 267–281. Budapest: Akademiai Kiadó.
, [Ball, R.M.]{}, and [Arnold, J.]{}, 1988 Current versus historical population sizes in vertebrate species with high gene flow: a comparison based on mitochondrial [DNA]{} lineages and inbreeding theory for neutral mutations. Mol Biol Evol [**5**]{}: 331–344.
, 2004 Mitochondrial cytochrome *b* variation in the high-fecundity [A]{}tlantic cod: trans-[A]{}tlantic clines and shallow gene genealogy. Genetics [**166**]{}: 1871–1885.
, [P. H. Petersen]{}, [K. Kristinsson]{}, [ H. Sigurgíslason]{}, and [S. Pálsson]{}, 2000 Mitochondrial cytochrome *b* [DNA]{} sequence variation of [A]{}tlantic cod from [I]{}celand and [G]{}reenland. J. Fish Biol [**56**]{}: 409–430.
, [Whitlock, M.C.]{}, 2004 The incomplete natural history of mitochondria. Mol Ecol [**13**]{}: 729–744.
, 2010 The worm in the fruit of the mitochondrial [DNA]{} tree. Heredity [**104**]{}: 419–410.
, [A. M. Etheridge]{}, and [A. Véber]{}, 2010 A new model for evolution in a spatial continuum. Electron. J. Probab [**7**]{}: 162––216.
, [A. M. Etheridge]{}, and [A. Véber]{}, 2013 Modelling evolution in a spatial continuum. J. Stat. Mech. [**2013**]{}: 1002.
, [Glemin, S.]{}, [Galtier, N.]{}, 2006 Population size does not influence mitochondrial genetic diversity in animals. Science [**312**]{}: 570–572.
, [W. Zhang]{}, and [D. Balding]{}, 2002 Approximate bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics [**162**]{}: 2025–2035.
, [J. Cornuet]{}, [J. Marin]{}, and [C. P. Robert]{}, 2009 Adaptive approximate bayesian computation. Biometrika [**96**]{}: 983–990.
, 1994 Mitochondrial haplotype frequencies in oysters: neutral alternatives to selection models. In *Non-neutral Evolution*, [ed. B Golding]{} 188–198. [Chapman & Hall, New York]{}.
, [N. Berestycki]{}, and [V. Limic]{}, 2013 A sampling formulae for lambda-coalescents. ArXiv:1201.6512.
, 2009 Recent progress in coalescent theory. Ensaios Mathématicos [**16**]{}: 1–193.
, and [J. Blath]{}, 2008 Computing likelihoods for coalescents with multiple collisions in the infinitely many sites model. J Math Biol [**57**]{}: 435–465.
, and [J. Blath]{}, 2009 Measure-valued diffusions, general coalescents and population genetic inference. In J. Blath, P. Mörters and M. Scheutzow, editors, [*Trends in stochastic analysis*]{}. Cambridge University Press, 329–363.
, [J. Blath]{}, and [B. Eldon]{}, 2013 An ancestral recombination graph for diploid populations with skewed offspring distribution. Genetics [**193**]{}: 255–290.
, [J. Blath]{}, [M. Möhle]{}, [ M. Steinrücken]{}, and [J. Tams]{}, 2009 A modified lookdown construction for the [X]{}i-[F]{}leming-[V]{}iot process with mutation and populations with recurrent bottlenecks. ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat. [**6**]{}: 25–61.
, [J. Blath]{}, and [M. Steinrücken]{}, 2011 Importance sampling for [L]{}ambda-coalescents in the infinitely many sites model. Theor Popul Biol [**79**]{}: 155–173.
, [B. Collet]{}, [F. Cornette]{}, [V. Hervouet]{}, and [ F. Bonhomme]{}, 2002 High variance in reproductive success of the [Pacific]{} oyster (*Crassostrea Gigas*, [T]{}hunberg) revealed by microsatellite-based parentage analysis of multifactorial crosses. Aquaculture [**204**]{}: 283–296.
, and [P. Ralph]{}, 2012 Patterns of neutral diversity under general models of selective sweeps. Genetics [**192**]{}: 205–24.
, [J. Dhersin]{}, and [A. Siri-Jégousse]{}, 2008 Asymptotic results on the length of coalescent trees. Ann Appl Probab [**18**]{}: 997–1025.
, [F. Freund]{}, [A. Siri-Jégousse]{}, and [ L. Yuan]{}, 2012 On the length of an external branch in the beta-coalescent. ArXiv:1201.3983.
, and [T. G. Kurtz]{}, 1999 Particle representations for measure-valued population models. Ann Probab [**27**]{}: 166–205.
, and [J. Schweinsberg]{}, 2004 Approximating selective sweeps. Theor Popul Biol [**66**]{}: 129–138.
, and [J. Schweinsberg]{}, 2005 A coalescent model for the effect of advantageous mutations on the genealogy of a population. Stoch Proc Appl [**115**]{}: 1628–1657.
, 2011 Estimation of parameters in large offspring number models and ratios of coalescence times. Theor Popul Biol [**80**]{}: 16–28.
, and [J. Wakeley]{}, 2006 Coalescent processes when the distribution of offspring number among individuals is highly skewed. Genetics [**172**]{}: 2621–2633.
, and [Wakeley, J.]{}, 2008 Linkage disequilibrium under skewed offspring distribution among individuals in a population. Genetics [**178**]{}: 1517–1532.
, 1995 Statistical properties of segregating sites. Theor Popul Biol [**48**]{}: 172–197.
, 1996 New statistical tests of neutrality for [DNA]{} samples from a population. Genetics [**143**]{}: 557–570.
, 1997 Statistical tests of neutrality of mutations against population growth, hitchhiking and background selection. Genetics [**147**]{}: 915–925.
, 2000 Genetic drift in an infinite population: the pseudohitchhiking model. Genetics [**155**]{}: 909–919.
, [A. Iksanov]{}, [A. Marynych]{}, and [M. Möhle]{}, 2013 On asymptotics of the beta-coalescents. ArXiv:1203.3110.
, and [S. Tavaré]{}, 1998 The age of a mutation in a general coalescent tree. Comm Statistic Stoch Models [**14**]{}: 273–295.
, and [A. I. Pudovkin]{}, 2011 Sweepstakes reproductive success in highly fecund marine fish and shellfish: a review and commentary. Bull Marine Science [**87**]{}: 971–1002.
, 2005 Large variance in reproductive success and the $N_e/N$ ratio. Evolution [**59**]{}: 1596–9.
, and [M. Möhle]{}, 2011 On the extended [M]{}oran model and its relation to coalescents with multiple collisions. Theor Popul Biol Doi: 10.1016/j.tpb.2011.09.004.
, and [M. Möhle]{}, 2011 Population genetics models with skewed fertilities: forward and backward analysis. Stoch Models [**27**]{}: 521–554.
, 2012 The asymptotic distribution of the length of beta-coalescent trees. Ann. Appl. Probab [**22**]{}: 2086–2107.
, [J. C. Pardo]{}, and [A. [Siri-Jégousse]{}]{}, 2013 Total internal and external lengths of the bolthausen-sznitman coalescent. ArXiv:1302.1463.
, and [I. Stanciu]{}, 2013 The internal branch lengths of the [Kingman]{} coalescent. ArXiv:1303.4562.
, [I. Stanciu]{}, and [A. Wakolbinger]{}, 2013 The total external branch length of beta-coalescents. ArXiv:1212.6070.
, 1969 The number of heterozygous nucleotide sites maintained in a finite population due to steady flux of mutations. Genetics [**61**]{}:893–903.
, 1982 The coalescent. Stoch Proc Appl [**13**]{}: 235–248.
and [D. Hedgecock]{}, 1998 Genetic heterogeneity, detected by [PCR-SSCP]{}, among samples of larval [P]{}acific oysters (*Crassostrea gigas*) supports the hypothesis of large variance in reproductive success. Can J Fish Aquat Sci [**55**]{}: 1025–1033.
, [V. Chow]{}, and [R.S. Waples]{}, 1992 Effective population numbers of shellfish broodstocks estimated from temporal variance in allelic frequencies. Aquaculture [**108**]{}: 215–232.
, [P. Pudlo]{}, [C. Robert]{}, and [R. Ryder]{}, 2011 Approximate bayesian computational methods. Statistics and Computing [**22**]{}: 1167–1180.
, 1967 Fecundity of [A]{}tlantic cod. J Fish Res Brd Can [**24**]{}: 1531–1551.
, 2011 Coalescent processes derived from some compound poisson population models. Elect Comm Probab [**16**]{}: 567–582.
, and [S. Sagitov]{}, 2001 A classification of coalescent processes for haploid exchangeable population models. Ann Probab [**29**]{}: 1547–1562.
, and [S. Sagitov]{}, 2003 Coalescent patterns in diploid exchangeable population models. J Math Biol [**47**]{}: 337–352.
, [C. Fefferman]{}, and [N. Patterson]{}, 2008 Can one learn history from the allelic spectrum? Theor Popul Biol [**73**]{}: 342–8.
, [A.C. Wilson]{}, 1990 Mitochondrial [DNA]{} diversity in the sea-urchins *[S]{}trongylocentrotus purpuratus* and *[S]{}trongylocentrotus droebachiensis*. Evolution [**44**]{}: 403–415.
, 1999 Coalescents with multiple collisions. Ann Probab [**27**]{}: 1870–1902.
, [ P. Lenfant]{}, 2002 Temporal change in the genetic structure between and within cohorts of a marine fish, *Diplodus sargus*, induced by a large variance in individual reproductive success. Molec Ecol [**11**]{}: 1515–1524.
, [M. T. Seielstad]{}, [A. Perez-Lezaun]{}, and [ M. W. Feldman]{}, 1999 Population growth of human y chromosomes: a study of y chromosome microsatellites. Molec Biol Evol [**16**]{}: 1791–1798.
, 1999 The general coalescent with asynchronous mergers of ancestral lines. J Appl Probab [**36**]{}: 1116–1125.
, 2003 Convergence to the coalescent with simultaneous mergers. J Appl Probab [**40**]{}: 839–854.
, [K. Thornton]{}, [J. Hallow]{}, [J. Booth]{}, [ M. Stillman]{}, [*et al.*]{}, 2011 Experiments with the site frequency spectrum. Bull Math Biol [**73**]{}: 829–872.
, and [J. Wakeley]{}, 2008 A coalescent process with simultaneous multiple mergers for approximating the gene genealogies of many marine organisms. Theor Pop Biol [**74**]{}: 104–114.
, 2000 Coalescents with simultaneous multiple collisions. Electron J Probab [**5**]{}: 1–50.
, 2003 Coalescent processes obtained from supercritical [G]{}alton-[W]{}atson processes. Stoch Proc Appl [**106**]{}: 107–139.
, and [E. Árnason]{}, 2003 Extent of mitochrondrial [DNA]{} sequence variation in [A]{}tlantic cod from the [F]{}aroe [Islands]{}: a resolution of gene genealogy. Heredity [**91**]{}: 557–564.
, [Haigh, J.]{}, 1974 The hitchhiking effect of a favorable gene. Genet Res [**23**]{}: 23–35.
, 2009 [*Multiple Merger Coalescents and Population Genetic Inference*]{}. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Berlin.
, [M. Birkner]{}, and [J. Blath]{}, 2013 Analysis of [DNA]{} sequence variation within marine species using [B]{}eta-coalescents. Theor Popul Biol [**87**]{}:15–24.
, 2007 [*Coalescent theory*]{}. Roberts & Co.
, 1975 On the number of segregating sites in genetical models without recombination. Theor Popul Biol [**7**]{}: 256–276.
, 1975 Sex and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
, [Tellier, A.]{}, 2012 Germ banks affect the inference of past demographic events. Mol Ecol [**21**]{}: 5434–5446.
, [Wiehe, T.]{}, 2008 Second order moments of segregating sites under variable population size. Genetics [**180**]{}: 341–357.
Appendix
========
A recursion for $p^{(n)}[k,b]$ (prop. \[prop:r\])
-------------------------------------------------
Assume we start the block counting process in some state $Y_0=n$ and denote its distribution by ${\mathbb{P}}_n$. Then, the probability that the first jump takes it to state $n' < n$, conditionally on the event that it hits state $k \le n'$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conditioning}
{\mathbb{P}}_n\{Y \mbox{ first jumps from $n$ to } n' \, | \, Y \mbox{ hits } k \}
&= \frac{{\mathbb{P}}_n \{Y \mbox{ first jumps to } n' \cap Y \mbox{ hits } k \}}
{{\mathbb{P}}_n \{ Y \mbox{ hits } k \}}\notag \\
&= p_{n, n'} \frac{{\mathbb{P}}_{n'} \{ Y \mbox{ hits } k \}}
{{\mathbb{P}}_n \{ Y \mbox{ hits } k \}} = p_{n, n'} \frac{g(n', k)}{g(n, k)},\end{aligned}$$ due to the Markov property of $Y$. This well-known observation will be useful later.
Decomposing according to the first jump of $Y$, starting from $n$, yields the following recursion for $p^{(n)}[k,b]$.
\[prop:r\] For $1 < k \le n$, we have $$\label{eq:rnk}
{p^{(n)}[k,b]} =
\sum_{n'=k}^{n-1} p_{n,n'}\frac{g(n',k)}{g(n,k)}
\bigg( {\mathbf{1}}_{(b > n-n')} \frac{b-(n-n')}{n'} {p^{(n')}[k,b-(n-n')]}
+ {\mathbf{1}}_{(b < n')} \frac{n'-b}{n'} {p^{(n')}[k,b]} \bigg),$$ with the obvious boundary conditions ${p^{(n)}[n,b]}=\delta_{1b}$ and ${p^{(n)}[k,b]} = 0$ if $b > n-(k-1)$.
The boundary conditions allow us to replace the second indicator function on the rhs by ${\mathbf{1}}_{(b \le n-(k-1))}$. In case of the Kingman coalescent (indicated by an additional superscript-‘${(K)}$’), ${p^{(n)}[k,b]}$ becomes $${p^{(n)(K)}[k,b]} = {\mathbf{1}}_{(b > 1)}\frac{b - 1 }{n - 1}{p^{(n-1)(K)}[k,b-1]} + {\mathbf{1}}_{(b < n-1)}\frac{n - 1 - b}{n - 1}{p^{(n-1)(K)}[k,b]}$$ and [@F95] obtains a closed-form solution: $ {p^{(n)(K)}[k,b]} =
{\binom{n - b - 1}{k - 2} }/{\binom{n - 1 }{k - 1 } }. $ A proof of proposition now follows.
Conditionally on $Y$ hitting $k$, the first jump can take $Y$ to any $n' \in \{k, \dots, n-1\}$. The probability of seeing a jump from $n$ to $n'$, conditionally on hitting $k$, has probability $p_{n,n'}\frac{g(n',k)}{g(n,k)}$, by . Then, thinking ‘forwards in time from $n'$ lineages’, either the initial $(n-n'+1)$-split occurred to one of the (then necessarily $b-(n-n')\,$) lineages subtended to the one we are interested in, or it occurs to one of the (then necessarily $n'-b$) others.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:Exi\]
---------------------------------
Let $
T_k :=
\int_0^\infty {\mathbf{1}}_{(Y_s = k)} \, ds
$ be the length of the time interval during which there are $k$ lineages (which is possibly $0$), and consider, in an $n$-$\Lambda$-coalescent, $$\psi_n(b) := \mbox{expected total length of all branches with $b$ subtended
leaves}. \notag$$ One now obtains $$\label{eq:psi}
{\mathbb{E}}[\xi_i^{(n)}] = \frac{\theta}{2} \psi_n(i) =
\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{k=2}^{n-i+1} {p^{(n)}[k,i]} k {\mathbb{E}}\big[ T_k \big]
= \frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{k=2}^{n-i+1} {p^{(n)}[k,i]} k g(n,k).$$
A recursion for ${p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}[k; i,j]$ (prop \[prop:1\])
---------------------------------------------------------------------
\[prop:1\]For $2 \le k < n$ and $i, j \ge 1; i+j \le n-k+2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p.eq.rec}
{p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}[k; i,j] & =
\sum_{m=k}^{n-1} p_{n,m} \frac{g(m,k)}{g(n,k)}
\Big[ \frac{i-(n-m)}{m} {p}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{eq}}[k; i-(n-m),j]
{\mathbf{1}}_{(i>n-m)} \notag \\
& \hspace{9em} {}
+ \frac{j-(n-m)}{m} {p}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{eq}}[k; i,j-(n-m)]
{\mathbf{1}}_{(j>n-m)} \notag \\
& \hspace{9em} {}
+ \frac{m-i-j}{m} {p}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{eq}}[k; i,j]
{\mathbf{1}}_{(i+j>m)} \Big], \end{aligned}$$ and (as boundary condition) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p.eq.rec.bc}
{p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}[n; i,j] = {\mathbf{1}}_{(i=j=1)}, \quad n \in {{\mathbb N}}.\end{aligned}$$
Decompose according to the first jump of $Y$, conditionally on hitting $k$. As in the proof of Proposition \[prop:r\], the probability of jumping to some state $m\in \{k,
\dots, n-1\}$ is $p_{n,m}\frac{g(m,k)}{g(n,k)}$, by . Thinking ‘forwards in time from $m$ lineages’, either the initial $(n-m+1)$-split occured to one of the $i-(n-m)$ lineages subtended from the first sampled edge, or to one of the $j-(n-m)$ lineages subtended from the second sampled edge, or to one of the $m- i-b$ others.
One can derive a similar recursion for “labelled” leaves, where the order of the sample plays a role. For example, if we distinguish between individuals in our sample, we obtain for $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}(k; i,j)$, where the round brackets indicate that we refer to specific sets of $i$ resp. $j$ labelled leaves, the recursion $$\begin{aligned}
p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}(k; i,j) & = \sum_{n'=k}^{n-1} p_{n,n'}
\frac{1}{{n \choose n-n'+1}} \Big[
{i \choose n-n'+1} p^{(n')}_{\mathrm{eq}}(k; i-(n-n'),j) \notag \\
& \qquad+ {j \choose n-n'+1} p^{(n')}_{\mathrm{eq}}(k; i,j-(n-n'))
+ {n-(i+j) \choose n-n'+1} p^{(n')}_{\mathrm{eq}}(k; i,j) \Big]\end{aligned}$$ for $n>2$ (noting that $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}(k; i,j)=0$ if $i < 1$ or $j < 1$ or $i+j \ge n-k+1$).
Recursion for ${p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}[k,i ; \ell,j]$ (prop. \[prop:2\])
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[prop:2\] For $2 \le k < \ell \le n$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p.un.rec}
{p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}[k,i ; \ell,j]
& =
\sum_{m=\ell}^{n-1} p_{n,m} \frac{g(m,\ell)}{g(n,\ell)}
\Big[ \frac{i-(n-m)}{m} {p}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{un}}[k, i-(n-m); \ell, j]
{\mathbf{1}}_{(i>n-m)} \notag \\
& \hspace{9em} {}
+ \frac{j-(n-m)}{m} {p}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{un}}[k, i; \ell, j-(n-m)]
{\mathbf{1}}_{(j>n-m)} \notag \\
& \hspace{9em} {}
+ \frac{m-i-j}{m} {p}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{un}}[k,i; \ell,j]
{\mathbf{1}}_{(m>i+j)} \Big] \end{aligned}$$ with boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p.un.rec.bc}
{p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}[k,i ; n,j] = {\mathbf{1}}_{(j=1)} {p^{(n)}[k,i]} \frac{n-i}{n},
\quad 2 \le k < n, \quad 1 \le i <n.\end{aligned}$$
As for the previous recursions, we decompose according to the first jump of $Y$, conditionally on hitting $\ell$. Due to the Markov property we do not need to condition on hitting $k$ as well. This second conditioning is ‘hidden’ in the ${p}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{un}}$ terms and in particular in the boundary terms . The rest of the argument is as usual.
A recursion for ${p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}[k,i ; \ell ,j]$ (prop. \[prop:3\])
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[prop:3\] For $2 \le k < \ell \le n$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p.ne.rec}
{p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}[k,i ; \ell ,j] & =
\sum_{m=\ell}^{n-1} p_{n,m} \frac{g(m,\ell)}{g(n, \ell)}
\Big[ \frac{i-j-(n-m)}{m} {p}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{ne}}[k, i-(n-m); \ell, j]
{\mathbf{1}}_{(i-j>n-m)} \notag \\
& \hspace{9em} {}
+ \frac{j-(n-m)}{m} {p}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{ne}}[k, i-(n-m); \ell, j-(n-m)]
{\mathbf{1}}_{(j>n-m)} \notag \\
& \hspace{9em} {}
+ \frac{m-i}{m} {p}^{(m)}_{\mathrm{ne}}[k,i; \ell,j]
{\mathbf{1}}_{(m>i} \Big] \end{aligned}$$ with boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p.ne.rec.bc}
{p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}(k,i ; n,j) = {\mathbf{1}}_{(j=1)} {p^{(n)}[k,i]} \frac{i}{n},
\quad 2 \le k < n, 1 \le i < n.\end{aligned}$$
The proof follows from arguments similar to the previous proofs.
The recursions for $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}$ , $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}$ , and $p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}$ , are (strictly) recursive in $n$ and can be solved numerically in a straightforward way, starting from their respective boundary conditions , , . For numerical checking of implementations it may be useful to note that by definition, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i,j} p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}(k; i,j) &= 1 \quad
\text{ for all } 2\le k \le n, \\
\sum_{i,j} \big( p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}(k,i ; \ell ,j)
+ p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}(k,i ; \ell,j) \big) &= 1 \quad
\text{ for all } 2\le k<\ell \le n.\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:cov\] {#sec:proofcov}
-----------------------------
Consider an $n$-$\Lambda$-coalescent, and let, for $2 \le k \le n$, $\ell \in
[k]$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Lklndef}L^{(n)}_{k,\ell} =
\begin{cases}
\# \, \text{leaves subtended to the $\ell$-th edge while $k$ blocks
(in $n$-coalescent)},\\
0 \;\; \text{if $k$ blocks are never realised}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Now we think of labelled lines, as opposed to the unlabelled lines in the previous recursions. By symmetry, ${\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,\ell}=i\}$ does not depend on $\ell \in [k] := \{1, \ldots, k\}$. In fact $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
{\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,\ell}=i\} = {p^{(n)}[k,i]} \frac{g(n,k)}{g(k,k)}, \quad \mbox{ for } 2 \le k \le n, \: \ell \in [k].\end{aligned}$$ The factor $g(n,k)/g(k,k)$ is the probability that the block counting process $Y$, starting from $n$ lines, ever hits the state of $k$ lines, and thus removes the conditioning from the definition of ${p^{(n)}[k, \cdot]}$. Similarly, for $2 \le k \le n, \: \ell, \ell' \in [k], \ell \neq \ell',$ $$\label{2}
{\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,\ell}=i, L^{(n)}_{k,\ell'}=j\} =
{\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i, L^{(n)}_{k,2}=j\} =
{p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{eq}}[k; i,j]\frac{g(n,k)}{g(k,k)},
$$ and, for $2 \le k<k' \le n, \: \ell \in [k], \ell' \in [k']$, $$\label{3}
{\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,\ell}=i, L^{(n)}_{k',\ell'}=j\} =
{\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i, L^{(n)}_{k',1}=j\}
= \big( p^{(n)}_{\mathrm{un}}(k,i ; k',j)
+ {p}^{(n)}_{\mathrm{ne}}[k,i ; k',j] \big)
\frac{g(n,k')}{g(k',k')} \frac{g(k',k)}{g(k,k)}.$$
The random variables $\xi_i^{(n)}$ counting the number of (derived) mutations in $i$ copies (for $1 \le i < n)$ can be expressed in terms of $L_{k,\ell}^{(n)}$ as follows. Write $M^{(n)}_{k,\ell}$ for the number of mutations that occur on the $\ell$-th edge while there are $k$ blocks in our $n$-$\Lambda$-coalescent, with $M^{(n)}_{k,\ell} \equiv 0$ if $k$ blocks are never realised. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^{(n)}_i = \sum_{k=2}^n \sum_{\ell=1}^k {\mathbf{1}}_{\left(L^{(n)}_{k,\ell}=i \right)} M^{(n)}_{k,\ell}.\end{aligned}$$
As in , let $L^{(n)}_{k,\ell}$ denote the random number of leaves - out of $n$ - subtended to block $\ell$ when there are $k$ blocks, with $L^{(n)}_{k,\ell} = 0$ if $k$ blocks are never realised.
Distinguishing cases as before, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[\xi^{(n)}_i \xi^{(n)}_j \big] &= \,
\sum_{k=2}^n \sum_{\ell=1}^k \sum_{k'=2}^n \sum_{\ell'=1}^{k'}
{\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,\ell}=i, L^{(n)}_{k',\ell'}=j\}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ M^{(n)}_{k,\ell} M^{(n)}_{k',\ell'} \big] \notag \\
&= \, \sum_{k=2}^n k(k-1) {\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i, L^{(n)}_{k,2}=j\}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ M^{(n)}_{k,1} M^{(n)}_{k,2} \big] \\
& \quad\:\;\; + {\mathbf{1}}_{(i=j)} \sum_{k=2}^n k {\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i\}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ (M^{(n)}_{k,1})^2 \big] \\
& \quad\;\; + 2\sum_{k=3}^n \sum_{k'=2}^{k-1} k \, k' \,
{\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i, L^{(n)}_{k',1}=j\} {\mathbb{E}}\big[ M^{(n)}_{k,1} M^{(n)}_{k',1} \big]\end{aligned}$$ The three expected values on the right-hand side can now be expressed in terms of the total jump rates of our block-counting process $Y$ away from states $k$ resp. $k'$. Indeed, for the first expectation on the [*rhs*]{} note that the time while there are $k$ blocks is the same for both edges 1 and 2, but mutations are collected [*independently*]{}. Thus, the expected number of mutations can be computed as the second moment of an exponential random variable: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ M^{(n)}_{k,1} M^{(n)}_{k,2} \big] &= \int_0^\infty
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ M^{(n)}_{k,1} M^{(n)}_{k,2} \, \big| \, \mbox{$k$ blocks for $t$ time units}\big]
(-q_{kk}) e^{-(-q_{kk})t}\, dt\\
&= \int_0^\infty
\Big({\mathbb{E}}\big[ M^{(n)}_{k,1} \, \big| \, \mbox{$k$ blocks for $t$ time units}\big] \Big)^2
(-q_{kk}) e^{-(-q_{kk})t}\, dt\\
&=\int_0^\infty \Big(\frac{\theta}{2} t\Big)^2
(-q_{kk}) e^{-(-q_{kk})t}\, dt \\
&= \frac{\theta^2}{4} \frac{2}{(-q_{kk})^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The second expectation is given by the second moment of a mixture of a Poisson random variable with an exponential distribution: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ \left(M^{(n)}_{k,1}\right)^2 \big] &= \int_0^\infty
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ \left(M^{(n)}_{k,1}\right)^2 \, \big| \, \mbox{$k$ blocks for $t$ time units}\big]
(-q_{kk}) e^{-(-q_{kk})t}\, dt\\
&=\int_0^\infty \Big[ \sum_{k=0}^\infty m^2 \frac{\frac{\theta}{2}t}{m!} e^{-\frac{\theta}{2}t }\Big](-q_{kk}) e^{-(-q_{kk})t}\, dt\\
&= \int_0^\infty \Big[\Big(\frac{\theta}{2}t\Big)^2 + \frac{\theta}{2}t\Big]
(-q_{kk}) e^{-(-q_{kk})t}\, dt\\
&= \frac{\theta}{2} \frac{1}{-q_{kk}} +
\frac{\theta^2}{4}\frac{2}{(-q_{kk})^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The last expectation is (due to independence obtained from the memoryless-property of coalescent jump times) just the product of the two individual expected values, i.e. $${\mathbb{E}}\big[ M^{(n)}_{k,1} M^{(n)}_{k',1} \big] = \frac{1}{(-q_{kk})(-q_{k'k'})}.$$ Altogether, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[\xi^{(n)}_i \xi^{(n)}_j \big] &= \,
\frac{\theta^2}{4} \sum_{k=2}^n k(k-1) {\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i, L^{(n)}_{k,2}=j\}
\frac{2}{(-q_{kk})^2}
\\
& \quad\,\;\; + {\mathbf{1}}_{(i=j)} \sum_{k=2}^n k {\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i\}
\Big( \frac{\theta}{2} \frac{1}{-q_{kk}} +
\frac{\theta^2}{4}\frac{2}{(-q_{kk})^2} \Big)\\
& \quad\;\; +
2 \frac{\theta^2}{4} \sum_{k=3}^n \sum_{k'=2}^{k-1} k \, k' \,
{\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i, L^{(n)}_{k',1}=j\} \frac{1}{(-q_{kk})(-q_{k'k'})},\end{aligned}$$ from which the result follows with the help of , and .
Let $B_i^{(n)}$ denote the total length of branches subtending $i$ of $n$ leaves. The covariance of $B_i^{(n)}$ and $B_j^{(n)}$ now follows immediately from previous results since $$ \label{eq:EBiBj} \begin{split} {\ensuremath{{\mathbb{E}}\!\left[ B_i^{(n)}B_j^{(n)} \right] }} & = \sum_{k=2}^n k(k-1) {\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i, L^{(n)}_{k,2}=j\} \frac{2}{q_{kk}^2} \\
& + {\mathbf{1}}_{(i=j)} \sum_{k=2}^n k {\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i\} \frac{2}{q_{kk}^2} \\
& + \sum_{k=3}^n \sum_{k'=2}^{k-1} k \, k' \, {\mathbb{P}}\{L^{(n)}_{k,1}=i, L^{(n)}_{k',1}=j\} \frac{1}{q_{kk}q_{k'k'}}.\\
\end{split}$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In cells, helicase translocation along nucleic acid is essential for many biological processes. However, so far, the mechanism of this translocation is not fully understood. Recent studies show that helicase might translocate through two processes, active process and passive process, with different translocation rate. In this study, a mechanochemical model including such two processes is presented for ribosome translocation along messenger RNA during translation. In which, each of the two processes consists of two sub-processes, [*translocation factor*]{} [*binding*]{} sub-process and the following [*mechanochemical*]{} sub-process in which ribosome makes a forward translocation step. Ribosome switches stochastically between these two processes with external force dependent rates. By this model, we found that, with the increase of external force, the mean translocation rate of ribosome increases from one lower limit to another upper limit, and both of these two limits increase with concentrations of the translocation factors. Under high external force, ribosome translocates mainly through active process. At saturating concentration of translocation factors, the translocation is limited by [*mechanochemical*]{} sub-processes.'
author:
- Yunxin Zhang
date:
-
-
title: ' **Mechanism of ribosome translocation along messenger RNA** '
---
Introduction
============
In many biological events, such as replication, recombination and repair, double-stranded nucleic acid, i.e. DNA or RNA, should be firstly unwound to provide single-stranded template [@West1996; @Lohman1996; @Singleton2007; @Pyle2008; @Kim2010; @Manosas2010]. In this process, using the energy released from ATP hydrolysis helicase translocates along one strand of the double helix to unwind the nucleic acid [@Dumont2006; @Lee2006; @Cheng2007; @Myong2007; @Johnson2007; @Manosas2010; @Cheng2011]. Single molecule experiments found that the translocation rate of helicase along nucleic acid depends on the stability of base pairs (GC or AU base pair), the external force (which can be applied by optical tweezers assay or flow stretching assay), and the concentrations of translocation factors, such as EF-G, EF-Tu and ATP [@Rozen1990; @Smith1996; @Bockelmann1997; @Essevaz1997; @MDWang1997; @Takyar2005; @Gore2006; @Wen2008; @Donmez2008]. The translocation of helicase along nucleic acid might be active (in which the helicase acts as a strong molecular motor which converts chemical energy from ATP hydrolysis to unzip a duplexed template with high efficiency) or passive (in which helicase only can translate to the next base after the thermal fluctuation induced opening of the adjacent base pair) [@Betterton2005; @Johnson2007; @Kim2010; @Wen2008; @Manosas2010; @Qu2011]. So far, many models have been established to describe this unwinding process [@Velankar1999; @Levin2005; @Betterton2005; @Betterton20051; @Patel2006; @Yu2006; @Johnson2007; @Lionnet2007; @Sun2008; @Garai2008; @Tinoco2009; @Gu2010; @Yu2010].
In this study, similar as in the description of dynamics of microtubules [@Akiyoshi2010; @Zhang20112], a two-process model will be presented for ribosome translocation along messenger RNA (mRNA) during translation. In which, ribosome translocates along mRNA by either active process or passive process. During translocation, ribosome switches stochastically between these two processes, and the switch rate from passive process to active process depends on external force. Each process consists of two sub-processes: the [*translocation factors*]{} (EF-G$\bullet$GTP and EF-Tu$\bullet$GTP$\bullet$aa-tRNA) [*binding*]{} sub-process, and [*mechanochemical*]{} sub-process during which ribosome will make a forward translocation step (i.e. one base pair). This model fits well to the recent experimental data obtained in [@Qu2011]. Based on this model, properties of the ribosome translocation along mRNA, including its mean translocation rate and mean dwell time in one translocation cycle, are detailed discussed.
Model
=====
As discussed in recent references [@Betterton2005; @Manosas2010; @Kim2010; @Qu2011], the translocation of helicase along nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) might through two processes: active process and passive process, see Fig. \[Figmodel\]. The main difference between these two processes is that, in active process, after completion of the necessary [*translocation factor binding*]{} processes, the junction of the two strains of the double-strained nucleic acid is effectively destabilized, and so the energy barrier for helicase to translocate to the next base is greatly reduced. But in the passive process, the helicase has to overcome a significant energy barrier, and so more time will be spent in waiting for the junction opening by thermal fluctuation. Biochemically, the free energy $\Delta G$ needed to open one base pair consists of the base-paring energy $\Delta G_{\rm bp}$, the destabilization energy of enzyme $\Delta G_{\rm d}$ and template stretching force $\Delta G_{F}$, $\Delta G=\Delta G_{\rm bp}-\Delta G_{\rm d}-\Delta G_{F}$.
In both active process and passive process of ribosome translocation along mRNA, translocation factors EF-G$\bullet$GTP and EF-Tu$\bullet$GTP$\bullet$aa-tRNA are needed [@Rodnina1997; @Qu2011]. Therefore, there are at least two sub-processes in each of the two processes. For simplicity, we assume there are only two sub-processes in each translocation cycle: one [*translocation factor binding*]{} sub-process, and one [*mechanochemical*]{} sub-process during which one spatial mechanical translocation step is completed. Generally, all the four sub-processes (see Fig. \[Figmodel\]): $\bf 1\to 2$, $\bf 2\to 1$ and $\bf 1'\to 3$, $\bf 3\to 1'$ might be reversible, for simplicity we assume in our model that they are all irreversible, with rate constants $k_1, k_2$ and $k'_1, k_3$ respectively. $\bf 1\to 2\to 1$ represents one active translocation step, and $\bf 1'\to 3\to 1'$ represents one passive translocation step. As discussed in [@Qu2011], $\bf 2\to 1, 3\to 1'$ can be regarded as ribosome translocation through an open and closed nucleic acid fork, respectively. So $k_3$ depends only on the junction base pair, and $k_2, k_3$ are independent of external force. To reduce model parameters (and based on numerical tests), we assume that only the switch rate from passive process to active process is external force dependent, and the rates of [*translocation factor binding*]{} sub-process in both active ($\bf 1\to 2$) and passive ($\bf 1'\to 3$) processes are equal to each other, $k_1=k'_1$, which depend only on the concentrations of translocation factors. Generally, the binding of translocation factors to ribosome might generate conformational change of the corresponding domain, which then might cause a little mechanical translocation. Here, for simplicity and to reduce the model parameters, we assume that the corresponding rates $k_1, k'_1$ are independent of external force. Which means the whole mechanical step is made in the following [*mechanochemical*]{} sub-process. Meanwhile, we assume the switch rates between states $\bf 1$ and $\bf 1'$ are the same as those between states $\bf 2$ and $\bf 3$, i.e. $k'_o=k_o$ and $k'_c=k_c$. Under all these assumptions, the model illustrated in Fig. \[Figmodel\] is then reduced to the simple one illustrated in Fig. \[Figmodelreguced\](a). To some extent, the model depicted in Fig. \[Figmodelreguced\](a) is equivalent to the one depicted in Fig. \[Figmodelreguced\](b). In this study, we will only discuss the model depicted in Fig. \[Figmodelreguced\](a), since more information can be obtained from it but with the same parameter number as the one depicted in \[Figmodelreguced\](b).
Results
=======
**Mean translocation rate.**
----------------------------
Let $p_1, p_2$ and $\rho_1, \rho_2$ be the probabilities that ribosome in states $\bf 1$, $\bf 2$ and $\bf 1'$, $\bf 3$ respectively, then one can easily show that they are governed the following master equations $$\label{eq1}
\begin{aligned}
dp_1/dt=&k_o\rho_1+k_2p_2-(k_1+k_c)p_1,\cr
dp_2/dt=&k_o\rho_2+k_1p_1-(k_2+k_c)p_2,\cr
d\rho_1/dt=&k_cp_1+k_3\rho_2-(k_1+k_o)\rho_1,\cr
d\rho_2/dt=&k_cp_2+k_1\rho_1-(k_3+k_o)\rho_2.
\end{aligned}$$ At steady state, one can easily get $$\label{eq2}
\begin{aligned}
&p_1=k_o[k_2(k_1+k_o)+k_3(k_2+k_c)]/\Delta,\cr
&p_2=k_ok_1(k_1+k_3+k_c+k_o)/\Delta,\cr
&\rho_1=k_c[k_2(k_3+k_o)+k_3(k_1+k_c)]/\Delta,\cr
&\rho_2=k_ck_1(k_1+k_2+k_c+k_o)/\Delta,
\end{aligned}$$ with the normalization constant $\Delta=(k_o+k_c)[(k_1+k_2)(k_1+k_3)+k_c(k_1+k_3)+k_o(k_1+k_2)]$. The mean translocation rate of ribosome can be obtained as follows $$\label{eq3}
\begin{aligned}
J=k_1(p_1+\rho_1)=k_2p_2+k_3\rho_2.
\end{aligned}$$ The ratio of probability $p:=p_1+p_2$ that ribosome stays in active process to probability $\rho:=\rho_1+\rho_2$ that in passive process is $p/\rho=k_o/k_c$. There is evidence that the ratio of switch rates $k_o/k_c$ increases with external force [@Qu2011], so under high external force, ribosome will translocate mainly by active process. One can easily show that the mean translocation rate of ribosome in active process is $J_a=k_1k_2/(k_1+k_2)$, and the mean translocation rate in passive process is $J_b=k_1k_3/(k_1+k_3)$. For low concentrations of translocation factors, i.e. $k_1$ is small, the mean translocation rate $J\approx k_1$, so the translocation is limited by the [*translocation factor binding*]{} process $\bf 1\to 2$ or $\bf 1'\to 3$. But for high concentration cases, i.e. $k_1$ is large enough, $J\approx(k_2k_o+k_3k_c)/(k_o+k_c)$, so the translocation is limited by the following [*mechanochemical*]{} process $\bf 2\to 1$ or $\bf 3\to 1'$. One can also show that, the ratio $(p_1+\rho_1)/(p_2+\rho_2)$ decreases with $k_1$, which means that for low concentration of translocation factor cases, ribosome mainly stays in states $\bf 1$ or $\bf 1'$, but for high concentration cases, it is mainly in sates $\bf 2$ or $\bf 3$. In one word, the external force determines which process, the active one $\bf 1\to 2\to 1$ or the passive one $\bf 1'\to 3\to 1'$, is the dominant process, while the concentrations of translocation factors determine which sub-process, the binding sub-process $\bf 1\to 2$ ($\bf 1'\to 3$) or the following [*mechanochemical*]{} sub-process $\bf 2\to 1$ ($\bf 3\to 1'$), limits the whole translocation of ribosome.
**Mean dwell time.**
--------------------
The mean time that ribosome spent in one translocation cycle can be obtained as follows $$\label{eq4}
\begin{aligned}
T=p_1T_1+p_2T_2+\rho_1T_{1'}+\rho_2T_3.
\end{aligned}$$ Where $T_1, T_2, T_{1'}, T_3$ are the mean times spent by ribosome to complete one translocation cycle with initial states $\bf 1$, $\bf 2$, $\bf 1'$, $\bf 3$, respectively. $T_1$ satisfies the following equations [@Zhang2011; @Zhang20112; @Zhang20113] $$\label{eq5}
\begin{aligned}
T_1&=\frac{1}{k_1+k_c}+\frac{k_1}{k_1+k_c}T_{12}+\frac{k_c}{k_1+k_c}T_{11'},\cr
T_{11'}&=\frac{1}{k_1+k_o}+\frac{k_o}{k_1+k_o}T_{1}+\frac{k_1}{k_1+k_o}T_{13},\cr
T_{12}&=\frac{1}{k_2+k_c}+\frac{k_c}{k_2+k_c}T_{13},\cr
T_{13}&=\frac{1}{k_3+k_o}+\frac{k_o}{k_3+k_o}T_{12}.
\end{aligned}$$ Where $T_{1i}$ is the mean first passage time of ribosome from state $\bf i$ to state $\bf 1$ or $\bf 1'$ of the next translocation cycle \[see Fig. \[Figmodelreguced\](a)\]. One can show that $T_1=\Sigma_1/\Sigma$, with $\Sigma_1=k_1(k_1+k_2+k_c+k_o)(k_3+k_c +k_o)+(k_c+k_o)(k_2 k_3+k_3k_c+k_2 k_o)$ and $\Sigma=k_1(k_2 k_3+k_3k_c+k_2 k_o)(k_1+k_c+k_o)$. The expressions of $T_2, T_{1'}, T_3$ can be obtained similarly. $T_{1'}=\Sigma_2/\Sigma$ with $\Sigma_2=k_1(k_1+k_3+k_c+k_o)(k_2 +k_c+k_o)+(k_c +k_o)(k_2k_3+k_2k_o+k_ck_3)$. $$\label{eq8}
\begin{aligned}
T_2=\frac{(k_1+k_3)k_c+(k_1+k_2)(k_3+k_o)}{k_1(k_2k_3+k_3k_c+k_2k_o)}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{eq9}
\begin{aligned}
T_{3}=\frac{(k_1+k_2)k_o+(k_1+k_3)(k_2+k_c)}{k_1(k_2k_3+k_2k_o+k_3k_c)}.
\end{aligned}$$
**Ribosome translocation along mRNA.**
--------------------------------------
In the following, we will use the above model to discuss the external force and translocation factor concentration dependent properties of ribosome translocation along mRNA, which has been recently studied experimentally in [@Qu2011]. As mentioned before, the switch rates of ribosome between active process and passive process depend on energy barrier of the strains junction $\Delta G=\Delta G_{\rm bp}-\Delta G_{\rm d}-\Delta G_{F}$. Under the assumption that $\Delta G_{\rm bp}$ and $\Delta G_{\rm d}$ are invariable in the translocation, the switch rates satisfy $k_o/k_c=\hat k_o^0/k_c^0\exp(\delta\Delta G_{F}/k_BT)$. Here $0\le\delta\le1$ is an [*energy distribution factor*]{}, and numerical calculations indicate $\delta\lneq1$. For simplicity and reduction of model parameters (and also due to the test of numerical calculations), we assume $k_c=k_c^0$ is independent of external force. So $$\label{eq10}
\begin{aligned}
k_o=\hat k_o^0\exp(\delta\Delta G_{F}/k_BT).
\end{aligned}$$
Another method which is usually used to account for the external force $F$ dependence of transition rate is $k=k_0\exp(F/F_0)$ with $F_0$ a constant [@Bell1978; @Lipowsky2008; @Zhang20112]. This will be used in this study, i.e, we assume the external force dependence of switch rate $k_o$ is as follows, $$\label{eq11}
\begin{aligned}
k_o=k_o^0\exp(F/F_0).
\end{aligned}$$ In fact, the methods (\[eq10\]) and (\[eq11\]) are equivalent to each other for ribosome translocation process studied here. The reason is as follows. From the force-extension relation of DNA measured in [@Tinoco2002] \[or see \[FigExtension\](a)\], the energy $\Delta G_F$ can be well approximated by $16F-8$ for $F<60$ pN, see Fig. \[FigExtension\](b) in which the thin solid line is from $\Delta G_F=16F-8$ and the thick dotted line is from $\Delta G_F=\int_0^Fz(F)dF$ with $z(F)$ the extension as plotted in Fig. \[FigExtension\](a). So, by expressions (\[eq10\]) and (\[eq11\]), one can easily show that $$\label{eq12}
\begin{aligned}
\delta=\frac{k_BT}{16F_0},\quad \hat k_o^0=k_o^0\exp\left(\frac{1}{2F_0}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ In the discussion below, we will always use expression (\[eq11\]), and the same results can also be obtained by method (\[eq10\]).
Generally, the rate $k_3$ of translocation in passive process should depend on the type of base pairs of the strains junction. Again, for the sake of simplicity, we always keep it constant [@Qu2011]. Similarly, the transition rate $k_2$ in active process is also assume to be a constant. As studied in [@Qu2011], there are at least two binding processes during sub-processes $\bf 1\to 2$ or $\bf 1'\to 3$, EF-G$\bullet$GTP binding and EF-Tu$\bullet$GTP$\bullet$aa-tRNA binding. For simplicity, we assume there are only these two [*translocation factor binding*]{} processes (or all other translocation factors are held at saturating concentrations), and both of them are irreversible. Let $k_{11}=k_{11}^0$\[EF-G\] and $k_{12}=k_{12}^0$\[EF-T\] be the binding rates of EF-G$\bullet$GTP and EF-Tu$\bullet$GTP$\bullet$aa-tRNA respectively. One can easily show that $$\label{eq13}
\begin{aligned}
k_1=\frac{k_{11}k_{12}}{k_{11}+k_{12}}
=\frac{k_{11}^0k_{12}^0\textrm{[EF-G][EF-T]}}{k_{11}^0\textrm{[EF-G]}+k_{12}^0\textrm{[EF-T]}}.
\end{aligned}$$
With parameter values listed in Tab. \[table1\], the theoretical results of ribosome translocation rate $J$ versus external force $F$ and concentrations \[EF-G\], \[EF-T\] are plotted in Fig. \[FigFitResults\], where the data points are from [@Qu2011] for $\rm hpVal_{GC50}$ mRNA. These plots indicate our model can explain the experimental data reasonably well. In Fig. \[FigTranslationRate\](a), the curves for translocation rate $J$ versus force $F$ at saturating \[EF-T\] but various values of \[EF-G\] are plotted, and in Fig. \[FigTranslationRate\](c), the curves for translocation rate $J$ versus \[EF-G\] at saturating \[EF-T\] but various values of force $F$ are plotted. From these two figures, one can easily see that, the translocation rate $J$ increases monotonically with both force $F$ and concentration \[EF-G\], but with one upper limit and one lower limit. Similar results can also be found for different values of \[EF-T\], see Fig. \[FigTranslationRate\](b)(d). As mentioned before, at saturating concentration of translocation factors, the translocation of ribosome is limited by the [*mechanochemical*]{} sub-process $\bf 2\to 1$ (or $\bf 3\to 1'$), but at low concentration, it is limited by the [*translocation factor binding*]{} sub-process $\bf 1\to 2$ (or $\bf 1'\to 3$). Meanwhile, under high external force, ribosome translocates mainly through active process, but under low force, it is mainly through passive process. Actually, this can be demonstrated by Fig. \[FigProbability\]. From Fig. \[FigProbability\](c), one sees that for any external forces, the probability $p_1+\rho_1$ of ribosome staying at state $\bf 1$ or $\bf 1'$ decreases with concentration \[EF-G\], which is because that the [*translocation factor binding*]{} rate $k_1$ increases with \[EF-G\]. However, the curves in Fig. \[FigProbability\](a) indicate that $p_1+\rho_1$ increases with external force $F$, this is because that, with the increase of $F$ ribosome will more like to reach state $\bf 1$ (or $\bf 1'$) by sub-process $\bf 2\to 1$, which is fast than sub-process $\bf 3\to 1'$ (see Tab. \[table1\] for values of $k_2$ and $k_3$). This also can be seen from Fig. \[FigProbability\](b) that, the probability $p_1+p_2$ that ribosome translocates through active process increases monotonically with force $F$. Actually, numerical calculations show that this increase is almost exponential. The plots in Fig. \[FigProbability\](d) indicate $p_1+p_2$ is independent of concentration \[EF-G\]. In all the plots of Fig. \[FigProbability\], the concentration of \[EF-T\] is always held at a saturating concentration. Similar results can be obtained if \[EF-T\] is varied. Since all the sub-processes in our model are irreversible, and mean translocation rate $J$ increases with both external force $F$ and concentrations \[EF-G\], \[EF-T\], the mean dwell time $T$ of ribosome in one translocation cycle decreases with both $F$ and \[EF-G\], \[EF-T\], see Fig. \[FigDwellTime\].
Discussion
==========
In this study, a model for ribosome translocation along messenger RNA is presented. In which, ribosome is assumed to translocate by two processes, active process and passive process. In each of the two processes, two sub-processes are included, [*translocation factor binding*]{} sub-process in which all the needed translocation factor are attached, and [*mechanochemical*]{} sub-process in which one forward translocation step is made. The main difference between active process and passive process is that the transition rates of the [*mechanochemical*]{} sub-processes are different, which is due to the difference of free energy barrier. By this model, we found that, the mean translocation rate of ribosome increases with both the concentrations of translocation factors and the external force. Under high force, ribosome translocates mainly through active process, and at saturating concentrations of translocation factors, the translocation is limited by [*mechanochemical*]{} sub-processes. With the increase of external force, the mean translocation rate of ribosome increases from its lower limit to its upper limit. However, both of these two limits increase with concentrations of translocation factors.
This study is funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (under Grant No. 11ZR1403700).
[10]{}
S. C. West. helicases: new breeds of translocating motors and molecular pumps. , 86:177–180, 1996.
T. M. Lohman and K. P. Bjornson. Mechanisms of helicase-catalysed unwinding. , 65:169–214, 1996.
M. R. Singleton, M. S. Dillingham, and D. B. Wigley. Structure and mechanism of helicases and nucleic acid translocases. , 76:23–50, 2007.
A. M. Pyle. Translocation and unwinding mechanisms of [RNA]{} and [DNA]{} helicases. , 37:317–336, 2008.
S. Kim, C. M. Schroeder, and X. S. Xie. Single-molecule study of [DNA]{} polymerization activity of [HIV-1]{} reverse transcriptase on [DNA]{} templates. , 395:995–1006, 2010.
M. Manosas, X. G. Xi, D. Bensimon, and V. Croquette. Active and passive mechanisms of helicases. , 38:5518–5526, 2010.
S. Dumont, W. Cheng, Vi. Serebrov, R. K. Beran, I. Tinoco Jr, A. M. Pyle, and C. Bustamante. translocation and unwinding mechanism of [HCV NS3]{} helicase and its coordination by [ATP]{}. , 439:105–108, 2006.
J.-B. Lee, R. K. Hite, S. M. Hamdan, X. S. Xie, C. C. Richardson, and A. M. van Oijen. primase acts as a molecular brake in [DNA]{} replication. , 439:621–624, 2006.
W. Cheng, S. Dumont, I. Tinoco, and C. Bustamante. helicase actively separates [RNA]{} strands and senses sequence barriers ahead of the opening fork. , 104:13954–13959, 2007.
S. Myong, M. M. Bruno, A. M. Pyle, and T. Ha. Spring-loaded mechanism of [DNA]{} unwinding by hepatitis [C]{} virus [NS3]{} helicase. , 317:513–516, 2007.
D. S. Johnson, L. Bai, B. Y. Smith, S. S. Patel, and M. D. Wang. Single molecule studies reveal dynamics of [DNA]{} unwinding by the ring-shaped t7 helicase. , 129:1299–1309, 2007.
W. Cheng, S. G. Arunajadai, J. R. Moffitt, I. Tinoco Jr., and C. Bustamante. Single¨cbase pair unwinding and asynchronous [RNA]{} release by the hepatitis [C]{} virus [NS3]{} helicase. , 333:1746–1749, 2011.
F. Rozen, I. Edery, K. Meerovitch, T. E. Dever, W. C. Merrick, and N. Sonenberg. Bidirectional [RNA]{} helicase activity of eucaryotic translation initiation factors [4A]{} and [4F]{}. , 10:1134–1144, 1990.
S. B. Smith, Y. Cui, and C. Bustamante. Moverstretching [B-DNA]{}: The elastic response of individual double-stranded and single-stranded [DNA]{} molecules. , 271:795–799, 1996.
U. Bockelmann, B. Essevaz-Roulet, and F. Heslot. Molecular stick-slip motion revealed by opening dna with piconewton forces. , 79:4489–4492, 1997.
B. Essevaz-Roulet, U. Bockelmann, and F. Heslot. Mechanical separation of the complementary strands of [DNA]{}. , 94:11935–11940, 1997.
M. D. Wang, H. Yin, R. Landick, J. Gelles, and S. M. Block. Stretching [DNA]{} with optical tweezers. , 72:1335–1346, 1997.
S. Takyar, R. P. Hickerson, and Harry F. Noller. helicase activity of the ribosome. , 120:49–58, 2005.
J. Gore, Z. Bryant, M. Nöllmann, M. U. Le, , N. R. Cozzarelli, and C. Bustamante. overwinds when stretched. , 442:836–839, 2006.
J.-D. Wen, L. Lancaster, C. Hodges, A.-C. Zeri, S.-H. Yoshimura, H. F. Noller, C. Bustamante, and Jr. I. Tinoco. Following translation by single ribosomes one codon at a time. , 452:598–603, 2008.
I. Donmez and S. S. Patel. Coupling of [DNA]{} unwinding to nucleotide hydrolysis in a ring-shaped helicase. , 27:1718–1726, 2008.
M. D. Betterton and F. Julicher. Opening of nucleic-acid double strands by helicases: active versus passive opening. , 71:11904–11911, 2005.
X. Qu, J.-D. Wen, L. Lancaster, H. F. Noller, C. Bustamante, and I. Tinoco Jr. The ribosome uses two active mechanisms to unwind messenger [RNA]{} during translation. , 475:118–121, 2011.
S. S. Velankar, P. Soultanas, M. S. Dillingham, H. S. Subramanya, and D. B. Wigley. Crystal structures of complexes of [PcrA DNA]{} helicase with a [DNA]{} substrate indicate an inchworm mechanism. , 97:75–84, 1999.
M. K. Levin, M. M. Gurjar, and S. S. Patel. A [Brownian]{} motor mechanism of translocation and strand separation by hepatitis c virus helicase. , 12:429–435, 2005.
M. D. Betterton and F. Julicher. Velocity and processivity of helicase unwinding of double-stranded nucleic acids. , 17:S3851, 2005.
S. S. Patel and I. Donmez. Mechanisms of helicases. , 281:18265–18268, 2006.
J. Yu, T. Ha, and K. Schulten. Structure-based model of the stepping motor of [PcrA]{} helicase. , 91:2097–2114, 2006.
T. Lionnet, M. M. Spiering, S. J. Benkovic, D. Bensimon, and V. Croquette. Real-time observation of bacteriophage [T4]{} gp41 helicase reveals an unwinding mechanism. , 104:19790–19795, 2007.
B. Sun, K.-J. Wei1, B. Zhang, X.-H. Zhang, S.-X. Dou, M. Li, and X. G. Xi. Impediment of [E.]{} coli [UvrD]{} by [DNA]{}-destabilizing force reveals a strained-inchworm mechanism of [DNA]{} unwinding. , 27:3279–3287, 2008.
A. Garai, D. Chowdhury, and M. D. Betterton. Two-state model for helicase translocation and unwinding of nucleic acids. , 77:061910, 2008.
I. Tinoco and J.-D. Wen. Simulation and analysis of single-ribosome translation. , 6:025006, 2009.
M. Gu and C. M. Rice. Three conformational snapshots of the hepatitis [C]{} virus [NS3]{} helicase reveal a ratchet translocation mechanism. , 107:521–528, 2010.
Jin Yu, Wei Cheng, Carlos Bustamante, and George Oster. Coupling translocation with nucleic acid unwinding by [NS3]{} helicase. , 404:439–455, 2010.
B. Akiyoshi, K. K. Sarangapani, A. F. Powers, C. R. Nelson, S. L. Reichow, H. Arellano-Santoyo, T. Gonen, J. A. Ranish, C. L. Asbury, and S. Biggins. Tension directly stabilizes reconstituted kinetochore-microtubule attachments. , 468:576–579, 2010.
Y. Zhang. Growth and shortening of microtubules: A two-state model approachr. , 286:39439–39449, 2011.
M. V. Rodnina, A. Savelsbergh, V. I. Katunin, and W. Wintermeyer. Hydrolysis of [GTP]{} by elongation factor [G]{} drives [tRNA]{} movement on the ribosome. , 385:37–41, 1997.
Y. Zhang. An effective description of periodic one-dimensional hopping model. , 54:401–405, 2011.
Yunxin Zhang. Periodic one-dimensional hopping model with transitions between nonadjacent states. , 84:031104, 2011.
George I. Bell. Models for the specific adhesion of cells to cells. , 200:618–627, 1978.
M. J. I. Müller, S. Klumpp, and R. Lipowsky. Tug-of-war as a cooperative mechanism for bidirectional cargo transport by molecular motors. , 105:4609–4614, 2008.
I. Tinoco and C. Bustamante. The effect of force on thermodynamics and kinetics of single molecule reactions. , 101-102:513–533, 2002.
Parameter Value Parameter Value
----------- ---------------------------------- ----------- -----------------------------------
$k_{11}$ 13.78 (s$^{-1}\cdot\mu$M$^{-1}$) $k_{12}$ 106.85 (s$^{-1}\cdot\mu$M$^{-1}$)
$k_{2}$ 0.44 (codons$\cdot$s$^{-1}$) $k_{3}$ 0.26 (codons$\cdot$s$^{-1}$)
$k_{o}^0$ $8.66\times 10^{-9}$ (s$^{-1}$) $k_{c}^0$ 41.28 (s$^{-1}$)
$F_0$
: Values of model parameters used in Figs. \[FigFitResults\]-\[FigDwellTime\], which are obtained by fitting formulation (\[eq3\]) of mean translocation rate of ribosome along mRNA to the experimental data obtained in [@Qu2011] (see Fig. \[FigFitResults\]). See also Fig. \[Figmodelreguced\](a) and Eqs.(\[eq1\]), (\[eq11\]), (\[eq13\]) for definitions of the model parameters.
\[table1\]
![Schematic depiction of the general model to describe helicase translocation along nucleic acid (a) and its corresponding two-line Markov chain (b). There are two possible processes to complete one step, active process (top, $\bf 1\to 2\to 1$) and passive process (down, $\bf 1'\to 3\to 1'$), with different [*translocation factor binding*]{} rates and [*mechanochemical*]{} transition rates $k_1, k_2$ and $k'_1, k_3$, respectively. These two processes can switch to each other with external force and state dependent rates, $k_o, k_c, k'_o, k'_c$. The needed translocation factors are attached during sub-process $\bf 1\to 2$ or $\bf 1'\to 3$, and one forward step is completed during sub-process $\bf 2\to 1$ or $\bf 3\to 1'$.[]{data-label="Figmodel"}](RibosomeModel1 "fig:"){width="200pt"} ![Schematic depiction of the general model to describe helicase translocation along nucleic acid (a) and its corresponding two-line Markov chain (b). There are two possible processes to complete one step, active process (top, $\bf 1\to 2\to 1$) and passive process (down, $\bf 1'\to 3\to 1'$), with different [*translocation factor binding*]{} rates and [*mechanochemical*]{} transition rates $k_1, k_2$ and $k'_1, k_3$, respectively. These two processes can switch to each other with external force and state dependent rates, $k_o, k_c, k'_o, k'_c$. The needed translocation factors are attached during sub-process $\bf 1\to 2$ or $\bf 1'\to 3$, and one forward step is completed during sub-process $\bf 2\to 1$ or $\bf 3\to 1'$.[]{data-label="Figmodel"}](RibosomeModel2 "fig:"){width="200pt"}\
![Simplifications of the model depicted in Fig. \[Figmodel\]. (a) The switch rates between active process and passive process are assumed to be state independent, $k'_o=k_o$ and $k'_c=k_c$, and the rates of [*translocation factor binding*]{} sub-process in both active process and passive process are also assumed to be the same, $k'_1=k_1$. (b) states $\bf 1$ and $\bf 1'$ are combined to one state, and $k'_1=k_1$ is assumed. Since the parameter numbers of the two simplified models are the same, but more information can be obtained from the one depicted in (a), in this study only the simplified model (a) is analyzed. []{data-label="Figmodelreguced"}](RibosomeModelReduced2 "fig:"){width="370pt"}\
![(a) The extension-force relation of DNA obtained by Tinoco and Bustamante in [@Tinoco2002]. (b) The free energy-force relation obtained by $\Delta G_F=\int_0^Fz(F)dF$ (thick dotted line) with $z(F)$ the total extension under force $F$ as plotted in (a). For $F<60$, $\Delta G_F$ can be well approximated by $16F-8$ (thin solid line). []{data-label="FigExtension"}](ForceExtension "fig:"){width="220pt"}![(a) The extension-force relation of DNA obtained by Tinoco and Bustamante in [@Tinoco2002]. (b) The free energy-force relation obtained by $\Delta G_F=\int_0^Fz(F)dF$ (thick dotted line) with $z(F)$ the total extension under force $F$ as plotted in (a). For $F<60$, $\Delta G_F$ can be well approximated by $16F-8$ (thin solid line). []{data-label="FigExtension"}](ForceEnergy "fig:"){width="220pt"}\
![Theoretical results of ribosome translocation along $\rm hpVal_{GC50}$ mRNA \[see Eqs. (\[eq2\]) (\[eq3\]) (\[eq11\]) and (\[eq13\])\] with parameter values listed in Tab. \[table1\]. The data points are experimentally obtained by Qu, [*et al*]{} [@Qu2011]. In (b) (c) and (d), the solid curves are mean translocation rate $J$ under high external force ($F=20$ pN is used in the calculations), and dashed curves are values for low external force ($F=2$ pN is used in the calculations). In (a) \[EF-G\]=\[EF-T\]=1 $\mu$M is used. []{data-label="FigFitResults"}](FitResults1 "fig:"){width="450pt"}\
![Mean translocation rate $J$ of ribosome along $\rm hpVal_{GC50}$ bmRNA (see [@Qu2011]) as functions of external force $F$, concentrations \[EF-G\] and \[EF-T\]. Parameter values used in the calculations are as follows. (a) \[EF-T\]=1 $\mu$M, and reading from the bottom up \[EF-G\]=0.05, 0.1 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, and 1 $\mu$M respectively. (b) \[EF-G\]=1 $\mu$M, and reading from the bottom up \[EF-T\]=0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.6 $\mu$M respectively. (c) \[EF-T\]=1 $\mu$M and (d) \[EF-G\]=1 $\mu$M. In (c) (d), reading from the bottom up, external force $F=$11, 13.5, 14, 14.5, 15, and 16 pN respectively. Other parameter values are listed in Tab. \[table1\]. The calculations indicate that the mean translocation rate $J$ increases with both external force $F$ and concentrations \[EF-G\], \[EF-T\].[]{data-label="FigTranslationRate"}](TranslationRate "fig:"){width="450pt"}\
\] as function of external force $F$ (a) and concentration \[EF-G\] (c). (b) (d) are for probability $p_1+p_2$ of ribosome at state $\bf 2$ or $\bf 3$. The parameter values used in the calculations are as follows. (a) \[EF-T\]=1 $\mu$M, and reading from top downwards \[EF-G\]=0.01, 0.02 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 1 $\mu$M respectively. (b)\[EF-G\]=\[EF-T\]=1 $\mu$M, the curves are independent of \[EF-G\] and \[EF-T\]. (c) (d) \[EF-T\]=1 $\mu$M, and reading from the bottom up $F=$11, 13.5, 14, 14.5, 15, 16 pN respectively. For other parameter values, see Tab. \[table1\]. []{data-label="FigProbability"}](Probability1 "fig:"){width="450pt"}\
![Mean dwell time of ribosome in one translocation cycle as the change of external force \[see (a) and (b)\], concentrations of EF-G$\bullet$GTP \[see (c)\] and EF-Tu$\bullet$GTP$\bullet$aa-tRNA \[see (d)\]. In addition to the parameter values listed in Tab. \[table1\], others are as follows. (a) \[EF-T\]=1 $\mu$M, and reading from top downwards \[EF-G\]=0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5 and 1 $\mu$M respectively. (b) \[EF-G\]=1 $\mu$M, and reading from top downwards \[EF-T\]=0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.6 $\mu$M respectively. (c) \[EF-T\]=1 $\mu$M, and (d) \[EF-D\]=1 $\mu$M. In both (c) and (d), reading from top downwards $F=$11, 13.5, 14, 14.5, 15, 16 pN respectively. []{data-label="FigDwellTime"}](DwellTime1 "fig:"){width="450pt"}\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Autoregressive cokriging models have been widely used to emulate multiple computer models with different levels of fidelity. The dependence structures are modeled via Gaussian processes at each level of fidelity, where covariance structures are often parameterized up to a few parameters. The predictive distributions typically require intensive Monte Carlo approximations in previous works. This article derives new closed-form formulas to compute the means and variances of predictive distributions in autoregressive cokriging models that only depend on correlation parameters. For parameter estimation, we consider objective Bayesian analysis of such autoregressive cokriging models. We show that common choices of prior distributions, such as the constant prior and inverse correlation prior, typically lead to improper posteriors. We also develop several objective priors such as the independent reference prior and the independent Jeffreys prior that are shown to yield proper posterior distributions. This development is illustrated with a borehole function in an eight-dimensional input space and applied to an engineering application in a six-dimensional input space. codes are available in the Supplementary Material to reproduce the numerical results.'
author:
- 'Pulong Ma[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Objective Bayesian Analysis of a Cokriging Model for Hierarchical Multifidelity Codes
---
Introduction
============
Complex computer codes have been widely used to solve mathematical models that represent real-world processes in virtually every field of science and engineering. They are often referred to as *simulators* in Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) and computer experiments [@OHagan2006; @Santner2018]. In practice, computer codes can be too timing-consuming to be used for adequately addressing UQ tasks. To overcome this bottleneck, Gaussian processes have been widely used as surrogate models to approximate simulators due to its computational advantages and attractive theoretical properties [@Sacks1989].
In real applications, computer codes can be run at different levels of accuracy due to sophistication of physics incorporated in mathematical models, accuracy of numerical solvers and resolutions of meshes; see [@Peherstorfer2018] for formal definition of multifidelity models. Several works have been proposed to combine output from computer codes at different fidelity levels based on a well-known geostatistical method called *cokriging*; see Chapter 3 of [@Cressie1993]. The approach of cokriging to synthesizing multiple computer model outputs is originated in [@Kennedy2000], which is developed based upon a first order Markov assumption that given output from a low-fidelity code run at an input, no more information can be learnt about the high-fidelity code with output from the low-fidelity code at any other input. The resulting cokriging model is often referred to as an autoregressive cokriging model. Several extensions of this autoregressive cokriging model have been proposed with increased model flexibility and Bayesian inference approaches [@Qian2008; @Gratiet2013; @Gratiet2014].
A common feature found in these works is that the predictive distribution for the high-fidelity code given both low and high fidelity output at a set of inputs as well as correlation parameters (or range parameters) requires numerical integration, which leads to intensive computations. Indeed, the predictive distribution can be available in a closed-form when other model parameters such as regression parameters and variance parameters are conditioned upon, but this leads to under-estimation of uncertainties associated with predictions. The uncertainty analysis about the quantity of interest, often a transformation of predictors, will hence suffer severely from this artifact. To avoid this, a recursive predictive formula is derived such that predictive distributions are only conditioned upon the code output and correlation parameters. Closed-form predictive means and predictive variances are also derived at each code level that can be computed without the need of Monte Carlo approximations as in [@Qian2008; @Gratiet2013]. This formula explicitly accounts for the uncertainty due to the estimation of regression parameters, scale discrepancy parameter and variance parameters.
Inference about model parameters has been approached in several different ways in autoregressive cokriging models with focus on empirical Bayesian approaches. A particular challenge in autoregressive cokriging models is to estimate correlation parameters. To tackle this issue, [@Kennedy2000] assume independent noninformative priors for all the parameters, and then carry out numerical maximization for the marginal likelihood functions after integrating out regression parameters with respect to scale discrepancy parameters, variance parameters and correlation parameters [@Kennedy2000]. In [@Qian2008], conjugate priors are assumed for regression parameters, scale discrepancy parameters and variance parameters. For correlation parameters, proper gamma priors are assumed. The correlation parameters are then estimated by maximizing the corresponding marginal posteriors. For the code at the first level, standard nonlinear optimization is performed; while for the code at the second level, the corresponding posterior does not have a closed form and its evaluation requires numerical integration. This optimization procedure is then recast into a stochastic programming problem. To alleviate computational difficulties in [@Kennedy2000; @Qian2008], [@Gratiet2013] develop an efficient joint Bayesian estimation approach with either non-information priors or informative priors for all the model parameters except the correlation parameters. Without further assuming prior distributions for correlation parameters, [@Gratiet2013] maximizes a concentrated restricted likelihood to obtain estimates for correlation parameters at each code level. However, whether the choices of priors in [@Qian2008; @Gratiet2013] will lead to good estimates is not discussed. We show that vague proper priors for correlation parameters in [@Qian2008] will lead to an improper posterior. Thus, the usage of such vague priors will not solve but hide the problem, see [@Berger2006] for detailed discussion and references therein. We also show that the concentrated restricted likelihood in [@Gratiet2013] with noninformative priors and informative priors (when chosen to be vague) can have nonrobust estimates in autoregressive cokriging models, where nonrobustness is defined to be the situation where the correlation matrix becomes either singular or identity when correlation parameters go to zero or infinity; see [@Gu2018] for detailed discussions.
This article has two primary objectives that are of interest from computational and theoretical perspectives. The first objective is the derivation of new formulas for predictive distributions of the code output at any level over a new input given code output and correlation parameters. Realizations can be simulated from predictive distributions based upon a set of conditional distributions and the predictive means and predictive variances can be computed exactly at any fidelity level in a computationally efficient way. The new closed-form predictive formulas will take into account uncertainties due to the estimation of the location and scale parameters. The second objective is the development of objective priors. The objective priors can be used as default priors when elicitation of prior information is challenging. It also enables more accurate uncertainty estimation in the predictive distribution than the typical maximum-likelihood based approaches with commonly-used noninformative priors.
Section \[sec: univariate model\] gives the general assumptions and reviews the autoregressive cokriging models. In Section \[sec: prediction in univariate model\], new closed-form expressions are derived for predictive distributions at all code levels conditioned on all code output and correlation parameters. The $s$-level cokriging model turns out to have the same computational cost as $s$ independent kriging models in both parameter estimation and prediction. Section \[sec: objective Bayes\] begins with discussions on commonly-chosen noninformative priors and proves that the resulting posteriors are improper with such noninformative priors. The objective priors including independent reference priors and independent Jeffreys priors are then developed and are shown to yield proper posteriors. Section \[sec: numerical demonstration\] gives several numerical examples. Section \[sec: discussion\] is concluded with further discussions.
The Autoregressive Cokriging Model {#sec: univariate model}
==================================
Suppose that we have $s$ levels of code $y_{1}(\cdot),\ldots,$ $y_{s}(\cdot)$, where the code $y_{t}(\cdot)$ is assumed to be more accurate than the code $y_{t-1}(\cdot)$ for $t=2,\ldots,s$. Let ${{\cal X}}$ be a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, which is assumed to be the input space of computer code. Further assume that the code $y_{t}(\cdot)$ is run at a set of input values denoted by ${{\cal X}}_{t}\subset{{\cal X}}$ for $t=1,\ldots,s$, where ${{\cal X}}_{t}$ is assumed to contain $n_{t}$ input values. Consider the following autoregressive model as in [@Kennedy2000; @Gratiet2013]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn: AR}
y_{t}({\mathbf{x}})=\gamma_{t-1}y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}})+\delta_{t}({\mathbf{x}}), \, {\mathbf{x}}\in {{\cal X}},\end{aligned}$$ for $t=2,\ldots,s$, where $y_{t-1}(\cdot)$ is an unknown function of input. $\delta_{t}(\cdot)$ is the unknown location discrepancy function representing the local adjustment from level $t-1$ to level $t$. $\gamma_{t-1}$ is the scale discrepancy representing the scale change from level $t-1$ to level $t$. Notice that currently $\gamma_{t-1}$ does not depend on input. A more general assumption is to take $\gamma_{t-1}(\cdot)$ to be a basis-function representation, i.e., $\gamma_{t-1}(\cdot)={\mathbf{k}}_{t-1}(\cdot)^{\top}{\boldsymbol \zeta}_{t-1}$ for $t=2,...,s$, where ${\mathbf{k}}_{t-1}(\cdot)$ is a vector of basis functions and ${\boldsymbol \zeta}_{t-1}$ is a vector of unknown coefficients with dimension $q_{\zeta}$. The development in this article is true for this general parameterization. Without loss of generality, we focus on the simple form, i.e., ${\mathbf{k}}_{t-1}$ is assumed to be 1 and ${\boldsymbol \zeta}_{t-1}$ is assumed to be a scalar parameter.
To account for uncertainties in the unknown functions $y_{1}(\cdot)$ and $\delta_{t}(\cdot)$, Gaussian process priors can be assigned: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}y_{1}(\cdot)\mid{\boldsymbol \beta}_{1},\sigma_{1}^{2},{\boldsymbol \phi}_{1} & \sim\mathcal{GP}({\mathbf{h}}_{1}(\cdot)^{\top}{\boldsymbol \beta}_{1},\,\sigma_{1}^{2}r(\cdot,\cdot|{\boldsymbol \phi}_{1})),\\
\delta_{t}(\cdot) & \sim\mathcal{GP}({\mathbf{h}}_{t}(\cdot)^{\top}{\boldsymbol \beta}_{t},\,\sigma_{t}^{2}r(\cdot,\cdot|{\boldsymbol \phi}_{t})),
\end{split}
\label{eqn: co-kriging model}\end{aligned}$$ for $t=2,\ldots,s$, $i=1,\ldots,n_{t}$, where $r(\cdot,\cdot|{\boldsymbol \phi}_{t})$ is a correlation function with correlation parameters ${\boldsymbol \phi}_{t}$. A popular form is to choose the product correlations with the power exponential family and the Matérn family. ${\mathbf{h}}_{t}(\cdot)$ is a vector of (fixed) basis functions and ${\boldsymbol \beta}_{t}$ is a vector of unknown coefficients at code level $t$. $\sigma^2_t$ is the variance parameter.
The cokriging model in and has been used to model computer model output at different fidelity levels in previous works [@Kennedy2000; @Gratiet2013] with hierarchically nested design, i.e., ${{\cal X}}_{t}\subset{{\cal X}}_{t-1}$. In [@Qian2008], a measurement-error process is incorporated in to link observations with computer model outputs at two fidelity levels. The assumption of hierarchically nested design in these works allows for closed-form likelihood-based inference in discussions that follow. Let ${{\mathbf{y}}}_{t}$ be a vector of output values at all inputs in ${{{\cal X}}}_{t}$ at code level $t$. Let ${\boldsymbol \beta}:=({\boldsymbol \beta}_1^\top, \ldots, {\boldsymbol \beta}_s^\top)^\top$, ${\boldsymbol \gamma}:=(\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_{s-1})^\top$, ${\boldsymbol \sigma}^2:=(\sigma^2_1, \ldots, \sigma^2_s)^\top$, ${\boldsymbol \phi}:=({\boldsymbol \phi}_1^\top, \ldots, {\boldsymbol \phi}_s^\top)^\top$, and ${\mathbf{y}}=({\mathbf{y}}_{1}^{\top},\ldots,{\mathbf{y}}_{s}^{\top})^{\top}$. Then the marginal likelihood is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn: sampling dist}
\begin{split}L({{\mathbf{y}}}\mid{\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \gamma},{\boldsymbol \sigma}^{2},{\boldsymbol \phi}) & =\pi({{\mathbf{y}}}_{1}\mid{\boldsymbol \beta}_{1},\sigma_{1}^{2},{\boldsymbol \phi}_{1})\prod_{t=2}^{s}\pi({{\mathbf{y}}}_{t}\mid{{\mathbf{y}}}_{t-1},\gamma_{t-1},{\boldsymbol \beta}_{t},\sigma_{t}^{2},{\boldsymbol \phi}_{t})\end{split},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}\pi({{\mathbf{y}}}_{1}\mid{\boldsymbol \beta}_{1},\sigma_{1}^{2},{\boldsymbol \phi}_{1}) & =\mathcal{N}({{\mathbf{H}}}_{1}{\boldsymbol \beta}_{1},\,\sigma_{1}^{2}{{\mathbf{R}}}_1),\\
\pi({{\mathbf{y}}}_{t}\mid {{\mathbf{y}}}_{t-1},\gamma_{t-1},{\boldsymbol \beta}_{t},\sigma_{t}^{2},{\boldsymbol \phi}_{t}) & =\mathcal{N}({{\mathbf{H}}}_{t}{\boldsymbol \beta}_{t} + {W}_{t-1}\gamma_{t-1},\,\sigma_{t}^{2} {{\mathbf{R}}}_t),
\end{split}
\label{eqn: conditional sampling distributions}\end{aligned}$$ with ${{\mathbf{H}}}_t:={\mathbf{h}}_t({{{\cal X}}}_t)$ and ${W}_{t-1}:=y_{t-1}({{{\cal X}}}_t)$, where $y_{t-1}(A):=[y_{t-1}(x),x\in A]$ is a vector of output values over inputs in $A$. This sampling distribution provides a convenient form to perform closed-form likelihood-based inference.
The Cokriging Predictor and Cokriging Variance {#sec: prediction in univariate model}
==============================================
For any new input ${\mathbf{x}}_{0}\in {{\cal X}}$, the goal is to make prediction for $y_s({\mathbf{x}}_0)$ based upon the code output ${\mathbf{y}}$. In [@Kennedy2000], a closed-form predictive distribution is derived for $\pi(y_s({\mathbf{x}}_0) \mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi})$, which only accounts for the uncertainty due to estimation of ${\boldsymbol \beta}$ and has $O((\sum_{t=1} n_t)^3)$ computational cost. In [@Qian2008], a closed-form predictive distribution is only given for $\pi(y_s({\mathbf{x}}_0) \mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi})$, which also has $O((\sum_{t=1}^s n_t)^3)$ computational cost. To account for uncertainty due to estimation of model parameters ${\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi}$, Monte Carlo approximation is required. In [@Gratiet2013], a closed-form predictive distribution is also only given for $\pi(y_s({\mathbf{x}}_0) \mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi})$, and Monte Carlo approximation is used to account for uncertainty due to estimation of other model parameters. [@Gratiet2013] also develops an iterative formula to invert the $(\sum_{t=1}^s n_t)\times (\sum_{t=1}^s n_t)$ correlation matrix of code output at all levels, which reduces computation cost to $O(\sum_{t=1}^s n_t^3)$.
In what follows, we give a new way to derive closed-form predictive distributions for $\pi(y_t({\mathbf{s}}_0) \mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}), t=1, \ldots, s$ that not only explicitly account for the uncertainty due to estimation of ${\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2$ but also has $O(\sum_{t=1}^s n_t^3)$ computational cost. The formula for these predictive distributions is derived based upon the idea that the new input ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ is added to each ${{{\cal X}}}_t$ such that a hierarchically nested design can be obtained.
To deal with these unknown parameters ${\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2$, the following standard reference priors are used for the location-scale parameters: ${\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \gamma},{\boldsymbol \sigma}^{2}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn: location-scale prior}
\begin{split}
\pi^{R}({\boldsymbol \beta}_{1},\sigma_{1}^{2}) & \propto\frac{1}{\sigma_{1}^{2}},\\
\pi^{R}({\boldsymbol \beta}_{t},\gamma_{t-1},\sigma_{t}^{2}) & \propto\frac{1}{\sigma_{t}^{2}},\,t=2,\ldots,s.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
The following lemma gives the predictive distribution of ${\mathbf{y}}({\mathbf{x}}_0):=(y_1({\mathbf{x}}_0), \ldots, y_s({\mathbf{x}}_0))^\top$ given ${\mathbf{y}}$ and ${\boldsymbol \phi}$.
\[lem: conditional predictive dists\] According to the cokriging model , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn: joint predictive dist under noninformative priors}
\begin{split}
\pi({\mathbf{y}}({\mathbf{x}}_0)\mid {\mathbf{y}},{\boldsymbol \phi}) &=\pi(y_1({\mathbf{x}}_0)\mid {\mathbf{y}}_{1},{\boldsymbol \phi}_{1})\prod_{t=2}^{s-1}\pi(y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)\mid {{\mathbf{y}}}_{t-1}, y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0), {\mathbf{y}}_{t},{\boldsymbol \phi}_{t})\\
&\times \pi(y_s({\mathbf{x}}_0) \mid y_{s-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0), {\mathbf{y}}_s, {\boldsymbol \phi}_s),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where conditional distributions on the right-hand side are Student $t$-distributions $t_{n_t-q_t}(\mu_t({\mathbf{x}}_0), $ $ \Sigma_t({\mathbf{x}}_0))$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mu_{t}({\mathbf{x}}_0) & :={\mathbf{X}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0)\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}_t+{\mathbf{r}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0){\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}({\mathbf{y}}_{t}-{\mathbf{X}}_t\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}_t),\\
\Sigma_{t}({\mathbf{x}}_0) & :=\hat{\sigma}^2_t c_t^*,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\hat{\sigma}^2_t & :=({\mathbf{y}}_{t}-{\mathbf{X}}_t\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}_t)^{\top}{\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}({\mathbf{y}}_{t}-{\mathbf{X}}_t\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}_t) / (n_t-q_t),\\
c_t^* & :=r({\mathbf{x}}_0,{\mathbf{x}}_0|{\boldsymbol \phi}_{t})-{\mathbf{r}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0){\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}{\mathbf{r}}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0) \\
&+ [{\mathbf{X}}_{t}({\mathbf{x}}_0)-{\mathbf{X}}_{t}^{\top}{\mathbf{R}}_{t}^{-1}{\mathbf{r}}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)]^{\top}({\mathbf{X}}_{t}^{\top}{\mathbf{R}}_{t}^{-1}{\mathbf{X}}_{t})^{-1}[{\mathbf{X}}_{t}({\mathbf{x}}_0)-{\mathbf{X}}_{t}^{\top}{\mathbf{R}}_{t}^{-1}{\mathbf{r}}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)],
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}_t:=(\hat{{\boldsymbol \beta}}^\top, \hat{\gamma}_{t-1})^\top = ({\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t)^{-1}{\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{y}}_t$, ${\mathbf{r}}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0):=r({{{\cal X}}}_t, {\mathbf{x}}_0| {\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$, ${\mathbf{X}}_1:={\mathbf{H}}_1$, and ${\mathbf{X}}_t:=[{{\mathbf{H}}}_{t}, y_{t-1}({{\cal X}}_t)]$ for $t>1$. $q_t$ is the number of columns in ${\mathbf{X}}_t$.
See Appendix \[app: conditional predictive dist\].
This result shows that one can generate a random sample from the predictive distribution $\pi({\mathbf{y}}({\mathbf{x}}_0) \mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi})$ by sequentially sampling from a collection of conditional distributions. Notice that samples are obtained across all the code levels. The computation associated with each conditional distribution only requires $O(n_t^3)$ flops for $t=1, \ldots, s$. Before stating the next theorem that provides a convenient way to exactly compute the predictive mean and predictive variance in the predictive distribution $\pi({\mathbf{y}}({\mathbf{x}}_0) \mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi})$, we define the cokriging predictor and cokriging variance at each code level.
Let $\hat{{\mathbf{y}}}({\mathbf{x}}_0)=(\hat{y}_1({\mathbf{x}}_0), \ldots, \hat{y}_s({\mathbf{x}}_0))^\top$ be a vector of predictive means with $\hat{y}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0):=E[y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)\mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}]$ and $\hat{{\mathbf{v}}}({\mathbf{x}}_0)=(\hat{v}_1({\mathbf{x}}_0),\ldots, \hat{v}_s({\mathbf{x}}_0))^\top$ be a vector of predictive variances with $\hat{v}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0):=Var[y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)\mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}]$. In what follows, $\hat{{\mathbf{y}}}({\mathbf{x}}_0)$ is called the cokriging predictor and $\hat{{\mathbf{v}}}({\mathbf{x}}_0)$ is called the cokriging variance for all levels of code at new input ${\mathbf{x}}_0$.
\[thm: predictive mean and variance\] Suppose that $n_t-q_t>2$ such that the $t$-distributions in have valid variances. Then the cokriging predictor and cokriging variance at code level $t$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn: cokriging predictor}
\begin{split}
\hat{y}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0) &= {\mathbf{f}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0) \hat{{\mathbf{b}}}_t + {\mathbf{r}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0) {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}({\mathbf{y}}_t - {\mathbf{X}}_t \hat{{\mathbf{b}}}_t), \\
\hat{v}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0) &= \hat{\gamma}_{t-1}^2\hat{v}_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0) + \frac{n_t-q_t}{n_t-q_t-2} \hat{\sigma}^2_t \{r({\mathbf{x}}_0, {\mathbf{x}}_0|{\boldsymbol \phi}_t) - {\mathbf{r}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0) {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{r}}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0) + \kappa_t \},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{f}}_1({\mathbf{x}}_0)={\mathbf{h}}_1({\mathbf{x}}_0)$, ${\mathbf{f}}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)=[{\mathbf{h}}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)^\top, \hat{y}_{t-1}^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0)]^\top$ for $t>1$, $\hat{v}_0:=0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_t &= [{\mathbf{f}}_{t}({\mathbf{x}}_0)-{\mathbf{X}}_{t}^{\top}{\mathbf{R}}_{t}^{-1}{\mathbf{r}}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)]^{\top}({\mathbf{X}}_{t}^{\top}{\mathbf{R}}_{t}^{-1}{\mathbf{X}}_{t})^{-1}[{\mathbf{f}}_{t}({\mathbf{x}}_0)-{\mathbf{X}}_{t}^{\top}{\mathbf{R}}_{t}^{-1}{\mathbf{r}}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)] \\
& + \hat{v}_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0) \{ y_{t-1}^\top({{\cal X}}_t) {\mathbf{Q}}^H_t y_{t-1}({{\cal X}}_t) \}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mathbf{Q}}^H_t = {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} - {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{H}}_t ({\mathbf{H}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{H}}_t)^{-1} {\mathbf{H}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}$.
See Appendix \[app: predictive mean and variance\].
Theorem \[thm: predictive mean and variance\] shows that the predictive mean and predictive variance in can be computed exactly with computational cost $O(\sum_{t=1}^s n_t^3)$. As a byproduct, predictions at code levels from $t=1$ to $t=s-1$ are obtained automatically. For $t=1$, the predictive mean and predictive variance in the cokriging model are exactly the universal kriging predictor and universal kriging variance in a kriging model. For $t>1$, the cokriging predictor is a sum of a kriging predictor and an additional constant, i.e., $\hat{y}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)={\mathbf{h}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0)\hat{{\boldsymbol \beta}}_t + {\mathbf{r}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0){\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}({\mathbf{y}}_t - {\mathbf{H}}_t\hat{{\boldsymbol \beta}}_t) + [\hat{y}_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0) + {\mathbf{r}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0){\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}W_{t-1}]\hat{\gamma}_{t-1}$. The computational cost for both parameter estimation and prediction in an $s$-level cokriging model is equivalent to the one in $s$ independent kriging models. This predictive distribution allows us to explicitly integrate out models parameters ${\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2$ except the range parameters ${\boldsymbol \phi}$, and hence carries several advantages over the predictive distribution given in [@Gratiet2013]. Specifically, the predictive distribution in [@Gratiet2013] is a normal distribution conditioned on all model parameters $\{{\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi}\}$, and intensive Monte Carlo approximations are required to take into account the uncertainty due to estimation of $\{{\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2\}$ in order to derive the predictive distribution $\pi(y_s({\mathbf{x}}_0)\mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi})$.
In [@Gratiet2014], a recursive predictive formula is also derived based on a recursive multifidelity model that is different from what is presented in this article. The difference between the recursive multifidelity model in [@Gratiet2014] and the one presented here is that [@Gratiet2014] represent the high-fidelity code output $y_t(\cdot)$ as a function of the Gaussian process $y_{t-1}(\cdot)$ conditional on the code output ${\mathbf{y}}_{t-1}^{\mathscr{D}} :=\{ {\mathbf{y}}_1, \ldots, {\mathbf{y}}_{t-1} \}$ at design points in the experimental design sets $\{ \mathcal{X}_{\ell}: \ell=1, \ldots, t-1\}$ and model parameters $\{{\boldsymbol \beta}_{t-1}, \gamma_{t-1}, \sigma^2_{t-1}, {\boldsymbol \phi}_{t-1} \}$. Essentially, this recursive multifidelity model models the predictive distribution of $\pi(y_t(\cdot) \mid {\mathbf{y}}_{t-1}^{\mathscr{D}}, {\boldsymbol \beta}_{t-1}, \gamma_{t-1}, \sigma^2_{t-1}, {\boldsymbol \phi}_{t-1})$. This recursive multifidelity model only needs to estimate model parameters and prediction can be made automatically based on the model, however, it is worth noting that this predictive distribution does not take into account uncertainty due to estimation of model parameters $\{ {\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi}\}$ and it does not give the predictive formula to predict code output at intermediate levels, $t=1, \ldots, s-1$, where such predictions may be useful to design the experiment with multifidelity codes.
The following corollary highlights the properties of autoregressive cokriging predictors in Theorem \[thm: predictive mean and variance\].
\[cor: cokriging and UK\] Let ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ be a new input in the domain $\mathcal{X}$. Let $\hat{y}_{t}^{K}({\mathbf{x}}_0):=E\{y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0) \mid {\mathbf{y}}_t, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t\}$ and $\hat{v}_t^{K}({\mathbf{x}}_0): = Var\{ y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0) \mid {\mathbf{y}}_t, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t\}$ be the kriging predictor and kriging variance based on data $\{{\mathbf{y}}_{t}, {{\cal X}}_{t}\}$. If ${\mathbf{x}}_0 \in {{\cal X}}_{t} \setminus {{\cal X}}_{t+1}$ and with $t=1, \ldots, s-1$, we have $\hat{y}_{\ell}({\mathbf{x}}_0) = \hat{y}_{\ell}^K({\mathbf{x}}_0)=y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)$ and $\hat{v}_{\ell}({\mathbf{x}}_0) = \hat{v}_{\ell}^K({\mathbf{x}}_0) = 0$ for $\ell = 1, \ldots, t$. If ${\mathbf{x}}_0\notin {{\cal X}}_t$, we have $\hat{v}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)>\hat{v}_t^K({\mathbf{x}}_0)$.
[Corollary]{} \[cor: cokriging and UK\] indicates that cokriging predictors can be interpolators as a kriging predictor. If ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ belongs to the design $\mathcal{X}_s$ in the highest fidelity code, the resulting predictive variances at ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ across all levels are zeros, i.e., $\hat{v}_t=0$ for $t=1, \ldots, s$. In other words, the cokriging predictors in are interpolators at all levels. When prediction is made at new inputs, the cokriging predictor has larger variance than simply using the one associated with the kriging predictor. The extra uncertainty in cokriging variances comes from the uncertainty from previous level and the uncertainty to estimate the scale discrepancy parameter. However, without data coming from the lower code levels, one cannot estimate the correlation parameters in the higher level very well, since in practice the higher level code is too expensive to get sufficient number of runs that can be used to obtain fairly good parameter estimates.
Objective Bayesian Analysis {#sec: objective Bayes}
===========================
In Uncertainty Quantification, Bayesian analysis of cokriging models has been focused on using conjugate priors and noninformative priors [@Kennedy2000; @Qian2008; @Gratiet2013]. In this section, we focus on objective Bayesian analysis of the cokriging model, since objective priors can be used as default priors for Bayesian analysis [@Berger2006], and have been often used in Gaussian process modeling [@Berger2001; @Paulo2005; @Gu2018].
Commonly-used Improper Priors
-----------------------------
A Gaussian process has commonly-used priors; see [@Berger2001] for detailed discussions. Following this convention, the following priors will be referred to as commonly-used priors for parameters in autoregressive cokriging models. We consider the improper prior density for ${\boldsymbol \theta}:=\{{\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi}\} \in \Omega=\mathbb{R}^{sp} \times \mathbb{R}^s \times (0, \infty)^s\times (0, \infty)^{sd}$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn: general prior}
\begin{split}
\pi({\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \gamma},{\boldsymbol \sigma}^{2},{\boldsymbol \phi})
& \propto \frac{\pi({\boldsymbol \phi})}{\prod_{t=1}^s(\sigma^2_t)^{a_t}}, a_t \in \mathbb{R},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for various choices of $\pi({\boldsymbol \phi})$ and $a_t$. Although Kennedy and O’Hagan [@Kennedy2000] did not assume a prior for ${\boldsymbol \phi}$, their form is the same as the form in , where inverse range priors are chosen for ${\boldsymbol \phi}$: $\pi({\boldsymbol \phi}) = \prod_{t=1}^s \prod_{\ell=1}^d \phi_{t,\ell}^{-1}$ and $a_t=1$. The parameter ${\boldsymbol \phi}$ is estimated by maximizing the distribution $p({\mathbf{y}}\mid {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}, {\boldsymbol \phi})$. In Gratiet [@Gratiet2013], no prior is assumed for ${\boldsymbol \phi}$, and ${\boldsymbol \phi}$ is estimated based on a concentrated restricted likelihood via a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach [@Harville1974]. In Section \[sec: integrated likelihood\], we show that constant flat prior or inverse range prior for ${\boldsymbol \phi}$ yields improper posteriors.
Commonly-used Proper Priors
---------------------------
As the commonly-used improper priors may lead to improper posteriors, one obvious way to guarantee propriety of the posterior distribution is to assume proper priors, assessed either subjectively or from previous data, however, for Gaussian processes, the correlation parameter ${\boldsymbol \phi}$ can be difficult to interpret. Another way is to assume vague proper priors, however, this can only hide the problem when the posterior concentrates its mass at zero. If the posterior impropriety is occurring because the posterior is not decreasing at infinity, then the empirical Bayes estimates of ${\boldsymbol \phi}$ can be bad. In Appendix \[app: Qian\], we discuss that proper priors when chosen to be vague lead to improper posterior in [@Qian2008]. Another choice is to use conjugate priors for parameters $\{ {\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2\}$ and leave the prior for ${\boldsymbol \phi}$ unspecified and work with a concentrated restricted likelihood; see [@Gratiet2013]. We will show that this concentrated restricted likelihood is not decreasing to zero and can be maximized either at zero or infinity; see Appendix \[app: Gratiet\] for detailed discussions. This problem has been studied in great details in [@Gu2018] for Gaussian processes. The conclusions in [@Gu2018] can be potentially generalized for autoregressive cokriging models. To overcome these problems, objective priors of the form are developed and they are shown to yield proper posteriors. Although this article is not focused on robust estimation, the independent reference prior can lead to robust estimation with parameterization given in [@Gu2018].
Integrated Likelihood {#sec: integrated likelihood}
---------------------
The integration of the marginal likelihood and the prior with respect to the prior over $({\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\int L({{\mathbf{y}}}\mid{\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \gamma},{\boldsymbol \sigma}^{2},{\boldsymbol \phi})\pi({\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \gamma},{\boldsymbol \sigma}^{2},{\boldsymbol \phi})\,d({\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \gamma},{\boldsymbol \sigma}^{2})
= L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) \pi({\boldsymbol \phi}),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn: integrated likelihood}
\begin{split}
L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) & \propto \prod_{t=1}^s |{{\mathbf{R}}}_t|^{-1/2} |{{\mathbf{X}}}_t^\top {{\mathbf{R}}}_t^{-1} {{\mathbf{X}}}_t|^{-1/2} \{S^2({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)\}^{-(({n}_t - q_t)/2+a_t-1)},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mathbf{X}}}_1={{\mathbf{H}}}_1$ and ${{\mathbf{X}}}_t=[{{\mathbf{H}}}_t, {W}_{t-1}]$ with ${W}_{t-1}:=y_{t-1}({{{\cal X}}}_t)$ for $t=2, \ldots, s$. $S^2({\boldsymbol \phi}_t):={\mathbf{y}}_{t}^\top {\mathbf{Q}}_t {\mathbf{y}}_{t}$ with ${\mathbf{Q}}_t={\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}{\mathbf{P}}$ and ${\mathbf{P}}:=\mathbf{I} - {\mathbf{X}}_t ({\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t)^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}$. It immediately follows that the posterior distribution of $\{{\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi}\}$ is proper if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn: condition for properiety}
0< \int_{(0, \infty)^{sd}} L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) \pi({\boldsymbol \phi}) d {\boldsymbol \phi}< \infty. \end{aligned}$$ The following lemma gives the behavior of the integrated likelihood at zero and at infinity.
\[lem: behavior of integrated likelihood\] Note that ${\boldsymbol \phi}_t=(\phi_{t,1}, \ldots, \phi_{t,d})^\top$. Let $\mathcal{C}({\mathbf{X}}_t)$ be the column space of ${\mathbf{X}}_t$. For the cokriging model with sampling distribution and prior distribution , under mild assumptions, we have
1. If $\exists \ell$ such that $\phi_{t,\ell} \to 0$ for at least one $t$, the integrated likelihood exists and is greater than zero.
2. If $\phi_{t,\ell} \to \infty$ for all $\ell$ and $t$, the integrated likelihood satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) = O\left( \prod_{t=1}^s \left(\sum_{\ell=1}^d \nu_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t,\ell} )\right)^{a_t-c_t} \right),
\end{aligned}$$
where $c_t:= 1_{\{\mathbf{1}\in \mathcal{C}({\mathbf{X}}_t)\}} + \frac{1}{2} 1_{\{\mathbf{1}\notin \mathcal{C}({\mathbf{X}}_t)\}}$ with $1_{\{\mathbf{1}\in \mathcal{C}({\mathbf{X}}_t)\}}$ being 1 if the vector $\mathbf{1}$ is in $\mathcal{C}({\mathbf{X}}_t)$ and zero otherwise. The expression for $\nu_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t, \ell})$ is given in Appendix \[app: nu expression\], which is a continuous function and $\lim_{\phi_{t, \ell} \to \infty} \nu_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t, \ell}) = 0$.
See Appendix \[app: nu expression\].
Lemma \[lem: behavior of integrated likelihood\] shows that both the flat prior $\pi({\boldsymbol \phi}_t) \propto 1$ and the noninformative prior $\pi({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)\propto \prod_{\ell=1}^d \phi_{t,\ell}^{-1}$ with $a_t=1$ in lead to improper posteriors with the condition violated.
Objective Priors
----------------
The posterior can be improper under certain common choices of priors in . In what follows, several objective priors are derived and they are shown to yield proper posteriors.
Following [@Berger2001], the parameters of interest are chosen to be $({\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi})$ and $({\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma})$ are treated as the nuisance parameters. This specification leads to the prior factorization $\pi^R({\boldsymbol \theta})=\pi^R({\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}\mid {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi})\pi^R({\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi})$. The Jeffreys-rule prior $\pi^R({\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}\mid {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi})\propto 1$ is considered for the location parameters $({\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma})$ when other parameters are assumed known. Then the reference prior $\pi^R({\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi})$ is computed based on the integrated likelihood with respect to $\pi^R({\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}) \propto 1$. Standard calculation yields the integrated likelihood $L^I({\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi}\mid {\mathbf{y}})$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
L^I({\boldsymbol \sigma}^2, {\boldsymbol \phi}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{q+1}} L({\boldsymbol \theta}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) \pi^R({\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}) d ({\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}) \\
& \propto \prod_{t=1}^s (\sigma^2_t)^{-(n_t-q_t)/2}|{\mathbf{R}}_t|^{-1/2}|{\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t|^{-1/2} \exp\left \{-\frac{S^2({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)}{2\sigma^2_t} \right\}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
\[thm: reference prior\] Consider the group of parameters ${\boldsymbol \theta}=({\boldsymbol \theta}_1, \ldots, {\boldsymbol \theta}_s)$ with ${\boldsymbol \theta}_t=({\boldsymbol \beta}_t, \gamma_{t-1}, \sigma^2_t, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$, where $\gamma_0:=0$. For the cokriging model with sampling distribution , the independent reference prior distribution, $\pi^R({\boldsymbol \theta})$, is of the form with $$\begin{aligned}
a_t = 1 & \text{ and } \pi^R({\boldsymbol \phi}) \propto \prod_{t=1}^s|I_t^R({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)|^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ where $I_t^R({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$ is the Fisher information matrix by fixing all parameters except ${\boldsymbol \theta}_t$: $$\begin{aligned}
I_t^R({\boldsymbol \phi}_t) =
\begin{pmatrix}
n_t-q_t & \text{tr}({\mathbf{W}}_{t,1}) & \text{tr}({\mathbf{W}}_{t,2}) & \cdots & \text{tr}({\mathbf{W}}_{t,d}) \\
& \text{tr}({\mathbf{W}}_{t,1}^2) & \text{tr}({\mathbf{W}}_{t,1}{\mathbf{W}}_{t,2}) & \cdots & \text{tr}({\mathbf{W}}_{t,1}{\mathbf{W}}_{t,d}) \\
& & & \ddots & \vdots \\
& & & & \text{tr}({\mathbf{W}}_{t,d}^2)
\end{pmatrix}_{(d+1)\times (d+1)},\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mathbf{W}}_{t,k}=\dot{{\mathbf{R}}}^k_t {\mathbf{Q}}_t, k=1, \ldots, d$,
See Appendix \[app: reference prior\].
\[thm: Jeffreys prior\] Let ${\boldsymbol \theta}=({\boldsymbol \theta}_1, \ldots, {\boldsymbol \theta}_s)$ be the group of parameters with ${\boldsymbol \theta}_t=({\boldsymbol \beta}_t, \gamma_{t-1}, \sigma^2_t, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$, where $\gamma_0:=0$. Suppose that ${\boldsymbol \theta}_t$’s are independent. Then the independent Jeffreys prior, $\pi^{J1}$, obtained by assuming that $({\boldsymbol \beta}_t, \gamma_t)$ and $(\sigma_t^2, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$ are a priori independent, and the independent Jeffreys prior, $\pi^{J2}$, are of the form with $$\begin{aligned}
a_t = 1 & \text{ and } \pi^{J1}({\boldsymbol \phi}) \propto \prod_{t=1}^s|I_t^J({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)|^{1/2}, \\
a_t = 1 + q_t/2 & \text{ and } \pi^{J2}({\boldsymbol \phi}) \propto \pi^{J1}({\boldsymbol \phi}) \prod_{t=1}^s |{\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}^{-1}_t {\mathbf{X}}_t|^{1/2} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
I_t^J({\boldsymbol \phi}_t) =
\begin{pmatrix}
n_t & \text{tr}({\mathbf{U}}_{t,1}) & \text{tr}({\mathbf{U}}_{t,2}) & \cdots & \text{tr}({\mathbf{U}}_{t,d}) \\
& \text{tr}({\mathbf{U}}_{t,1}^2) & \text{tr}({\mathbf{U}}_{t,1}{\mathbf{U}}_{t,2}) & \cdots & \text{tr}({\mathbf{U}}_{t,1}{\mathbf{U}}_{t,d}) \\
& & & \ddots & \vdots \\
& & & & \text{tr}({\mathbf{U}}_{t,d}^2)
\end{pmatrix}_{(d+1)\times (d+1)},\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mathbf{U}}_{t,k}=\dot{{\mathbf{R}}}^k {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}, k=1, \ldots, d$,
This result follows directly from Proposition 2.2 in [@Paulo2005].
For the cokriging model with sampling distribution , the independent reference prior $\pi^R$, independent Jeffreys priors $\pi^{J1}, \pi^{J2}$ yield proper posteriors satisfying the condition .
Following the results in [@Paulo2005], it is straightforward to show that $$\begin{aligned}
0<\int_{\mathbf{R}^d} L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}_t\mid{\mathbf{y}}) \pi({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)\, d{\boldsymbol \phi}_t < \infty,\quad & \text{ for } \quad \pi({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)=\pi^R({\boldsymbol \phi}_t), \pi^{J1}({\boldsymbol \phi}_t), \pi^{J2}({\boldsymbol \phi}_t),\end{aligned}$$ where $L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}_t\mid{\mathbf{y}}) \propto |{\mathbf{R}}_t|^{-1/2}|{\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t|^{-1/2} \{S^2({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)\}^{-(({n}_t - q_t)/2+a_t-1)}$, $\pi^R({\boldsymbol \phi}_t) \propto I_t^R({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$, $\pi^{J1}({\boldsymbol \phi}_t) \propto I_t^J({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$, $\pi^{J2}({\boldsymbol \phi}_t) \propto I_t^J({\boldsymbol \phi}_t) |{\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t|^{1/2}$. Then the condition is satisfied by Fubini’s theorem.
Parameter Estimation
--------------------
With the above prior specification, the integrated posterior of ${\boldsymbol \phi}$ given ${\mathbf{y}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn: posterior}
\pi({\boldsymbol \phi}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) \propto \prod_{t=1}^s |{{\mathbf{R}}}_t|^{-1/2} |{{\mathbf{X}}}_t^\top {{\mathbf{R}}}_t^{-1} {{\mathbf{X}}}_t|^{-1/2} \{S^2({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)\}^{-(({n}_t - q_t)/2 + a_t-1)} \pi({\boldsymbol \phi}_t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$ refers to independent reference prior and independent Jeffreys priors. Inference based on this posterior distribution can be made in a fully Bayesian paradigm via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Although uncertainties in all parameters can be taken into consideration in a fully Bayesian approach, the associated computation can be too expensive in practice due to repeated evaluation of the integrated likelihood .
In what follows, we focus on empirical Bayesian inference by maximizing the posterior to obtain the estimate of ${\boldsymbol \phi}$. In fact, the numerical optimization can be performed for each ${\boldsymbol \phi}_t$, that is, for $t=1, \ldots, s$, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}_t := \underset{{\boldsymbol \phi}_t}{\text{argmax}} \left\{-\frac{1}{2}\ln |{\mathbf{R}}_t| - \frac{1}{2}\ln|{\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t| - \left(\frac{n_t-q_t}{2}+a_t-1\right)\ln S^2({\boldsymbol \phi}_t) + \ln \pi({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where the maximization step can be performed using standard optimization algorithms such as the Nelder-Mead algorithm [@Nocedal2006]. Once $\hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}_t$ is obtained, the cokriging predictions and cokriging variances can be obtained based on the posterior predictive distribution $\pi({\mathbf{y}}({\mathbf{x}}_0)\mid {\mathbf{y}}, \hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}})$. Notice that there is no need to estimate other model parameters $\{{\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2\}$. If desired, these model parameters can be estimated based on the posterior distribution $\pi({\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}\mid {\mathbf{y}}, \hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}})$ and $\pi({\boldsymbol \sigma}^2\mid {\mathbf{y}}, \hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}})$. The detailed procedures to estimate these parameters are given in Appendix \[app: parameter estimation\].
Numerical Illustration {#sec: numerical demonstration}
======================
The main goal of the numerical illustration is to demonstrate the predictive performance of the autoregressive cokriging model with objective priors developed in previous sections. In addition, we also include the jointly robust prior [@Gu2019] in the comparison, since the jointly robust prior mimics the behavior of reference priors for Gaussian process models and it is a proper prior that allows fast computation. The form of the jointly robust prior is $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^{JR}(B_1, \ldots, B_d) = C\left( \sum_{i=1}^d C_i B_i \right)^{a_0} \exp\left\{ - b_0 \left( \sum_{i=1}^d C_i B_i \right) \right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $B_i$’s are inverse range parameters; $C$ is a normalizing constant; $a_0>-(d+1)$, $b_0>0$ and $C_i=n^{-1/d}|x_i^{max} - x_i^{min} |$are hyperparameters. $a_0$ is a parameter controlling the polynomial penalty to avoid singular correlation matrix and $b_0$ is a parameter controlling the exponential penalty to avoid diagonal correlation matrix. $n$ here refers to the number of model runs; $x_i^{max}, x_i^{min}$ refer to the maximum and minimum of input parameter $x_i$. [@Gu2019] recommends default settings for these parameters: $a_0=0.5-d$ and $b_0=1$. However, it was pointed out in [@Gu2019] that the choice of $a_0$ is an open problem and is problem-specific. In the following numerical study, we fix $b_0$ at 1, and tune the parameter $a_0$ to achieve comparable results. For the autoregressive cokriging model, independent jointly robust priors are assumed for correlation parameters across different levels of fidelity. In the following numerical comparison, the proposed cokriging predictors and cokriging variances explicitly take into account the uncertainties in estimating ${\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2$, while the closed-form predictive formulas in [@Gratiet2013] do not take into account the uncertainties in estimating ${\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2$, and ${\boldsymbol \phi}$. As numerical examples in [@Gratiet2013] indicate that the approach in [@Gratiet2013] performs better than the approaches in [@Kennedy2000; @Qian2008], which is computationally much more expensive, it is more interesting to compare the proposed inference approach and the approach in [@Gratiet2013]. In addition, the proposed inference approach is very similar to the approach in [@Gratiet2013] except for the fact that objective priors and new predictive formulas are used.
In the following numerical examples, the covariance function model is specified as product form of the Matérn covariance following previous work [@Sacks1989]: $r(h) = \sigma^2 \prod_{i=1}^d r_i(h_i)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
r_i(h) = \frac{2^{1-\nu}}{\Gamma(\nu)} \left( \sqrt{2\nu} \frac{h}{\phi_i} \right)^{\nu} \mathcal{K}_{\nu} \left( \sqrt{2\nu} \frac{h}{\phi_i} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_i$ is the range parameter for the $i$ input dimension. $\nu>0$ is the smoothness parameter controlling the differentiability of the Gaussian processes. In the following numerical examples, $\nu$ will be fixed at 5/2 as in [@Gratiet2013] meaning that its random process will be twice differentiable in the mean square sense. $\mathcal{K}_{\nu}$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind. In all the numerical examples, the range parameter will be reparameterized with the log inverse range parameters $\xi_i:=\log(1/\phi_i)$. This parametrization facilitates robust estimation for Gaussian process emulation as shown in [@Gu2018; @Gu2019] for reference priors and jointly robust priors. The predictive performance is measured based on root-mean-squared-prediction error (RMSPE), coverage probability of the 95% equal-tail credible interval (CVG(95%)), and average length of the 95% equal-tail credible interval (ALCI(95%)).
Testbed with the Borehole Function
----------------------------------
The performance is investigated with the 8-dimensional borehole function that models water flow through a borehole drilled from two ground surfaces through two aquifers [@Harper1983]. Its fast evaluation makes it widely used for testing purposes in computer experiments [@Morris1993; @Xiong2013]. Let ${\mathbf{x}}= (r_w, r, T_u, H_u, T_{\ell}, H_{\ell}, L, K_w)^\top$ be a vector of input variables in the borehole function with their physical meanings given in Appendix \[app: testing function\]. The response of the model is given by $$\begin{aligned}
y_h = \frac{2\pi T_u (H_u - H_{\ell})}{\log(r/r_{w}) \left[ 1 + \frac{2LT_u}{\log(r/r_w)r_w^2 K_w} + T_u/T_{\ell} \right] },\end{aligned}$$ and its low-fidelity output is given by $$\begin{aligned}
y_l = \frac{5 T_u (H_u - H_{\ell})}{\log(r/r_{w}) \left[ 1.5 + \frac{2LT_u}{\log(r/r_w)r_w^2 K_w} + T_u/T_{\ell} \right] }.\end{aligned}$$
To setup the experiment, 100 inputs are selected via Latin hypercube design with the `DiceDesign` package [@DiceDesign]. Then 20 inputs are randomly held out to evaluate predictive performance. The remaining 80 inputs are used to run the low-fidelity code $y_l(\cdot)$, and 30 inputs are randomly selected from these 80 inputs to run the high-fidelity code $y_h(\cdot)$. The predictive performance of the autoregressive cokriging model based on the proposed new formulas is compared with the approach in [@Gratiet2013], where the approach in [@Gratiet2013] is implemented in the `MuFiCokriging` package [@MuFiCokriging]. For all methods, the mean function is chosen to be constant and the covariance function is chosen to be the Matérn covariance with smoothness parameter fixed at 2.5 at each level.
Figure \[fig: borehole example\] compares predictive means against the high-fidelity code output at 20 held-out inputs. It indicates that the proposed approach gives better prediction than the approach in [@Gratiet2013], since the predictive values are concentrated along the 45 degree line. Table \[table: borehole example\] shows that the new cokriging predictors and cokriging variances give better predictive performance than the approach in [@Gratiet2013] in terms of RMSPE and ALCI(95%), although the empirical coverage probability is below 0.95. The result based on the jointly robust prior is obtained by fixing the hyperparameter $a_0$ at 0.2 after trying several different values. It is worth noting that the proposed cokriging variances take into account uncertainties in estimating all model parameters except the range parameters, but they still give much shorter predictive intervals. This also reveals that maximizing the posterior with the uniform improper priors for correlation parameters or maximizing the concentrated restricted likelihood are less preferred than maximizing the posterior with the proposed objective priors or the jointly robust prior. It is worth noting that the large predictive intervals are obtained based on the approach in [@Gratiet2013] even though uncertainties are not accounted for due to estimation of ${\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2$. This is occurring because the concentrated restricted likelihood in [@Gratiet2013] can have nonrobust parameter estimates as discussed in Appendix \[app: nonrobust estimation\], and we found in this example that several correlation parameters are estimated to be very large, resulting in a nearly singular correlation matrix. The independent reference prior and independent Jeffreys prior lead to very similar predictive performance. Both of them have empirical coverage probability 0.85. In contrast, the jointly robust prior seems to give better predictive performance than these two objective priors.
\[table: borehole example\]
Application to Fluidized-Bed Processes
--------------------------------------
This section studies the predictive performance of the proposed cokriging formulas with objective priors for the fluidized-bed process experiment analyzed in [@Qian2008; @Gratiet2013]. The computer model named “Topsim" simulates the temperature of the steady-state thermodynamic operation point for a fluidized-bed process based on eight physical parameters: fluid velocity of the fluidization air, temperature of the air from the pump, flow rate of the coating solution, temperature of the coating solution, coating solution dry matter content, pressure of atomized air, room temperature, and humidity. [@Dewettinck1999] consider 28 different process conditions with coating solution used for distilled water (i.e., coating solution dry matter content is 0) and the room temperature at 20$^\circ$C. For each input configuration, one physical experiment $T_{exp}$ and three computer model runs ($T_1, T_2, T_3)$ were conducted, where $T_{exp}$ is the experimental response, $T_3$ is the most accurate code modeling the experiment, $T_2$ is a simplified version of $T_3$, and $T_1$ is the lowest accurate code modeling the experiment. The six inputs and corresponding outputs $T_1, T_2, T_3$, and $T_{exp}$ for these 28 runs are given in [@Qian2008]. The following numerical study mainly follows the procedure in [@Gratiet2013], and compares the proposed approach with that in [@Gratiet2013], since Gratiet [@Gratiet2013] demonstrates that the approach in [@Gratiet2013] performs better than the approach in [@Qian2008]. Following [@Gratiet2013], each input parameter is also scaled to the unit interval $[0, 1]$.
The predictive performance of a 2-level cokriging model is investigated based on 20 randomly selected $T_{exp}$ runs and all 28 $T_2$ runs. The remaining eight $T_{exp}$ runs are used for model validation. The mean function is chosen to be constant and the covariance function is chosen to be Matérn with smoothness parameter 2.5 at each level. In the jointly robust prior, the hyperparameter $a_0$ is chosen to be the default setting. The results in Table \[table: two-level example\] show that the 2-level cokriging model under the objective priors and jointly robust priors yields much smaller RMSPE and ALCI than the approach in [@Gratiet2013], while the 2-level cokriging models with all different priors have the empirical coverage probability smaller than 0.95.
Then the predictive performance of a 3-level cokriging model is investigated. Following [@Gratiet2013], 10 $T_{exp}$ runs (with the row number given by 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 27 in Table 4 in [@Qian2008]), 20 $T_3$ runs (with the row number given by 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27), and all the 28 $T_2$ runs are used. The remaining 18 $T_{exp}$ runs are used for mode validation. Table \[table: three-level example\] shows that the 3-level cokriging model gives much smaller RMSPE and ALCI with independent reference prior, independent Jeffreys prior, and jointly robust prior than the 3-level cokriging model with the approach in [@Gratiet2013]. In the jointly robust prior, the hyperparameter $a_0$ is chosen to be the default setting. Meanwhile, the independent reference prior and jointly robust prior result in much shorter predictive intervals than the approach in [@Gratiet2013]. The Jeffreys prior seems to perform very poor, since it only has empirical coverage probability at 0.5, which is much smaller than the nominal coverage probability 0.95. Notice that the jointly robust prior leads to better predictive performance than the independent reference prior with default settings for its hyperparameter, since it leads to better empirical coverage probability that the independent reference prior.
To briefly summarize, the objective priors and the independent jointly robust prior yield very similar predictive performance, and they yield much better predictive performance than the approach in [@Gratiet2013] in the 2-level cokriging model and the 3-level cokriging model. It is again worth noting that the approach in [@Gratiet2013] always gives larger predictive uncertainties than the proposed approach in these examples. This is due to the fact that the estimated parameters in [@Gratiet2013] are not robust, since several correlation parameters are estimated to be near zero. Such nonrobust estimates can mess up with the predictions. This suggests that inference with the objective priors should always be preferred over inference with the uniform improper priors or the approach in [@Gratiet2013] in autoregressive cokriging models when reliable experts’ opinions do not exist or are challenging to obtain and that the proposed cokriging predictors and cokriging variances are recommended for predictive inference.
\[table: two-level example\]
\[table: three-level example\]
Discussion {#sec: discussion}
==========
This article presents a unifying view in making prediction and parameter estimation in a computationally efficient way in the sense that the computational cost of both prediction and parameter estimation in an $s$-level cokriging model is the same as that in $s$ independent kriging models. The formulas in the predictive distributions account for uncertainties in all model parameters except the correlation parameters. The objective Bayesian analysis performed in the autoregressive cokriging model can be used as a default choice when prior information is challenging to obtain. In addition, the objective priors can also encourage robust estimation of correlation parameters.
The independent reference prior and independent Jeffreys priors are shown to yield proper posterior distributions. The predictive performance under these objective priors and independent jointly robust priors are also compared based on frequentist properties under various numerical studies. The numerical examples show that the objective priors and the jointly robust prior yield very similar predictive performance in 2-level and 3-level cokriging models. We also found that the jointly robust prior can provides better predictive performance than the independent reference prior sometimes, but this requires tuning its hyperparameters. The determination of optimal values for its hyperparameters is still an open question.
When designs are not hierarchically nested, there is no closed-form expression for the marginal likelihood function, and hence objective Bayesian analysis could be very challenging. However, the independent jointly robust prior could be a promising choice for this situation, since it has comparable predictive performance and it is a proper prior that allows fast computation. This has been used in [@Ma2019PPCokriging] for parameter estimation in a cokriging model that emulates high-dimensional output from multiple computer models.
Proofs {#app: Fisher Info}
======
Proof of Lemma \[lem: conditional predictive dists\] {#app: conditional predictive dist}
----------------------------------------------------
As $\{{{\cal X}}_t\cup\{{\mathbf{x}}_0\}: t=1, \ldots, s\}$ forms a collection of nested design, it follows form the cokriging model that $$\begin{aligned}
\pi({\mathbf{y}}({\mathbf{x}}_0), {\mathbf{y}}| {\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \phi}) &= \pi(y_1({\mathbf{x}}_0), {\mathbf{y}}_1 | {\boldsymbol \beta}_1, \sigma^2_1, {\boldsymbol \phi}_1) \prod_{t=2}^s \pi(y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0), {\mathbf{y}}_t | y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0), {\boldsymbol \beta}_t, \gamma_{t-1}, \sigma^2_t, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t), \end{aligned}$$ where each joint distribution on the right hand side follows a multivariate normal distribution. It is straightforward to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\pi({\mathbf{y}}({\mathbf{x}}_0) |{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \phi}) &= \pi(y_1({\mathbf{x}}_0) | {\mathbf{y}}_1, {\boldsymbol \beta}_1, \sigma^2_1, {\boldsymbol \phi}_1) \prod_{t=2}^s \pi(y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0) | {\mathbf{y}}_t, y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0), {\boldsymbol \beta}_t, \gamma_{t-1}, \sigma^2_t, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t), \end{aligned}$$ where each predictive distribution on the right hand side also follows a multivariate normal distribution. With location-scale priors for ${\boldsymbol \beta}_t, \gamma_{t-1}, \sigma^2_t$, standard calculations yield the formulas given in Lemma \[lem: conditional predictive dists\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm: predictive mean and variance\] {#app: predictive mean and variance}
------------------------------------------------------
The formula for the cokriging predictor at level $t$ follows from the law of total expectation as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)|{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}}\{y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0) \} &= E_{[y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0)|{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}]}\{E_{[y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)|{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}, y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0)]}[y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)] \} \\
&=E_{[y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0)|{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}]}\{{\mathbf{X}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0)\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}_t+r({\mathbf{x}}_0,{{{\cal X}}}_{t}|{\boldsymbol \phi}_{t}){\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}({\mathbf{y}}_{t}-{\mathbf{X}}_t\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}_t) \} = \hat{y}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0),\end{aligned}$$ where standard calculations yield the last equality.
The formula for the cokriging variance at level $t$ follows from the law of total variance as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
Var\{y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)|{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}\} &= Var\{ E[y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)|{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}, y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0)] \mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}\} \\
&+ E\{ Var[y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)|{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}, y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0)] \mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}\},
$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
Var\{ E[y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)|{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}, y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0)] \mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}\} &= Var\{\hat{\gamma}_{t-1} y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0) | {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}\} = \hat{\gamma}_{t-1}^2 \hat{v}_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0), \\
E\{ Var[y_t({\mathbf{x}}_0)|{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}, y_{t-1}({\mathbf{x}}_0)] \mid {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}\} &= \frac{n_t-q_t}{n_t-q_t-2} E\{\hat{\sigma}_t^2 c_t^* | {\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where standard calculations yield that $E(c_t^*|{\mathbf{y}}, {\boldsymbol \phi}) = r({\mathbf{x}}_0, {\mathbf{x}}_0|{\boldsymbol \phi}_t) - {\mathbf{r}}_t^\top({\mathbf{x}}_0) {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{r}}_t({\mathbf{x}}_0) + \kappa_t$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem: behavior of integrated likelihood\] {#app: nu expression}
---------------------------------------------------------
Given $1\leq t\leq s$ and $1\leq \ell \leq d$, suppose that $K(u) = r(u/\phi_{t,\ell})$ is a continuous function of $\phi_{t, \ell}>0$ for any $u>0$ such that:
- $K(u) = r(u/\phi_{t,\ell})$, where $r(\cdot)$ is a correlation function satisfies $\lim_{u\to \infty} r(u) = 0$.
- As $\phi_{t,\ell} \to \infty$, the correlation matrix satisfies $R_{t, \ell} = \mathbf{1} \mathbf{1}^\top + \nu_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t, \ell}) D_{t, \ell} + \nu_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t, \ell}) $ $\omega_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t, \ell}) (D^*_{t, \ell} + B_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t,\ell})) $, where $\nu_{t, \ell}(\phi_{t, \ell})>0$ is a continuous function of $\phi_{t,\ell}$, $D_{t,\ell}$ is a fixed nonsingular matrix with $\mathbf{1}^\top D_{t, \ell}^{-1} \mathbf{1}\neq 0$, $D^*_{t, \ell} $ is fixed matrix, and $B_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t,\ell})$ is a differential matrix satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t, \ell}) \to 0, \quad \omega_{t, \ell}(\phi_{t,\ell}) \to 0, \quad \frac{\omega'_{t, \ell}(\phi_{t, \ell})}{ \frac{\partial \log \nu_{t, \ell}(\phi_{t, \ell}) }{\partial \phi_{t, \ell}} } \to 0, \\
\| B_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t,\ell}) \|_{\infty} \to 0, \quad \frac{\| \frac{\partial B_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t,\ell})}{\partial \phi_{t,\ell}} \|_{\infty}}{\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi_{t, \ell}} \log(\omega_{t, \ell}(\phi_{t, \ell}))} \to 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\| B\|_{\infty} = max_{i,j} |a_{i,j}|$ with $a_{i,j}$ being the $(i,j)$ entry of the matrix $B$.
These assumptions hold for all the correlation functions including power exponential, spherical, rational quadratic, and Matérn; see Table 1 in [@Gu2018]. Let the integrated likelihood at level $t$ be $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}_t\mid {\mathbf{y}})
& \propto |{{\mathbf{R}}}_t|^{-1/2} |{{\mathbf{X}}}_t^\top {{\mathbf{R}}}_t^{-1} {{\mathbf{X}}}_t|^{-1/2} \{S^2({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)\}^{-(({n}_t - q_t)/2+a_t-1)}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ It follows from [@Gu2018] that
- If $\exists \ell$ such that $\phi_{t,\ell} \to 0$ for at least one $t$, the integrated likelihood $L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}_t \mid {\mathbf{y}})$ at level $t$ exists and is greater than zero.
- If $\phi_{t,\ell} \to \infty$ for all $\ell$ and $t$, the integrated likelihood at level $t$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}_{t} \mid {\mathbf{y}}) =
\begin{cases}
O\left( \left(\sum_{\ell=1}^d \nu_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t,\ell})\right)^{a_t-1/2} \right), & \mathbf{1} \notin \mathcal{C}({\mathbf{X}}_t), \\
O\left( \left(\sum_{\ell=1}^d \nu_{t,\ell}(\phi_{t,\ell} )\right)^{a_t-1} \right), & \mathbf{1} \in \mathcal{C}({\mathbf{X}}_t).
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
As $L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) = \prod_{t=1}^s L^I({\boldsymbol \phi}_t\mid {\mathbf{y}})$, the results in Lemma \[lem: behavior of integrated likelihood\] follow straightforwardly.
Proof of Theorem \[thm: reference prior\] {#app: reference prior}
-----------------------------------------
Arranging the parameters in the order ${\boldsymbol \vartheta}:=({\boldsymbol \vartheta}_1, \ldots, {\boldsymbol \vartheta}_s)$ with ${\boldsymbol \vartheta}_t:=(\sigma^2_t, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t^\top)^\top$, the Fisher information matrix $I^I({\boldsymbol \vartheta}_1, \ldots, {\boldsymbol \vartheta}_s)$ is computed from $\ell^I({\boldsymbol \vartheta}\mid {\mathbf{y}})$, whose $(i,j)$ entry is $$\begin{aligned}
[I^I({\boldsymbol \vartheta}\mid {\mathbf{y}})]_{t,k} = E\left\{ \frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta_{i}} \ell^I({\boldsymbol \vartheta}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) \times \frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta_{j}} \ell^I({\boldsymbol \vartheta}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Differentiation with respect to $\sigma^2_t, \phi_{t,\ell}$ yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma^2_t} \ell^I({\boldsymbol \vartheta}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) = \frac{S^2_t-E(S^2_t)}{2\sigma^4},\quad &
\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_{t,\ell}} \ell^I({\boldsymbol \vartheta}\mid {\mathbf{y}}) =
\frac{\Sigma^{\ell}_t - E(\Sigma^{\ell}_t)}{2\sigma^2_t}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $S^2_t:={\mathbf{y}}_t^\top {\mathbf{Q}}_t{\mathbf{y}}_t$ with $S^2_t/\sigma^2_t \sim \chi_{n_t-q_t}^2$. $\Sigma^{\ell}_t$ is quadratic form on ${\mathbf{P}}_t{\mathbf{y}}_t\sim N(\mathbf{0}, \sigma^2_t{\mathbf{P}}_t{\mathbf{R}}_t)$ associated with the matrix ${\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} \dot{{\mathbf{R}}}_t^{\ell} {\mathbf{R}}^{-1}$, where $\dot{{\mathbf{R}}}_t^{\ell}=\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi_{t,\ell}} {\mathbf{R}}_t$ is element-wise differentiation. Using results in [@Berger2001], the $(t,t)$ block diagonal matrix in the Fisher information matrix $I^I({\boldsymbol \vartheta})$ is $I^R_t({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$.
Nonrobust Estimation {#app: nonrobust estimation}
====================
Posterior in Qian [@Qian2008] {#app: Qian}
-----------------------------
This section gives an example to show that posterior impropriety is occurring when vague priors in [@Qian2008] are chosen. As an illustrating example, we only discuss the posterior for correlation parameters at the first level. According to [@Qian2008], the following priors are assumed: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi({\boldsymbol \beta}\mid \sigma^2_1) &\sim \mathcal{N}({\mathbf{u}}_1, v_1\mathbf{I} \sigma^2_1) \\
\pi(\sigma^2_1) &\sim \mathcal{IG}(\alpha_1, \gamma_1^0) \\
\pi(\phi_{1,\ell}) &\sim \text{Gamma}(a_1^0, b_1^0), \ell=1, \ldots, d,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{u}}_1, v_1, \alpha_1, \gamma_1^0, a_1^0, b_1^0$ are hyperparameters. With similar notations in [@Qian2008], the posterior distribution of ${\boldsymbol \phi}_1$ is, $$\pi({\boldsymbol \phi}_1 \mid {\mathbf{y}}_1) \propto \pi({\boldsymbol \phi}_1) |{\mathbf{R}}_1|^{-1/2} |{\mathbf{A}}_1|^{-1/2} |^{-1/2} \left\{ \gamma_1^0 + \frac{4c_1 - {\mathbf{B}}^\top_1{\mathbf{A}}_1^{-1} {\mathbf{B}}_1}{8} \right \}^{-(\alpha_1+n/2)} ,$$ where ${\mathbf{A}}_1 = v_1^{-1} \mathbf{I} + {\mathbf{H}}_1^\top {\mathbf{R}}_1^{-1} {\mathbf{H}}_1$, ${\mathbf{B}}_1=-2v_1^{-1} {\mathbf{u}}_1 - 2{\mathbf{H}}_1^\top {\mathbf{R}}_1^{-1} {\mathbf{y}}_1$, $c_1= v_1^{-1} ({\mathbf{u}}^\top_1 {\mathbf{u}}_1) + {\mathbf{y}}_1^\top {\mathbf{R}}_1^{-1} {\mathbf{y}}_1$.
Thus, when $v_1 \to \infty, \alpha_1\to 0, \gamma_1^0\to 0$ such that priors for ${\boldsymbol \beta}_1$ and $\sigma^2_1$ become vague, the marginal posterior of ${\boldsymbol \phi}_1$ will be proportional to a product of the prior $\prod_{\ell=1}^d \mathcal{IG}({\boldsymbol \phi}_{1, \ell} \mid a_1^0, b_1^0)$ and the marginal likelihood $L({\boldsymbol \phi}_1\mid {\mathbf{y}})=|{\mathbf{R}}_1|^{-1/2} |{\mathbf{H}}_1^\top {\mathbf{R}}_1^{-1} {\mathbf{H}}_1|^{-1/2} (S^2)^{-n/2}$ with $S^2={\mathbf{y}}_1{\mathbf{Q}}_1 {\mathbf{y}}_1$, where ${\mathbf{Q}}_1={\mathbf{R}}_1^{-1} - {\mathbf{R}}_1^{-1}{\mathbf{H}}_1({\mathbf{H}}_1^\top {\mathbf{R}}_1^{-1}$ ${\mathbf{H}}_1)^{-1}{\mathbf{H}}_1^\top {\mathbf{R}}_1^{-1}$. This posterior will concentrate all its mass near 0 as $a_1^0 \to 0$ and $b_1^0\to 0$, resulting in nonrobust estimation according to Lemma 3.3 in [@Gu2018].
Marginal likelihood in Gratiet [@Gratiet2013] {#app: Gratiet}
---------------------------------------------
This section shows that the concentrated restricted likelihood can be maximized either at zero or infinity when noninformative priors or informative priors (when they are chosen to be vague) in [@Gratiet2013] are used. Gratiet [@Gratiet2013] considers two different types of priors for ${\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2$: noninformative priors and informative priors. The noninformative priors are chosen to be $$\begin{aligned}
\pi({\boldsymbol \beta}_1 \mid \sigma^2_1, {\boldsymbol \phi}_1) \propto 1, & & \pi(\sigma^2_1) \propto 1/\sigma^2_1, \\
\pi({\boldsymbol \beta}_t, {\boldsymbol \gamma}_{t-1} \mid \sigma^2_t, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t) \propto 1, & &\pi(\sigma^2_t) \propto 1/\sigma^2_t, t=2, \ldots, s. \end{aligned}$$ and the informative priors in [@Gratiet2013] are chosen to be $$\begin{aligned}
\pi({\boldsymbol \beta}_1 \mid \sigma^2_1, {\boldsymbol \phi}_1) \sim \mathcal{N}({\mathbf{b}}_1^0, \sigma^2_1 {\mathbf{V}}_1^0), & & \pi(\sigma^2_1 \mid {\boldsymbol \phi}_1) \sim \mathcal{IG}(\alpha_1^0, \gamma_1^0) \\
\pi(({\boldsymbol \beta}_t, \gamma_{t-1}) \mid \sigma_t^2, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t) \sim \mathcal{N}({\mathbf{b}}_t^0, \sigma^2_t {\mathbf{V}}_t^0), & & \pi(\sigma^2_t \mid {\boldsymbol \phi}_t) \sim \mathcal{IG}(\alpha_t^0, \gamma_t^0)\end{aligned}$$ Without further assuming a prior for $\pi({\boldsymbol \phi})$ as in [@Gratiet2013], Gratiet [@Gratiet2013] proposes to maximize the following concentrated restricted likelihood: $$\begin{aligned}
L_1({\boldsymbol \phi}_1 \mid {\mathbf{y}}, \hat{\sigma}^2_1) &\propto |{\mathbf{R}}_1|^{-1/2} (\hat{\sigma}^2_1)^{-(n_1-p_1)/2}, \\
L_t({\boldsymbol \phi}_t \mid {\mathbf{y}}, \hat{\sigma}^2_t) &\propto |{\mathbf{R}}_t|^{-1/2} (\hat{\sigma}^2_t)^{-(n_1-p_1-1)/2}, t=1, \ldots, s.\end{aligned}$$ For noninformative priors, $\hat{\sigma}^2_t \propto S^2({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$. According to Lemma 3.3 in [@Gratiet2013], these marginal likelihood functions can have modes at ${\mathbf{R}}= \mathbf{I}_n$ and ${\mathbf{R}}= \mathbf{I}_n \mathbf{I}_n^\top$, resulting in nonrobust estimates for ${\boldsymbol \phi}$. For informative priors, the expression for $\hat{\sigma}^2_t$ is of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}^2_t \propto \gamma_t^0 + ({\mathbf{b}}_t - \bar{{\mathbf{b}}}_t)^\top \{ {\mathbf{V}}_t + ({\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t)^{-1} \}^{-1} ({\mathbf{b}}_t - \bar{{\mathbf{b}}}_t) + S^2({\boldsymbol \phi}_t),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{b}}_t :=({\boldsymbol \beta}_t, \gamma_{t-1})^\top$ with $\gamma_0:=0$. $\bar{{\mathbf{b}}}_t$ is the generalized least square estimates for ${\mathbf{b}}_t$. When $\gamma_t^0 \to 0$ and ${\mathbf{V}}_t^{-1} \to \mathbf{0}$, $\hat{\sigma}^2_t \propto S^2({\boldsymbol \phi}_t)$. This reduces to the case when noninformative priors are used. Thus, estimates of the parameters ${\boldsymbol \phi}_t$ can be nonrobust. It is worth noting that [@Gratiet2013] chooses this proper prior to be informative instead of vague. It is crucial to perform sensitivity analysis whenever this prior is chosen to be informative.
Parameter Estimation for $\{{\boldsymbol \beta}, {\boldsymbol \gamma}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2 \}$ {#app: parameter estimation}
=================================================================================================
Let ${\mathbf{b}}_1={\boldsymbol \beta}_1$, ${\mathbf{b}}_t=({\boldsymbol \beta}^\top_t, \gamma_{t-1})^\top$ for $t>1$, and ${\mathbf{b}}=({\mathbf{b}}_1^\top, \ldots, {\mathbf{b}}_s)^\top$. The posterior distribution of ${\mathbf{b}}$ given ${\mathbf{y}}$ and $\hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}$ with objective priors $\pi({\mathbf{b}}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2) \propto \prod_{t=1}^s \sigma^{-2}_{t}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\pi({\mathbf{b}}\mid {\mathbf{y}}, \hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}) & \propto \int \sigma^{-2}_1 \pi({\mathbf{y}}_1\mid {\mathbf{b}}_1, \sigma^2_1, \hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}_1) \prod_{t=2}^s \pi({\mathbf{y}}_t\mid {\mathbf{y}}_{t-1}, {\mathbf{b}}_t, \sigma^2_t, \hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}_t) \sigma^{-2}_t \, d(\prod_{t=1}^s\sigma^2_t) \\
& \propto \prod_{t}^s \{({\mathbf{y}}_t - {\mathbf{X}}_t{\mathbf{b}}_t)^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1}({\mathbf{y}}_t - {\mathbf{X}}_t{\mathbf{b}}_t)\}^{-n_t/2} |{\mathbf{R}}_t|^{-1/2}. \end{aligned}$$ Maximization with respect to this posterior distribution yields that $$\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}_t = ({\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t)^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{y}}_t.$$
Similarly, the posterior distribution of ${\boldsymbol \sigma}^2$ given ${\mathbf{y}}$ and $\hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}$ with objective priors $\pi({\mathbf{b}}, {\boldsymbol \sigma}^2) \propto \prod_{t=1}^s \sigma^{-2}_{t}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\pi({\boldsymbol \sigma}^2 \mid {\mathbf{y}}, \hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}) & \propto \int \sigma^{-2}_1 \pi({\mathbf{y}}_1\mid {\mathbf{b}}_1, \sigma^2_1, \hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}_1) \prod_{t=2}^s \pi({\mathbf{y}}_t\mid {\mathbf{y}}_{t-1}, {\mathbf{b}}_t, \sigma^2_t, \hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}_t) \sigma^{-2}_t \, d(\prod_{t=1}^s{\mathbf{b}}_t) \\
& \propto \prod_{t=1}^s (\sigma_t^2)^{-(n_t-q_t)/2-1} |{\mathbf{R}}_t|^{-1/2} |{\mathbf{X}}_t^\top {\mathbf{R}}_t^{-1} {\mathbf{X}}_t|^{-1/2} \exp\{-S^2(\hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}_t)\}. \end{aligned}$$ It is easy to recognize that $\pi(\sigma_t^2\mid {\mathbf{y}}_{t-1}, {\mathbf{y}}_t, {\boldsymbol \phi}_t) = \mathcal{IG}((n_t-q_t)/2, S^2(\hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}_t)/2)$. Hence, maximizing this posterior distribution with respect to $\sigma^2_t$ yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}^2_t = S^2(\hat{{\boldsymbol \phi}}_t) / (n_t-q_t+2).
\end{aligned}$$
Testing Function {#app: testing function}
================
\[table: input in borehole\]
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This material is supported by the U.S. NSF under Grant DMS-1638521 to the Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute. The author would like to thank Professor James O. Berger for his valuable comments and suggestions.
[^1]: Corresponds to: Pulong Ma, The Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute and Duke University, 4051 Research Commons, Suite 300, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 110207, Durham, NC 27709, USA. Email: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Soomin Kim\
KAIST, Korea\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Yuchi Huo\
KAIST, Korea\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Sung-Eui Yoon\
KAIST, Korea\
[[email protected]]{}
title: 'Single Image Reflection Removal with Physically-based Rendering'
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This work presents two novel optimization methods based on integer linear programming (ILP) that minimize the number of adders used to implement a direct/transposed finite impulse response (FIR) filter adhering to a given frequency specification. The proposed algorithms work by either fixing the number of adders used to implement the products (multiplier block adders) or by bounding the adder depth (AD) used for these products. The latter can be used to design filters with minimal AD for low power applications. In contrast to previous multiplierless FIR approaches, the methods introduced here ensure adder count optimality. To demonstrate their effectiveness, we perform several experiments using established design problems from the literature, showing superior results.'
author:
- 'Martin Kumm,Anastasia Volkova, and Silviu-Ioan Filip[^1][^2][^3]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'fir\_ilp.bib'
title: Design of Optimal Multiplierless FIR Filters
---
FIR filters, multiplierless implementation, ILP optimization, MCM problem, etc.
Introduction
============
IR filters are fundamental building blocks in digital signal processing (DSP). They provide strict stability and phase linearity, enabling many applications. However, their flexibility typically comes at the expense of a large number of multiplications, making them compute-intensive. Hence, many attempts have been made in the last four decades to avoid costly multiplications and to implement FIR filters in a multiplierless way [@lp83; @s89; @h96; @rbd00; @gj01; @ys01; @gw02; @v05; @yl07; @a08; @yl09; @ysl09; @sy11a; @sy11b; @szlm12; @by14; @ye14; @mw15; @yly17; @lmyy17]. One of the most promising ways to do so is to replace constant multiplications by additions, subtractions and bit shifts. Take for example the multiplication by a constant coefficient 23. It can be computed without dedicated multipliers as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:scm}
23 x = 8\cdot (2x + x) - x = ((x<<1) + x)<<3) - x,\end{aligned}$$ where $(x << b)$ denotes the arithmetic left shift of $x$ by $b$ bits. This computation uses one addition and one subtraction. As the add and subtract operations both have similar hardware cost, the total number of add/subtract units is usually referred to as *adder cost*. Bit shifts can be hard-wired in hardware implementations and do not contribute any cost. For , this is illustrated in [ \[fig:scm\_example\]]{}. In general, the task of finding a minimal adder circuit for a given constant is known as the single constant multiplication (SCM) problem and is already an NP-complete optimization problem [@cs84]. Such a problem extends to multiplication with multiple constants, which is necessary when implementing FIR filters. It is called multiple constant multiplication (MCM). Here, some of the intermediate factors like the adder computing $3x$ in [ \[fig:scm\_example\]]{} can be shared among different outputs. Take for example the coefficients $\{7,23\}$; [ \[fig:mcm\_example\]]{} shows a solution for multiplying with both coefficients at an adder cost of only two. The corresponding optimization problem is called the MCM problem and has been addressed by numerous heuristic [@dm95a; @vp07; @g07a] and optimal [@g08; @agf10; @k18] approaches.
[ \[fig:fir\_structures\]]{} shows the two most popular structures used to implement FIR filters: the direct and transposed forms. The result of an MCM solution can be directly placed in the multiplier block of the transposed form from [ \[fig:fir\_generic\_transposed\_form\]]{}. The total adder cost is the sum of the number of *multiplier block adders* and the remaining ones, commonly called *structural adders*. The transposed form can be obtained from the direct form by transposition [@co75]. As the transposition of a single-input-single-output system does not change the adder count, it leads to the same adder cost. So, in the end, it does not matter which one of the two considered filter structures is actually optimized.
\[3.5cm\][![Different adder circuits for constant multiplications.[]{data-label="fig:scm_mcm_example"}](scm_example_opt23 "fig:")]{} \[3.5cm\][![Different adder circuits for constant multiplications.[]{data-label="fig:scm_mcm_example"}](mcm_example_opt7_23 "fig:")]{}
In the MCM optimization problem, it is assumed that the coefficients are known and already quantized to a fixed-point (or integer) representation. The design of FIR filters with fixed-point coefficients and a minimum frequency response approximation error is itself a well-known optimization problem, going back to at least [@k80] (with subsequent extensions and improvements [@de83; @l90; @k99; @k05; @k12]). However, it is often the case in practice that a bounded frequency response is acceptable. In fact, there may be a large number (often hundreds or more) of different fixed-point coefficient sets that meet such a specification. Therefore, a lot of effort in fixed-point FIR filter design has gone into optimizing for resource use. In this context, the problem of finding a minimal adder circuit for a given filter specification was addressed by several authors [@lp83; @s89; @rbd00; @gj01; @gw02; @yl07; @szlm12; @yly17].
However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous work has addressed the design of multiplierless FIR filters in an optimal way. Here, by *optimal* multiplierless filter we mean a direct/transposed form FIR filter requiring a minimum number of adders to meet a target frequency specification, as well as constraints on the maximum coefficient word size and filter order. The main contributions of our work are as follows:
- We present for the first time a solution for the optimal multiplierless design of FIR filters from a frequency specification using an ILP formulation.
- We provide another ILP formulation that is capable of additionally limiting the adder depth inside the FIR filter.
- We show that relevant problem sizes can be addressed by current ILP solvers and that the adder complexity of well-known FIR filters can be further reduced compared to the most advanced methods.
In the following, we will give background information about previous work this paper is based on. In [Section \[sect:ilp\_1\]]{} and [Section \[sect:ilp\_2\]]{} we describe the two ILP formulations that are at the core of the paper, whereas in [Section \[sec:reducing\_problem\_complexity\]]{} we talk about ideas meant to improve the practical runtime of the proposed algorithms. We then present experimental results accompanied by a comparison with the state-of-the-art ([Section \[sect:results\]]{}), followed by concluding remarks ([Section \[sect:conclusion\]]{}).
Background {#sect:filter_design_problem}
==========
Multiplierless filter design problems usually start with a functional specification of the frequency domain behavior, together with the number of filter coefficients and their word lengths. An optimization procedure is applied to get a set of bounded integer coefficients together with their associated adder circuits for the constant multiplications needed in the final implementation. Summarized in [ \[fig:tool\_flow\]]{}, this section overviews these parameters and their interactions, together with the state-of-the-art design methods found in the literature.
Linear Phase FIR Filters
------------------------
An $N$-th order linear phase FIR filter can be described by its zero-phase frequency response [@Antoniou2005] $$\begin{aligned}
H_R(\omega) = \sum_{m=0}^{M-1} h_m c_m(\omega), && \omega \in [0,\pi],
\label{eq:zero_phase_freq_resp}\end{aligned}$$ which has the property that its magnitude is identical to that of the transfer function, *i.e.,* $$\begin{aligned}
|H(e^{j\omega})| = |H_R(\omega)| \ .\end{aligned}$$ The $c_m(\omega)$ terms are trigonometric functions and $M$ denotes the number of independent coefficients after removing identical or negated ones due to symmetry. Both depend on the filter symmetry and on the parity of $N$ as given in [Table \[tab:filter\_type\_differences\]]{} [@Antoniou2005].
Let $\underline{D}(\omega)$ and $\overline{D}(\omega)$ be the desired lower and upper bounds of the output frequency response $H_R(\omega)$. The associated frequency specification-based FIR filter design problem consists of finding coefficients $h_m$, $m=0,\ldots, M-1$ that fulfill the constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:freq_constr}
\underline{D}(\omega) &\leqslant H_R(\omega) \leqslant \overline{D}(\omega),
&&{~\oldforall}\omega \in \Omega,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega\subseteq [0,\pi]$ is a set of target frequency bands (usually pass and stopbands). A standard approach in practice is to work with $\Omega_d\subseteq\Omega$, a uniform discretization of $\Omega$. One number for the size of $\Omega_d$ found in the literature is $16M$ [@k99].
Fixed-point Constraints
-----------------------
Fixed-point (integer coefficient) FIR filter design problems further restrict the search space to integer variables $h'_m \in \mathbb{Z}$ with $|h'_m| < 2^{B}$, where the coefficients of $H_R(\omega)$ are $$\begin{aligned}
h_m = 2^{-B} h'_m \,
\label{eq:h_m}\end{aligned}$$ and $B\in\mathbb{N}$ is the *maximum effective word length* of each coefficient (excluding sign bit).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Sym. $N$ $M$ $c_m(\omega)$
----------------- ------- ------ ----------------- -----------------------------------------------
I sym. even $\frac{N}{2}+1$ $
c_m(\omega) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{for } m=0\\
2 \cos(\omega m) & \text{for } m>0 \ \\
\end{cases}
$
(rl)[1-5]{} II sym. odd $\frac{N+1}{2}$ $c_m(\omega) =
2\cos(\omega(m+1/2))$
(rl)[1-5]{} III asym. even $\frac{N}{2}$ $c_m(\omega) =
2\sin(\omega (m-1))$
(rl)[1-5]{} IV asym. odd $\frac{N+1}{2}$ $c_m(\omega) =
2\sin(\omega(m+1/2))$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Relation between filter order $N$, number of coefficients $M$ and function $c_m(\omega)$ for different filter types[]{data-label="tab:filter_type_differences"}
To broaden the feasible set of efficient designs, some applications allow the use of a real-valued scaling factor $G>0$ when computing the quantized fractional coefficients $h_m$. Equation thus becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:freq_constr_sc}
G\underline{D}(\omega) &\leqslant H_R(\omega) \leqslant G\overline{D}(\omega),
&&{~\oldforall}\omega \in \Omega \ .\end{aligned}$$ When the frequency specification contains a passband, it is called the passband gain [@l90]. Finding adequate bounds for $G$ is dependent on the set/format of feasible $h_m'$ coefficient values. If these values are constrained to a power of two space, the ratio between the upper and the lower bound on $G$ does not need to be larger than $2$[@l90 Lemma 1]. Even when this is not the case, the interval $[0.7, 1.4]$ is frequently used [@l90; @sy11a; @yly17]. For our tests, unless otherwise stated, we prefer the slightly different interval $[2/3,4/3]$ since it is centered around one. In case a unity or fixed-gain filter is required we set the gain to $G=1$.
Multiplierless FIR Filters
--------------------------
Formulas and are easily expressed as constraints in an ILP formulation. However, to ensure an optimal multiplierless design, further constraints are needed. The way these constraints are constructed and used has varied over the years. Early research in this direction looked at multiplierless designs where each coefficient was represented by a limited number of signed power-of-two terms, optimized using branch-and-bound techniques [@lp83]. Later, minimum signed digit (MSD) representations characterized by a minimum number of non-zero power-of-two terms were quickly adopted for this purpose [@s89; @gj01; @ys01; @a08; @szlm12].
MSD representations can be used to find sharing opportunities of intermediate computations like the $7x$ term shown in [ \[fig:mcm\_example\]]{}. One way is by searching and eliminating redundant bit patterns common to several coefficients, a technique called common subexpression elimination (CSE). Savings are obtained by performing the computation specified by the bit pattern and distributing the result to all coefficients depending on it [@dm95a; @h96; @gw02; @v05]. However, the CSE search cannot deliver all possible sharing opportunities due to its dependency on the number representation [@vp07] and the effect of hidden non-zeros [@fc10]. To avoid them, graph-based approaches are commonly used in state-of-the-art MCM methods [@dm95a; @vp07; @g07a; @g08; @agf10; @k18]. Some early work on multiplierless FIR filter design already considered this by incorporating the graph-based MCM algorithm of [@dm95a] into a genetic algorithm that optimizes the filter coefficients according to the adder cost [@rbd00]. A different approach is followed by [@yl07], where a branch-and-bound-based ILP optimization is used; here, a pre-specified set of integer terms, called the subexpression space, has to be provided that can be shared among the different coefficient expansions. This work was later extended with a dynamic subexpression space expansion algorithm [@yl09; @sy11a], which, at least in the case of [@sy11a], claims to usually produce designs with a minimal number of adders. In contrast to these potentially slow branch-and-bound approaches, in [@by14], a fast polynomial-time heuristic for the design of low complexity multiplierless linear-phase FIR filters was proposed.
Recent work has also focused on integrating filter coefficient sparsity, which can also have a big impact on the complexity of the final design [@ye14] by reducing the number of structural adders. Also, other structures than the direct and transposed forms (see [ \[fig:fir\_structures\]]{}) have been shown to possess good properties. The factoring of FIR filters into a cascade of relatively small subsections can lead to a lower bit-level complexity [@sy11b; @mw15]. Alternative structures have also been proposed [@lmyy17]; they provide lower word sizes for the structural adders.
Besides optimizing the adder count, it was shown early that the power consumption of the resulting filter also strongly depends on the adder depth (AD), which is defined as the number of cascaded adders in the multiplier block [@ddk00; @ddk02b]. Since then, many works have focused on limiting the AD either in MCM algorithms [@ddk02a; @fc10; @k15] or directly in multiplierless filter design methods [@sy11a]. Again, all of those approaches are heuristics that provide minimal AD but not guarantee minimal adder cost. Looking at the average adder depth in the structural adders can also help reduce power consumption [@yly17].
Multiplierless FIR Filters with Fixed Number of Multiplier Block Adders {#sect:ilp_1}
=======================================================================
Our first ILP model targets the design of generic multiplierless FIR filters regardless of their adder depth. It is based on a recently proposed MCM ILP formulation [@k18], where the goal is to directly compute the parameters of an MCM adder graph, if feasible, for a given number of adders. This idea is extended here for multiplierless FIR filter design by adding constraints on the frequency specification. As a result, we get an ILP model to design a multiplierless filter for a fixed number of adders in the multiplier block. To optimize the total number of adders, this ILP model is solved several times using an overall algorithm discussed in [Section \[sect:fir\_ilp1\_overall\]]{}. In the following, we first present the ILP formulation for the fixed number of multiplier block adders.
ILP Formulation for Fixed Multiplier Block Adder Count
------------------------------------------------------
The proposed ILP formulation is given in [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{} and uses the constants and variables listed in [Table \[tab:constants\_and\_variables\_of\_ilp1\]]{}. The objective is, given a fixed number of multiplier block adders $A_\text{M}$, to minimize the number of structural adders $A_\text{S}$ (which depend on the number of zero filter coefficients, encoded by the binary decision variables $h_{m,0}$). The resulting constraints can be roughly divided into frequency response conditions (C1, C2), equations linking the filter coefficients with the coefficients of the multiplier block (C3) and formulas describing the multiplierless realization of the multiplier block (C4 – C8). The integer coefficients $h'_{m}$ ($m=0,\ldots,M-1$) of the FIR filter are directly used as integer variables in the ILP formulation. The resulting frequency response is constrained in C1a by setting and into . Constraints C1b are so-called *lifting constraints*. These are actually not required to solve the problem, but can significantly reduce the search space and improve runtime performance. Specifically, they limit the range of the coefficients to lower $\underline{h_m}$ and upper $\overline{h_m}$ bounds. The computation of these bounds is considered in [Section \[sec:reducing\_coefficient\_range\]]{}. Constraint C2 limits the range of the gain as discussed in [Section \[sect:filter\_design\_problem\]]{}.
Constraints C3a to C3c provide the connection between the filter coefficient $h'_{m}$ and the (potentially shifted and sign-corrected) multiples computed in the multiplier block $c_a$ or a zero coefficient. For that, the binary decision variables $o_{a,m,s,\phi}\in\{0,1\}$ encode if $h'_{m}$ is connected to adder $a$ of the multiplier block, shifted by $s$, and either added ($\phi=0$) or subtracted ($\phi=1$) in the structural adders (C3a). In case the coefficient is zero, a single binary decision variable $h_{m,0}$ is used (C3b). This encoding allows the optimization of structural adders by considering the $h_{m,0}$ variables in the objective function. For every zero coefficient, the corresponding structural adder(s) can be saved depending on the coefficient and filter type. [Table \[tab:filter\_type\_structural\_adders\]]{} shows the number of structural adders for the different filter types. Overall, constraints C3c ensure that only one of the above cases is valid.
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{minimize} \ A_\text{S}(h_{m,0})
\end{aligned}$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{C1a:} & G 2^{B} \underline{D}(\omega) \leqslant \sum_{m=0}^{M-1} h'_{m} c_m(\omega) \leqslant G 2^{B} \overline{D}(\omega), {~\oldforall}\omega \in \Omega_d \\
&\text{C1b:} & \underline{h_m} \leqslant h'_{m} \leqslant \overline{h_m} , {~\oldforall}m = 0, \ldots, M-1 \\
&\text{C2:} & 2/3 \leqslant G \leqslant 4/3\\
&\text{C3a:} & h'_{m} = (-1)^\phi 2^s c_{a} \text{ if } o_{a,m,s,\phi}=1\\
& & {~\oldforall}a=0,\ldots, A_\text{M}, m=0,\ldots, M-1\\
&\text{C3b:} & h'_{m} = 0 \text{ if } h_{m,0}=1, {~\oldforall}m=0,\ldots, M-1\\
&\text{C3c:} & \hspace{-3mm} \sum_{a=0}^{A_\text{M}} \sum_{s=S_\text{min}}^{S_\text{max}} \sum_{\phi=0}^{1} o_{a,m,s,\phi} + h_{m,0} = 1, {~\oldforall}m=0,\ldots, M-1 \\
&\text{C4:} & \hspace{1.5cm} c_{0}=1 \\
&\text{C5:} & c_{a} = c^\text{sh,sg}_{a,\ell} + c^\text{sh,sg}_{a,\text{r}}, {~\oldforall}a=1,\ldots, A_\text{M} \\
&\text{C6a:} & c_{a,i} = c_{k} \text{ if } c_{a,i,k}=1, {~\oldforall}a=1,\ldots, A_\text{M}, i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\}\\
& & k=0,\ldots, a-1 \\
&\text{C6b:} & \sum_{k=1}^{a-1} c_{a,i,k} = 1, {~\oldforall}a=1,\ldots, A_\text{M}, i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\}\\
&\text{C7a:} & c^\text{sh}_{a,i} = 2^s c_{a,i} \text{ if } \varphi_{a,i,s}=1\\
& &{~\oldforall}a=1,\ldots, A_\text{M}, i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\}, s=S_\text{min},\ldots, S_\text{max}\\
&\text{C7b:} & \sum_{s=S_\text{min}}^{S_\text{max}-1} \varphi_{a,i,s} = 1, {~\oldforall}a=1,\ldots, A_\text{M}, i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\} \\
&\text{C7c:} & \varphi_{a,\ell,s}=0 {~\oldforall}s > 0\\
&\text{C7d:} & \varphi_{a,\ell,s}=\varphi_{a,\text{r},s} {~\oldforall}s < 0 \\
&\text{C8a:} & \hspace{\eqspace} c^\text{sh,sg}_{a,i} = -c^\text{sh}_{a,i} \text{ if } \phi_{a,i}=1, {~\oldforall}a=1,\ldots, A_\text{M}, i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\}\\
&\text{C8b:} & \hspace{\eqspace} c^\text{sh,sg}_{a,i} = c^\text{sh}_{a,i} \text{ if } \phi_{a,i}=0 , {~\oldforall}a=1,\ldots, A_\text{M}, i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\}\\
&\text{C8c:} & \phi_{a,\ell} + \phi_{a,\text{r}} \leqslant 1, {~\oldforall}a=1,\ldots, A_\text{M}
\end{aligned}$$
[L[2.2cm]{}L[0.3]{}]{} Constant/Variable & Meaning\
$A_\text{M} \in\mathbb{N}$ & Number of adders in the multiplier block\
$M\in\mathbb{N}$ & Number of filter coefficients\
$S_\text{min}$, $S_\text{max} \in\mathbb{Z}$ & Minimum and maximum shift\
(rl)[1-2]{} $A_\text{S} \in\mathbb{N}$ & Number of structural adders\
$h'_{m} \in \mathbb{Z}$ & Integer representation of filter coefficient\
$h_{m,0} \in \{0,1\}$ & true, if coefficient $h'_{m}$ is zero\
$c_{a}\in\mathbb{N}$ & Constant computed in adder $a$\
$c_{a,i}\in\mathbb{N}$ & Constant of input $i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\}$ of adder $a$\
$c^\text{sh}_{a,i}\in\mathbb{N}$ & Shifted constant of input $i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\}$ of adder $a$\
$c^\text{sh,sg}_{a,i}\in\mathbb{N}$ & Shifted, sign corrected constant of input $i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\}$ of adder $a$\
$\phi_{a,i}\in\{0,1\}$ & Sign of input $i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\}$ of adder $a$ (0:’$+$’, $1$:’$-$’)\
$c_{a,i,k}\in\{0,1\}$ & true, if input $i$ of adder $a$ is connected to adder $k$\
$\varphi_{a,i,s}\in\{0,1\}$ & true, if input $i$ of adder $a$ is shifted by $s$ bits\
$o_{a,m,s,\phi}\in\{0,1\}$ & true, if coefficient $h'_{m}$ is connected to adder $a$, shifted by $s$ and sign $\phi$\
$\underline{h_m}, \overline{h_m} \in \mathbb{Z}$ & Lower and upper bound for filter coefficient $m=0 \ldots M-1$\
$G \in [2/3, 4/3]$ & Gain of a variable gain filter ($G=1$ when the gain is fixed)\
The remaining constraints C4 – C8 are identical to the ones used for solving the MCM problem from [@k18]. We give a brief description here, but refer the reader to [@k18] for a more detailed presentation. The multiplier block input is viewed as a multiplication by factor one ($c_0=1$) and is defined with constraint C4. Constraints C5 represent the actual add operation of adder $a$ and its corresponding factor $c_a$. It is obtained by adding the shifted and possibly sign corrected factors of its left input $c^\text{sh,sg}_{a,\ell}$ and its right input $c^\text{sh,sg}_{a,\text{r}}$. The source of the adder inputs is encoded by C6a/b. Indicator constraints C6a are used to set the value $c_{a,i}$ of the adder input $i\in\{\ell,\text{r}\}$ to the actual factor when the corresponding decision variable $c_{a,i,k}$ is set. Indicator constraints are special constraints in which a binary variable controls whether or not a specified linear constraint is active. They are in-fact non-linear but supported by many modern ILP solvers and are also simple to linearize for other solvers (see [@k18]). Constraints C6b make sure that only one source is selected. The actual shift is constrained by C7a/b in a similar way: indicator constraints C7a are used to set the shifted factor $c^\text{sh}_{a,i}$ according to the corresponding decision variable $\varphi_{a,i,s}$.
Constraints C7c and C7d are both optional lifting constraints used to reduce the search space. As the filter coefficients can be shifted in constraint C3a, we can limit the constants of the multiplier block to odd numbers. This allows us to use the well-known fact that odd coefficients can be computed from odd numbers using one addition with either one operand left shifted while the other operand is not shifted or both operands are right shifted by the same value [@dm94 Theorem 3].
To support subtractions, indicator constraints C8a/b are used to set the sign according to decision variable $\phi_{a,i}$. Finally, constraints C8c ensure that at most one input of the adder can be nagative, as subtracting both inputs is typically more hardware demanding.
All of the integer variables from [Table \[tab:constants\_and\_variables\_of\_ilp1\]]{} are computed from integer constants or booleans and represent integer values. So they can be relaxed to real numbers to speed up the optimization.
Type no. of structural adders, $A_\text{S}(h_{m,0})$
----------------- -------------------------------------------------------
I $\displaystyle N-h_{0,0} - 2\sum_{m=1}^{M-1} h_{m,0}$
(rl)[1-2]{} II $\displaystyle N-2\sum_{m=0}^{M-1} h_{m,0}$
(rl)[1-2]{} III $\displaystyle N-2\sum_{m=1}^{M-1} h_{m,0}$
(rl)[1-2]{} IV $\displaystyle N-2\sum_{m=0}^{M-1} h_{m,0}$
: Number of structural adders for the different filter types[]{data-label="tab:filter_type_structural_adders"}
Minimizing the Total Number of Adders {#sect:fir_ilp1_overall}
-------------------------------------
As the number of adders in the multiplier block $A_\text{M}$ is fixed in [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{}, we need to iterate over various values $A_\text{M}$ to find the minimum number of total adders $$\begin{aligned}
A=A_\text{M}+A_\text{S} \ .\end{aligned}$$ For that, we first search for a solution with minimal number of multiplier block adders by solving [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{} for $A_\text{M}=0,1,2,\ldots$ until we obtain the first feasible solution.
This solution with minimum multiplier block adders $A_\text{M,min}$ is not necessarily the global optimum as there might be a solution with $A_\text{M}>A_\text{M,min}$ and a smaller $A_\text{S}$. To account for this, we need a lower bound for the structural adders $A_\text{S,min}$. This is obtained once at the beginning of the overall algorithm by solving the problem for a maximally sparse FIR filter, which we do by taking [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{} where only the constraints C1 – C3 are considered.
In case the structural adders $A_\text{S}$ of solution with $A_\text{M}=A_\text{M,min}$ are not identical with $A_\text{S,min}$, we continue to further increment $A_\text{M}$ until we find a solution with $A_\text{S}=A_\text{S,min}$. This is a safe stopping point since, by the optimality of [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{}, there is no solution with larger $A_\text{M}$ and smaller $A_\text{S}$. The solution with minimum total adders $A$ found so far is hence also globally optimal. Typically, only a few iterations are necessary to reach this point.
Multiplierless FIR Filters with Bounded Adder Depth {#sect:ilp_2}
===================================================
As discussed above, limiting the AD is important to reduce the power consumption of a filter. Unfortunately, adapting [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{} to limit the AD is not straightforward, as the topology of the adders and thus the AD is left open. We present in this section a novel ILP model for the design of multiplierless FIR with limited AD which is based on a formulation that was initially designed for optimizing pipelined MCM (PMCM) circuits [@kfmzm13; @k15].
In contrast to [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{}, the possible coefficients are precomputed for each adder stage $s$ and selected using binary decision variables. The computation of the corresponding coefficient sets is given next.
Definition of Coefficient Sets
------------------------------
We use some notation and definitions originally introduced in [@vp07]. First, we define the generalized add operation called ${\mathcal{A}}$-operation, which includes the shifts. An ${\mathcal{A}}$-operation has two input coefficients $u, v \in \mathbb{N}$ and computes $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}_q(u,v)=|2^{l_u} u +(-1)^{s_v} 2^{l_v} v| 2^{-r},
\label{eq:a_op}\end{aligned}$$ where $q=(l_u,l_v,r,s_v)$ is a configuration vector which determines the left shifts $l_u, \ l_v \in \mathbb{N}_0$ of the inputs, $r \in \mathbb{N}_0$ is the output right-shift and $s_v\in\{0,1\}$ is a sign bit which denotes whether an addition or subtraction is performed.
Next, we define the set ${\mathcal{A}}_*(u,v)$ containing all possible coefficients which can be obtained from $u$ and $v$ by using exactly one ${\mathcal{A}}$-operation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:aop_star}
{\mathcal{A}}_*(u,v) := \{{\mathcal{A}}_q(u,v) \ | \ q \text{ is a valid configuration}\} \ .\end{aligned}$$ A *valid* configuration is a combination of $l_u$, $l_v$, $r$ and $s_v$ such that the result is a positive odd integer ${\mathcal{A}}_q(u,v) \leqslant c_{\max}$. The reason for limiting the integers to odd values is that we can compute every even multiple by shifting the corresponding odd multiple to the left. The $c_{\max}$ limit is used to keep ${\mathcal{A}}_*(u,v)$ finite. It is chosen as a power-of-two value which is usually set to the maximum coefficient bit width $B$ plus one [@vp07; @dm95a] $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\max} &:= 2^{B+1} \ .
\label{eq:cmax}\end{aligned}$$ For convenience, the ${\mathcal{A}}_*$ set is also defined for an input set $X\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}_*(X):=\bigcup_{u,v \in X} {\mathcal{A}}_*(u,v) \ .
\label{eq:aop_star_single_set}\end{aligned}$$ We can now define the coefficients that can be computed at adder stage $s$, denoted as ${\mathcal{A}}^s$, by recursively computing the ${\mathcal{A}}_*$ sets $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}^0 & := \{1\}\\
{\mathcal{A}}^s & := {\mathcal{A}}_*({\mathcal{A}}^{s-1}) \ .\end{aligned}$$ In addition, let ${\mathcal{T}}^{s}$ denote the set of $(u,v,w)$ *triplets* for which $w \in {\mathcal{A}}^{s}$ can be computed using $u$ and $v$ from the previous stage (*i.e.,* $u,v\in {\mathcal{A}}^{s-1}$). ${\mathcal{T}}^{s}$ can be computed recursively, starting from the last stage $s$, which is equal to the maximum allowable AD: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{T}}^{s} := \{(u,v,w)\ |& \ w = {\mathcal{A}}_{q}(u,v), \notag \\
& u,v \in {\mathcal{A}}^{s}, \ u \leqslant v, \ w\in {\mathcal{A}}^{s+1}\}.\end{aligned}$$
To give an example, the first elements of ${\mathcal{T}}^{1}$ are ${\mathcal{T}}^1 = \{(1,1,1),(1,1,3),(1,1,5),(1,1,7),(1,1,9),(1,1,15),\ldots\}$. This set contains all the possible rules for computing multiples from the input within one stage of additions, while set ${\mathcal{T}}^2 = {\mathcal{T}}^1 \cup \{(1,3,11),(1,5,11),\ldots,(3,5,11),\ldots\}$ contains all the combinations of how elements in the next stage can be computed.
ILP Formulation for Fixed Adder Depth
-------------------------------------
The bounded AD model is given in [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\_limited\_depth\]]{}, while the corresponding constants and variables are given in [Table \[tab:constants\_and\_variables\_of\_ilp2\]]{}.
In contrast to [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{}, the objective is to directly minimize the total number of adders $A$, which is separated into adders in the multiplier block ($A_\text{M}$) and structural adders $A_\text{S}$. Similar to [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{}, the constraints are divided into frequency response conditions (C1, C2), the link between the filter coefficients and the coefficients of the multiplier block (C3, C4) and the equations describing the multiplierless realization of the multiplier block (C5 – C8).
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{minimize} \ \underbrace{\sum_{s=1}^{S} \sum_{w \in {\mathcal{A}}^s} a_w^s}_{=A_\text{M}} + A_\text{S}(h_{m,0})
\end{aligned}$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{C1a:} & \hspace{\eqspace} G 2^{B} \underline{D}(\omega) \leqslant \sum_{m=0}^{M-1} h'_{m} c_m(\omega) \leqslant G 2^{B} \overline{D}(\omega), {~\oldforall}\omega \in \Omega_d \\
&\text{C1b:} & \underline{h_m} \leqslant h'_{m} \leqslant \overline{h_m}, {~\oldforall}m = 0,\ldots, M-1 \\
&\text{C2:} & 2/3 \leqslant G \leqslant 4/3\\
&\text{C3a:} & h'_{m} =
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \sum_{w=0}^{2^B-1} w h_{m,w} &\text{ if } \phi_m=0\\
\displaystyle -\sum_{w=1}^{2^B-1} w h_{m,w} &\text{ if } \phi_m=1\\
\end{cases} \\
&& {~\oldforall}m=0,\ldots, M-1\\
&\text{C3b:} & \sum_{w=0}^{2^B-1} h_{m,w} = 1, {~\oldforall}m = 0,\ldots, M-1 \\
&\text{C4:} & \hspace{\eqspace} r_{{\textnormal{odd}}(w)}^S + a_{{\textnormal{odd}}(w)}^S \geqslant \frac{1}{M} \sum_{m=0}^{M-1} h_{m,w}, {~\oldforall}w=0,\ldots, 2^B-1\\
&\text{C5:} & \hspace{\eqspace} r_w^s = 0 {~\oldforall}w \in {\mathcal{A}}^{s} \setminus \bigcup_{s'=0}^{s-1} {\mathcal{A}}^{s'} \text{ with } s=1,\ldots, S-1\\
&\text{C6:} & r_w^s - a_w^{s-1} - r_w^{s-1} \leqslant 0, {~\oldforall}w \in {\mathcal{A}}^s \setminus \{0\} \text{, } s=2,\ldots, S\\
&\text{C7:} & a_w^s - \hspace{-5pt} \sum_{(u,v,w') \in {\mathcal{T}}^s \, | \, w'=w} \hspace{-5pt} x_{(u,v)}^{s-1} \leqslant 0\\
&& {~\oldforall}w\in {\mathcal{A}}^s, s=2,\ldots, S\\
&\text{C8:} &
\begin{aligned}
x_{(u,v)}^s - r_u^{s} - a_u^{s} \leqslant 0\\
x_{(u,v)}^s - r_v^{s} - a_v^{s} \leqslant 0\\
\end{aligned}
\\
&& {~\oldforall}(u,v,w) \in {\mathcal{T}}^s \text{ with } s=1,\ldots, S-1
\end{aligned}$$
Constraints C1a/b and C2 are identical to the ones in [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{}. Now, the connection between the odd multiplier block coefficients of the pre-computed sets and the filter coefficients is performed using binary decision variables. Let $h_{m,w} \in \{0,1\}$ be a binary decision variable that is true if the magnitude of $h'_{m}$ is identical to $w$, *i.e.,* $$\begin{aligned}
h_{m,w} =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{when } |h'_m| = w\\
0 & \text{otherwise} \\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ for $m=0,\ldots, M-1$ and $w=0,\ldots, 2^B-1$. Furthermore, let $\phi_m$ determine the sign of $h'_{m}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_m =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{when } h'_m \geq 0\\
1 & \text{otherwise} \ . \\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
The value of each integer coefficient $h'_{m}$ is selected by the indicator constraints C3a. In addition, constraints C3b make sure that only one value per filter coefficient is selected.
Next, we distinguish between coefficients that are computed for the selected stage (by using an addition) and coefficients that are just replicated from a previous stage. This replication can be either implemented by a simple wire (as this was implied in [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{}) or in case of a pipelined implementation of the multiplier block, it will be implemented by a register. This allows to also model the register cost in the latter case (not treated here but it is a trivial extension of the objective). Hence, we introduce two new decision variables for each $w$ and stage: $a_w^s$ and $r_w^s$, which are true, if $w$ in stage $s$ is realized using an adder or register/wire, respectively.
The connection to the filter coefficients $h_{m,w}$ is made through C4. As several of the $M$ $h_m$ coefficients can have the same $w$ value, the right hand side of C4 is scaled by $1/M$ to keep it less than one. Whenever the right hand side of C4 is non-zero it forces the realization of coefficient $w$ in the output stage $S$, either as an adder or as a register/wire.
[L[2cm]{}L[0.32]{}]{} Constant/Variable & Meaning\
$M\in\mathbb{N}$ & Number of filter coefficients\
${\mathcal{A}}^s \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ & Coefficients that can be computed in adder stage $s$\
${\mathcal{T}}^s \subseteq \mathbb{N}^3$ & Tripplets $(u,v,w)$ from which $w \in {\mathcal{A}}^{s}$ can be computed using $u,v\in {\mathcal{A}}^{s-1}$\
$\underline{h_m}, \overline{h_m} \in \mathbb{Z}$ & Lower and upper bound for filter coefficient $m=0,\ldots, M-1$\
(rl)[1-2]{} $h'_{m} \in \mathbb{Z}$ & Value of filter coefficient $m=0,\ldots, M-1$\
$h_{m,w} \in \{0,1\}$ & true, if $|h'_{m}| = w$ for $m=0,\ldots, M-1$ and $w=0,\ldots, 2^B-1$\
$\phi_{m} \in \{0,1\}$ & true, if $h'_{m}$ is negative\
$a_w^s \in \{0,1\}$ & true, if $w \in {\mathcal{A}}^s$ in stage $s=1,\ldots, S-1$ is realized using an adder\
$r_w^s \in \{0,1\}$ & true, if $w \in {\mathcal{A}}^s$ in stage $s=1,\ldots, S-1$ is realized using a register or wire\
$x^s_{(u,v)} \in \{0,1\}$ & true, if $u$ and $v$ are available in stage $s=1,\ldots, S-2$\
$G \in [2/3, 4/3]$ & Gain of a variable gain filter ($G=1$ when the gain is fixed)\
Constraints C5 and C6 consider the realization as register/wire: they require that a value $w$ can only be replicated from a previous stage if it was computed or replicated before.
The realization as an adder computing constant $w$ from the inputs $u$ and $v$ requires the presence of both inputs in the previous stage. For that, the binary variables $x_{(u,v)}^s$ are introduced which determine if both are available in stage $s$: $$\begin{aligned}
x_{(u,v)}^s =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if both $u$ and $v$ are available in stage $s$}\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:x_u_v}\end{aligned}$$ Now, constraint C7 specifies that if $w$ is computed by $w = {\mathcal{A}}(u,v)$ in stage $s$, the pair $(u,v)$ has to be available in the previous stage. If a pair ($u,v$) is required in stage $s$, constraints C8 make sure that $u$ and $v$ have been realized in the previous stage either as register or adder.
Note that instead of using constraint C5 it is more practical to remove all variables $r_w^s$ which are zero from the cost function and their related constraints. Also note that the binary variables $x^s_{(u,v)}$ and the integer variables $h_m$ can be relaxed to real numbers to speed up the optimization.
Selecting the Adder Depth
-------------------------
The AD is often selected to be as small as possible, typically at the expense of a higher adder cost. It is well known that the minimal AD needed when multiplying with a given coefficient can be realized by using a binary tree [@kp01]. Therefore, it cannot be lower than the base two logarithm of the non-zero digit count of its MSD representation. Unfortunately, as the coefficients are not known in advance, the minimum AD cannot be derived from the filter specification. However, the upper bound of the AD can be computed from the coefficient word size $B$ as follows. A $B$bit binary number can have up to $B+1$ digits when represented as an MSD number and up to $\lfloor{(B+1)/2}\rfloor+1$ non-zeros in the worst case [@k15]. This leads to a maximum adder depth of $$\begin{aligned}
\text{AD}_{\max}=\log_2\left(\left\lfloor \frac{B+1}{2} \right\rfloor+1\right) \ .
\label{eq:max_adder_depth_rel_to_word_size}\end{aligned}$$ Using this bound, a search from $\text{AD}=0,\ldots, \text{AD}_{\max}$ can be performed until the first feasible solution is found.
For practical FIR filters, early studies have shown that coefficient word sizes between 15bit to 20bit are sufficient to achieve approximation errors between $-70$ and $-100$dB [@cr73]. Using , this translates to ADs of at most three to four. In our experiments, we found very good solutions with $\text{AD}=2$ for most of the filters from practice.
Reducing the Problem Complexity {#sec:reducing_problem_complexity}
===============================
Reducing the Coefficient Range {#sec:reducing_coefficient_range}
------------------------------
Following [@gj01 Sec. 4], we bound the search space for the coefficient values by projecting the polytope corresponding to the discretized versions of or onto each $h_m'$. The goal is a tight interval enclosure $[\underline{h_m}, \overline{h_m}]$ for the feasible values of $h_m'$. This corresponds to the LPs: $$\text{minimize} \ h_m'$$ or $$\text{maximize} \ h_m'$$ subject to $$G \underline{D}(\omega) \leqslant \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} h_{k}' c_k(\omega) \leqslant G \overline{D}(\omega), \quad {~\oldforall}\omega \in \Omega_d,$$ where $h_{k}' \in \mathbb{R}$ for $k=0,\ldots, M-1$ and $G \in \left[2/3, 4/3\right]$ (or $G=1$ when unity gain is used). We get $[\underline{h_m},\overline{h_m}]$ by taking $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{h_m} &= \left\lceil h_m' \right\rceil \text{ from minimize } h_m', \\
\overline{h_m} &= \left\lfloor h_m' \right\rfloor \text{ from maximize } h_m'.\end{aligned}$$
Discretizing the Frequency Domain {#sec:afp}
---------------------------------
Even though $\Omega$ is replaced by a finite set $\Omega_d$, we perform a rigorous posteriori validation of the result over $\Omega$ [@Volk17c]. Still, the typically large size of $\Omega_d$ ($16M$ is a common value found in the literature) can have a big impact on the runtime of the filter design routine. This is shown for instance in the context of an optimal branch-and-bound algorithm for FIR filter design with fixed-point coefficients [@k99 Table 2]. A too small number of points can, on the other hand, lead to an invalid solution over $\Omega$ and a larger feasible set, potentially incurring a larger runtime as well.
It is thus important to consider a discretization of reasonable size that is unlikely to lead to invalid solutions over $\Omega$ (*i.e.,* equations or do not hold) and does not increase the search space by a too large factor. To this effect, we use so-called approximate Fekete points (AFPs), which contain the most critical frequencies for a given filter that needs to fit a target frequency response. They have recently been used to improve the robustness of the classic Parks-McClellan Chebyshev FIR filter design algorithm [@f16] and for a fast and efficient heuristic for FIR fixed-point coefficient optimization [@bfh18]. They are efficient choices when performing polynomial interpolation/approximation on domains such as $\Omega$. This is relevant in our context since $H_R(\omega)$ in is a polynomial in $\cos(\omega)$ [@os14 Ch. 7.7]. For details on how to compute them we refer the reader to [@f16; @bfh18] and the references therein.
An Adaptive Search Strategy
---------------------------
Even if the current $\Omega_d$ leads to a solution that does not pass a posteriori validation, it might still be possible to rescale the gain factor $G$ such that holds. By taking a point $\omega_{\max}\in\Omega$ where $G\underline{D}(\omega_{\max})-H_R(\omega_{\max})$ or $H_R(\omega_{\max})-G\overline{D}(\omega_{\max})$ is largest (*i.e.,* the point of largest deviation from the specification) we first update $G$ to take a value close to $H_R(\omega_{\max})/\underline{D}(\omega_{\max})$ or $H_R(\omega_{\max})/\overline{D}(\omega_{\max})$, depending on where the deviation occurs. If this new gain leads to a valid solution over $\Omega$, then it is optimal. If not, we update $\Omega_d$ by adding the points of largest deviation for each frequency subdomain. We rerun the optimization with this new $\Omega_d$, repeating until either (a) there are no more invalid frequency points or (b) the problem becomes infeasible, meaning no solution with the imposed constraints over $\Omega$ exists.
We should mention that running the result validation code of [@Volk17c] at each iteration of the adaptive routine is computationally expensive. This is why at each iteration we perform a fast, non rigurous test consisting of verifying on a much denser discretization of $\Omega$ than $\Omega_d$. We found this to usually be sufficient in ensuring that the a posteriori validation [@Volk17c] done at the end of optimization is successful.
Experimental Results {#sect:results}
====================
To test the ILP formulations discussed above, we have implemented them in a C++ filter design tool[^4]. It features a flexible command-line interface.
Experimental Setup and Parameter Choices
----------------------------------------
All experiments were run on a Linux machine with an Intel Xeon E5-2690 v4 CPU with 56 cores and 252 GB of RAM. The proposed implementation supports several popular open source and commercial (M)ILP solvers, such as SCIP [@scip], Gurobi [@gurobi] and CPLEX [@cplex][^5]. For convenience, these solvers are accessed through the ScaLP [@sskz18] library, which acts as a frontend. Based on our experiments, Gurobi usually proved to be the fastest backend, which is why, apart from a few exceptions, use it on all the examples below.
![Total execution times for the design of a family of filters from Section \[sec:Benchmark\_Ex1\] with respect to the size of $\Omega_d$ ($kM$ points). Each data point corresponds to the time for the design of 42 filters of increasing complexity. []{data-label="fig:density_timing_comp"}](S1_redmill_1vs4){width="\linewidth"}
All experiments use the AFP-based frequency grid discretization mentioned in Section \[sec:afp\]. As discussed before, the number of frequency points in $\Omega_d$ is run-time critical. To determine an appropriate size, we ran an experiment using a typical design scenario with an $\Omega_d$ size of $kM$ points and $k=1,\ldots,32$. [ \[fig:density\_timing\_comp\]]{} shows the runtimes. Not surprisingly, they start large for very low $k$, as in these cases the frequency grid usually has to be extended to address violations, which require re-running the optimization routine on a new grid. As soon as $k$ is large enough (around $k\geqslant 4$), invalid results become rare, meaning just one optimization pass is sufficient. Further increasing $k$ at this point just leads to more constraints in the model and likely a larger runtime for the optimizer. Based on these results, we selected to start with $4M$ points. We find this choice usually delivers a good balance between optimizer runtime and number of iterations needed to obtain a valid solution over $\Omega$.
Name Source $\Omega_p/\pi$ $\Omega_s/\pi$ $\delta_p$ $\delta_s$
------ ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------
S1a [@s89] $[0, 0.3]$ $[0.5, 1]$ $0.00645$ $0.00645$
S1b [@rbd00] $[0, 0.3]$ $[0.5, 1]$ $0.00636$ $0.00636$
S1c [@yl07; @sy11a] $[0, 0.3]$ $[0.5, 1]$ $0.01570$ $0.00660$
S2a [@s89; @a08] $[0, 0.042]$ $[0.14, 1]$ $0.01160$ $0.001$
S2b [@yl07; @sy11a] $[0, 0.042]$ $[0.14, 1]$ $0.01200$ $0.001$
L1 [@a08; @yl07] $[0.8, 1]$ $[0, 0.74]$ $0.0057$ $0.0001$
L2 [@lp83; @szlm12] $[0, 0.2]$ $[0.28, 1]$ $0.02800$ $0.001$
: Specification of the multiband filter L3.
\
$\Omega_i / \pi$ $\underline{D}(\omega)$ $\overline{D}(\omega)$
-------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
$[0, 0.15]$ $0.9772$ $1.0232$
$[0.15, 0.1875]$ $0.9441$ $1.0232$
$[0.1875, 0.2125]$ $0.9016$ $1.0232$
$[0.2875, 1]$ $0$ $0.0316$
: Specification of the multiband filter L3.
Benchmark Set
-------------
Several multiplierless filter designs were computed to evaluate our methods. They are introduced next.
### A Family of Specifications from [@rbd00 Example 1] {#sec:Benchmark_Ex1}
We consider a family of low-pass linear-phase filter specifications from Redmill et al. [@rbd00]. These specifications are defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
1 - \delta &\leqslant H_R(\omega) \leqslant 1 + \delta, &\omega \in [0, 0.3] \quad \text{(passband)} \\
-\delta &\leqslant H_R(\omega) \leqslant \delta, &\omega \in [0.5, 0.1] \quad \text{(stopband)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta$ is a parameter regulating error. We set ${\delta=10^{-\frac{p}{20}}}$, where $p>0$ is the error in decibels (dB).
Our goal with this benchmark is to explore the tradeoff between the error ($p$), the filter order ($N$) and the word length ($B$) in terms of the total number of adders.
### A Set of State-of-the-art Specifications
We also test our tool on a set of reference specifications from the literature [@lp83; @s89; @rbd00; @yl07; @ysl09; @sy11a; @szlm12], referred to as $S1$, $S2$, $L1$, $L2$ and $L3$. They are all low-pass filters defined by $$\begin{aligned}
1 - \delta_p &\leqslant H_R(\omega) \leqslant 1 + \delta_p, &\omega \in \Omega_p \quad \text{(passband)}, \\
-\delta_s &\leqslant H_R(\omega) \leqslant \delta_s, &\omega \in \Omega_s \quad \text{(stopband)},\end{aligned}$$ where the values of $\delta_p, \delta_s, \Omega_p, \Omega_s$ for each specification are given in Table \[tab:spec\_reference\_filters\]. Over time, these reference filter specifications were slightly modified by different publications. To compare with each one, we indicate variations by suffixes, *e.g.* S1a and S1b.
We note that this restriction to low-pass filters comes only from the existing literature and that our tool can be successfully used for the design of other types of filters, such as multiband filters or decimators (since we generalize constraints on the frequency response as *functions* of frequencies).
Results
-------
### ILP Formulation 1 vs. ILP Formulation 2 {#sec:ILP1vsILP2}
In the first experiment, we compare [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\]]{} (in its overall form discussed in Section \[sect:fir\_ilp1\_overall\]) to [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\_limited\_depth\]]{}. Both models can be used to optimize for the total number of adders (MB and structural) given fixed parameters like filter order $N$, filter type and the effective word length $B$ (see [ \[fig:tool\_flow\]]{}). In case of ILP2, the adder depth is an additional constraint. Therefore, in practice, the two approaches can sometimes lead to different results.
This is exemplified in [ \[fig:ILP1\_ILP2\]]{}, where we design a set of filters using the family of specifications from [@rbd00 Example 1] as described in [Section \[sec:Benchmark\_Ex1\]]{}. We consider $2\times 37$ filters corresponding to $p=2,\ldots,38$ (*i.e.,* error is varied from $-2$dB to $-38$dB), with a $9$-bit effective word length and fixed gain $G=1$. In each case, a type I filter with smallest $N$ that leads to a feasible solution under the given constraints was used. For ILP2, the upper bound on the AD is set to $2$ as this turned out to be sufficient for all test instances.
![Total adder count comparison when using ILP1 (adapted to minimize the total number of adders) and ILP2 (with AD limit set to 2) on the Redmill set of filters [@rbd00].[]{data-label="fig:ILP1_ILP2"}](redmill_9_ILP1vsILP2){width="\linewidth"}
For most error targets the resulting total adder count is identical between the two. The exceptions are $-27, -31, -32$ and $-36$dB, where ILP1 gives a better total adder count, and $-37$dB, where ILP2 is better. The four cases where ILP1 gives a better result are not surprising considering that the limited AD in ILP2 restricts the coefficient search space. For $-37$dB, the difference comes from the fact that the ILP1 solver is able to find an optimal solution with $N=20$, while an $\text{AD}=2$ solution for ILP2 is only possible starting with $N=22$. Taking $\text{AD}=3$ with ILP2 gives the $N=20$ solution found with ILP1. Due to the different nature of the constraints and objective values of both ILP models, it is hard to do a runtime comparison between the two. We only mention that when there is a feasible filter with small number of MB adders, ILP1 can be quite fast for moderate size problems ($N<50$), but turns out to struggle for problems with many MB adders. Similarly, for feasible designs with small AD (up to 3), ILP2 will be fast for $N<50$ and overall scales better than ILP1. In the rest of the paper, for comparison with previous work, we use [ILP Formulation \[ilp:multiplierless\_fir\_limited\_depth\]]{} with $\text{AD}=2$ (unless otherwise stated).
### Design Space Exploration for [@rbd00 Example 1] {#sec:redmill_results}
The experiment setting from [Section \[sec:ILP1vsILP2\]]{} is expanded upon. We compare our best results (with effective word lengths $B\in\{8,9,10,11\}$) with those from [@rbd00 Example 1]. [We start off by considering only type I filters (just like in [@rbd00]), variable gain $G\in[2/3,4/3]$ and minimal order $N$ for each error target. The results are illustrated in [ \[fig:Redmill\_wordlengths\]]{}. We note that there are certain cases where, for a given $B$, taking the minimal filter order leading to a feasible solution *does not* minimize the adder cost. This is most visible for $B=11$ and a $-30$dB error target, where a minimal order $N=14$ filter requires $24$ adders. For $B=10$, the minimal $N$ is $16$, leading to only $17$ total adders, a $7$ adder improvement. Taking $N=16$ for $B=11$ also results in a $17$ adder solution.]{} A lower implementation cost is sometimes possible when increasing the filter order leads to a sparser filter and/or a more economical MCM design. Such solutions better optimize the objective functions in the proposed ILP models. We nevertheless remark that increasing the filter order beyond a certain threshold will not lead to different solutions [@k13].
![Our designs with effective word lengths varying from 8 to 11, filter type I and smallest feasible filter order.[]{data-label="fig:Redmill_wordlengths"}](redmill_comp_VS_all_FT1.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Of course, increasing the word length can also lead to a significant improvement in the results. For instance, the optimal $-50$dB atteanuation results for $B\in\{9, 10, 11\}$ require $41, 32$ and $31$ adders, respectively.
![Comparison between our best design space exploration results and the best results from [@rbd00 Example 1]. Our tool improves designs from [@rbd00] or proves them optimal.[]{data-label="fig:Redmill"}](redmill_dse.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
This nonlinearity of the word length/cost relation means that the user should favor a comprehensive exploration of the design space, varying the design parameters (especially $B$, filter type and $N$) and examine the various trade-offs. This is possible with our tool. [ \[fig:Redmill\]]{} shows the results of such an experiment where, with respect to the setting of [ \[fig:Redmill\_wordlengths\]]{}, we additionally allow $N$ to vary and also consider type II filters. We also added the flexible gain, genetic algorithm results produced in [@rbd00]. Compared to [@rbd00], we could improve all of the results, except two of them where we obtained the same adder cost ($-9$ dB and $-25$ dB). It is clearly visible that allowing variable gain designs can have a major influence on the quality of the results.
[@cccccc>cclclp[6.8cm]{}]{} Name & Source & $N$ & Type & $A_\text{M}$ & $A_\text{S}$ & $A$ & AD & $G$ & $B$ & & Coefficients\
S1a & [@s89] & $24$ & I & $11$ & $24$ & $35$ & $2$ & $2.41$ & $8$ & $0.00159$ & $1$ $3$ $-1$ $-8$ $-7$ $10$ $20$ $-1$ $-40$ $-34$ $56$ $184$ $246$\
S1a & ours & $24$ & I & $7$ & $20$ & $27$ & $2$ & $1.251$ & $9$ & $0$ & $1$ $4$ $0$ $-8$ $-7$ $10$ $22$ $0$ $-41$ $-36$ $57$ $192$ $256$\
S1a & ours & $24$ & I & $6$ & $20$ & $26$ & $2$ & $1.245678$ & $9$ & $0.00159$ & $1$ $4$ $0$ $-8$ $-8$ $10$ $22$ $0$ $-40$ $-37$ $57$ $192$ $256$\
S1a & ours & $23$ & II & $7$ & $19$ & $26$ & $2$ & $2.654716$ & $8$ & $0$ & $3$ $3$ $-5$ $-11$ $0$ $20$ $16$ $-23$ $-52$ $0$ $134$ $253$\
S1a & ours & $23$ & II & $5$ & $19$ & $24$ & $2$ & $2.172388$ & $8$ & $0.00159$ & $2$ $2$ $-3$ $-9$ $0$ $16$ $13$ $-18$ $-42$ $0$ $110$ $208$\
S1b & [@rbd00] & $24$ & I & $6$ & $20$ & $26$ & $3$ & $2.4570$ & $9$ & $0$ & $2$ $8$ $0$ $-16$ $-14$ $20$ $43$ $0$ $-80$ $-71$ $112$ $377$ $502$\
S1b & ours & $24$ & I & $6$ & $20$ & $26$ & $2$ & $1.40946$ & $9$ & $0$ & $2$ $4$ $0$ $-10$ $-8$ $12$ $24$ $0$ $-47$ $-40$ $65$ $216$ $288$\
S1b & ours & $23$ & II & $5$ & $19$ & $24$ & $2$ & $2.46492$ & $9$ & $0$ & $6$ $6$ $-8$ $-21$ $0$ $36$ $32$ $-42$ $-96$ $0$ $248$ $472$\
S1b & ours & $23$ & II & $7$ & $19$ & $26$ & $2$ & $2.65462$ & $8$ & $0$ & $3$ $3$ $-5$ $-11$ $0$ $20$ $16$ $-23$ $-52$ $0$ $134$ $253$\
S1c & [@yl07] & $24$ & I & $4$ & $24$ & $28$ & $2$ & $1.8950$ & $8$ & $0$ & $2$ $3$ $-2$ $-8$ $-4$ $10$ $16$ $-3$ $-32$ $-24$ $48$ $144$ $191$\
S1c & ours & $24$ & I & $5$ & $20$ & $25$ & $2$ & $1.25615$ & $8$ & $0$ & $1$ $2$ $0$ $-4$ $-3$ $6$ $11$ $0$ $-21$ $-18$ $29$ $96$ $128$\
S1c & ours & $23$ & II & $5$ & $19$ & $24$ & $2$ & $1.86904$ & $7$ & $0$ & $1$ $1$ $-2$ $-4$ $0$ $7$ $6$ $-8$ $-18$ $0$ $47$ $89$\
(rl)[1-12]{} S1c & [@sy11a] & $23$ & II & $4$ & $19$ & $23$ & $2$ & $1.34766$ & $8$ & $0.00118$ & $2$ $2$ $-2$ $-5$ $0$ $10$ $8$ $-12$ $-26$ $0$ $68$ $128$\
S1c & ours & $23$ & II & $4$ & $19$ & $23$ & $2$ & $1.34717$ & $8$ & $0.00118$ & $2$ $2$ $-2$ $-5$ $0$ $10$ $8$ $-12$ $-26$ $0$ $68$ $128$\
S2a & [@s89] & $59$ & II & $57$ & $59$ & $116$ & $2$ & $7.1324$ & $13$ & $0$ & $31$ $28$ $29$ $22$ $8$ $-17$ $-59$ $-116$ $-188$ $-268$ $-352$ $-432$ $-500$ $-532$ $-529$ $-464$ $-336$ $-129$ $158$ $526$ $964$ $1472$ $2008$ $2576$ $3136$ $3648$ $4110$ $4478$ $4737$ $4868$\
S2a & ours & $59$ & II & $22$ & $59$ & $81$ & $2$ & $9.25424$ & $10$ & $0$ & $4$ $4$ $4$ $4$ $1$ $-2$ $-9$ $-18$ $-30$ $-42$ $-56$ $-69$ $-80$ $-86$ $-85$ $-76$ $-56$ $-22$ $24$ $84$ $155$ $236$ $325$ $416$ $508$ $593$ $668$ $728$ $770$ $792$\
S2b & [@yl07] & $59$ & II & $19$ & $59$ & $78$ & $3$ & $10.6888$ & $10$ & $0$ & $5$ $5$ $6$ $5$ $3$ $-2$ $-10$ $-20$ $-32$ $-48$ $-64$ $-80$ $-91$ $-99$ $-99$ $-88$ $-64$ $-26$ $28$ $96$ $178$ $273$ $376$ $482$ $587$ $686$ $772$ $842$ $892$ $916$\
S2b & [@yl07] & $59$ & II & $21$ & $59$ & $80$ & $2$ & $10.48712$ & $10$ & $0$ & $5$ $5$ $5$ $4$ $2$ $-4$ $-10$ $-20$ $-34$ $-48$ $-64$ $-78$ $-91$ $-98$ $-96$ $-86$ $-62$ $-24$ $28$ $96$ $176$ $269$ $369$ $473$ $575$ $672$ $756$ $824$ $872$ $897$\
S2b & ours & $59$ & II & $19$ & $57$ & $76$ & $2$ & $10.506472$ & $10$ & $0$ & $4$ $4$ $5$ $4$ $0$ $-4$ $-11$ $-22$ $-34$ $-49$ $-64$ $-79$ $-90$ $-98$ $-96$ $-84$ $-60$ $-24$ $30$ $97$ $178$ $270$ $370$ $474$ $576$ $672$ $756$ $824$ $872$ $896$\
(rl)[1-12]{} S2b & [@sy11a] & $59$ & II & $17$ & $59$ & $76$ & $3$ & $10.47032$ & $10$ & $0.01395$ & $5$ $5$ $6$ $5$ $2$ $-2$ $-10$ $-20$ $-32$ $-48$ $-64$ $-78$ $-92$ $-98$ $-87$ $-65$ $-26$ $26$ $93$ $174$ $267$ $368$ $472$ $575$ $672$ $757$ $826$ $874$ $898$\
S2b & ours & $59$ & II & $15$ & $51$ & $66$ & $2$ & $7.5904$ & $10$ & $0.00789$ & $0$ $0$ $0$ $-2$ $-5$ $-10$ $-16$ $-23$ $-32$ $-40$ $-50$ $-58$ $-64$ $-64$ $-61$ $-50$ $-29$ $0$ $38$ $86$ $143$ $206$ $274$ $344$ $412$ $476$ $532$ $576$ $608$ $624$\
L2 & [@yl07] & $62$ & I & $17$ & $62$ & $79$ & $3$ & $2.6668$ & $11$ & $0$ & $4$ $9$ $13$ $12$ $4$ $-10$ $-26$ $-36$ $-32$ $-12$ $18$ $44$ $52$ $32$ $-10$ $-56$ $-80$ $-64$ $-4$ $74$ $130$ $128$ $48$ $-86$ $-215$ $-263$ $-168$ $88$ $460$ $854$ $1153$ $1265$\
L2 & ours & $62$ & I & $16$ & $62$ & $78$ & $3$ & $2.6668$ & $11$ & $0$ & $4$ $9$ $13$ $12$ $4$ $-10$ $-26$ $-36$ $-32$ $-12$ $18$ $44$ $52$ $32$ $-10$ $-56$ $-80$ $-64$ $-4$ $74$ $130$ $128$ $48$ $-86$ $-215$ $-263$ $-168$ $88$ $460$ $854$ $1153$ $1265$\
L3 & [@yl07] & $35$ & II & $3$ & $35$ & $38$ & $2$ & $3.192$ & $8$ & $0$ & $8$ $1$ $-6$ $-12$ $-10$ $-1$ $6$ $20$ $20$ $6$ $-12$ $-32$ $-40$ $-16$ $32$ $96$ $160$ $196$\
L3 & ours & $35$ & II & $5$ & $33$ & $38$ & $2$ & $2.58268$ & $7$ & $0$ & $4$ $0$ $-2$ $-4$ $-4$ $-1$ $4$ $7$ $8$ $3$ $-5$ $-14$ $-16$ $-7$ $12$ $39$ $64$ $79$\
L3 & ours & $35$ & II & $5$ & $31$ & $36$ & $1$ & $2.6257$ & $8$ & $0$ & $7$ $0$ $-5$ $-8$ $-10$ $0$ $6$ $15$ $15$ $8$ $-12$ $-28$ $-32$ $-14$ $24$ $80$ $130$ $160$\
L3 & ours & $35$ & II & $4$ & $31$ & $35$ & $2$ & $2.10468$ & $8$ & $0$ & $5$ $0$ $-4$ $-8$ $-8$ $0$ $4$ $11$ $13$ $5$ $-10$ $-22$ $-26$ $-11$ $20$ $64$ $104$ $129$\
(rl)[1-12]{} L3 & [@sy11a] & $35$ & II & $4$ & $31$ & $35$ & $1$ & $2.627$ & $7$ & $0.00213$ & $3$ $0$ $-2$ $-5$ $-5$ $0$ $3$ $7$ $8$ $3$ $-6$ $-14$ $-16$ $-7$ $12$ $40$ $65$ $80$\
L3 & ours & $35$ & II & $4$ & $31$ & $35$ & $1$ & $2.61998$ & $7$ & $0.00213$ & $3$ $0$ $-2$ $-4$ $-6$ $0$ $3$ $7$ $7$ $4$ $-6$ $-14$ $-16$ $-7$ $12$ $40$ $65$ $80$\
L3 & ours & $35$ & II & $5$ & $29$ & $34$ & $2$ & $2.6211$ & $8$ & $0.00213$ & $7$ $0$ $0$ $-10$ $-8$ $0$ $8$ $16$ $16$ $7$ $-10$ $-28$ $-32$ $-14$ $24$ $78$ $130$ $160$\
L3 & ours & $35$ & II & $3$ & $31$ & $34$ & $1$ & $2.60028$ & $8$ & $0.00213$ & $6$ $0$ $-3$ $-10$ $-10$ $0$ $7$ $12$ $16$ $7$ $-12$ $-28$ $-32$ $-14$ $24$ $80$ $128$ $160$\
L3 & ours & $35$ & II & $3$ & $31$ & $34$ & $2$ & $2.60564$ & $7$ & $0.00213$ & $4$ $0$ $-2$ $-4$ $-4$ $0$ $3$ $8$ $8$ $3$ $-6$ $-13$ $-16$ $-8$ $13$ $40$ $64$ $80$\
### The Set of State-of-the-art Specifications
Table \[tab:results\] presents the comparison between our designs and the best results from literature [@lp83; @s89; @rbd00; @yl07; @ysl09; @sy11a; @szlm12] for the filter specifications from Table \[tab:spec\_reference\_filters\]. The following information for each implementation is given: filter order ($N$), filter type, number of multiplier adders ($A_M$), number of structural adders ($A_S$), total number of adders ($A$), adder depth of the multiplier block (AD), gain ($G$), effective coefficient word length ($B$), frequency response error and, finally, coefficients of the filter. The frequency response error represents by how much the resulting filter does not respect the specification (zero in case of no issue) and was necessary to introduce since coefficients from previous work turned out to sometimes slightly violate the specification. For those cases we [also]{} adjusted the specification to find solutions with a similar error [in order]{} to perform a fair [and complete]{} comparison. In the following, we discuss each instance in detail.
#### S1a {#s1a .unnumbered}
we obtain a 23% improvement (27 vs. 35 adders) in comparison to the implementation in [@s89]. By also considering type II designs, one extra adder can be saved (26 total adders). If furthermore a slight error is allowed, a design with 24 adders is achievable.
#### S1b {#s1b .unnumbered}
for this specification we show that, for type I designs, the AD can be reduced from 3 to 2 stages, while keeping the same effective word length. If we use type II filters, keeping the same word length as [@rbd00] allows the reduction of two adders (one structural and one MB). We can also decrease the word length by one, and still get a result with the same cost as [@rbd00].
#### S1c {#s1c .unnumbered}
we improve the result from [@yl07] by 3 adders [by prioritizing]{} sparse implementations. [For type II specifications we can gain one extra structural adder and decrease the word length by one.]{} [A]{} type II implementation of these specifications from [@sy11a] requires only 23 adders but [has higher error than that allowed by]{} the specification. [If we allow some error, we obtain the same 23 adder solution as [@sy11a].]{}
#### S2a {#s2a .unnumbered}
we offer a significant improvement in the implementation of this specification w.r.t. the best known [result]{} [@s89]. Our solution requires 30% less adders (81 adders vs. 116 adders) and we reduce the [effective]{} word length from 13 to 10 bits.
#### S2b {#s2b .unnumbered}
in [@yl07], [implementations with adder depths 3 and 2 are proposed,]{} at the cost of 78 and 80 adders, respectively. These results are improved in [@sy11a], with the authors claiming that a 3-stage implementation at the cost of 76 adders has a high probability to be optimal. Our check show[s]{} that the latter design does not pass an a posteriori validation by a margin of at least $0.01395$. If some error margin is indeed acceptable, we demonstrate that a 2-stage design with a cost of only 66 adders is possible. Again, our result has higher sparsity than [previous]{} designs. If frequency specifications must be rigorously met, we show that 76 adders is the optimal cost for a 2-stage design.
#### L1 {#l1 .unnumbered}
the tool timed out for this specification [before giving a feasible result]{}, hence it is not presented in Table \[tab:results\]. The best known result from literature is a 120-tap filter [@yl07] and the size of an instance of the corresponding ILP formulation goes beyond the current capabilities of the solvers we tried, showing its limitations.
#### L2 {#l2 .unnumbered}
the result of [@yl07] can be improved by one adder with the same coefficient set. Similar to *L1*, we had to timeout before the solver could ascertain if the feasible filter obtained is indeed optimal.
#### L3 {#l3 .unnumbered}
in [@yl07], an implementation with 38 adders is provided. As in the case of the S2b specification, [@sy11a] reduces both the adder count and adder depth, but at the cost of a substantial violation of the frequency specifications. We [improve on]{} the result from [@yl07], proving that [only a 7-bit wordlength is necessary to get the same 38 adder cost.]{} This cost can be reduced to 35 adders by [using 8]{}-bit coefficients. [If we allow the same error as in [@sy11a], we show that 34 adder solutions are possible.]{}
Overall, the proposed tool achieves significant improvements to the majority of the considered filter design problems. Morover, the user can explore a large design space by setting different implementation parameters, *e.g.* adder depth, coefficient word length, filter type, etc. The required runtime however, will depend greatly on the problem. For producing the results in Table \[tab:results\], it varied from several seconds for the smallest filters (S1) up to several days for the largest ones (S2 and L2).
Conclusion {#sect:conclusion}
==========
In this paper we have introduced two new algorithms for the design of optimal multiplierless FIR filters. Relying on ILP formulations stemming from the MCM literature, our algorithms minimize either (a) the number of structural adders given a fixed budget of multiplier block adders or (b) the total number of adders (multiplier block + structural adders) given a fixed adder depth. We further show how (a) can be applied iteratively to optimally minimize the total number of adders (without any adder count or adder depth constraints). Extensive numerical tests with example design problems from the state-of-the-art show that our approaches can offer in many cases better results. We also make available an open-source C++ implementation of the proposed methods.
[^1]: M. Kumm is with the Fulda University of Applied Sciences, 36037 Fulda, Germany (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^2]: A. Volkova is with University of Nantes, Nantes, France (e-mail: [email protected])
[^3]: S.I. Filip is with University of Rennes, Inria, CNRS, IRISA, Rennes, France (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^4]: Available as an open-source project at: <https://gitlab.com/filteropt/firopt>.
[^5]: Free academic licenses for Gurobi 8.1 and CPLEX 12.6 are used.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Direction measurement of weakly interacting massive particles in time-projection chambers can provide definite evidence of their existence and help to determine their properties. This article demonstrates several concepts for charge amplification in time-projection chambers that can be used in direction-sensitive dark matter search experiments. We demonstrate reconstruction of the effect for nuclear recoils above 100 keV, and discuss the detector performance in the context of dark matter detection and scaling to large detector volumes.'
address:
- 'Physics Department, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215'
- 'Physics Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454'
- 'Department of Physics, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139'
- 'Laboratory for Nuclear Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 '
- 'MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Cambridge, MA 02139'
- 'Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 '
- 'Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 '
author:
- 'D. Dujmic'
- 'P. Fisher'
- 'G. Sciolla'
- 'S. Ahlen'
- 'V. Dutta'
- 'S. Henderson'
- 'A. Kaboth'
- 'G. Kohse'
- 'R. Lanza'
- 'J. Monroe'
- 'A. Roccaro'
- 'N. Skvorodnev'
- 'H. Tomita'
- 'R. Vanderspek'
- 'H. Wellenstein'
- 'R. Yamamoto'
title: 'Charge amplification concepts for direction-sensitive dark matter detectors'
---
Dark Matter,Directional Detector,Nuclear Scattering,Optical Readout ,TPC ,WIMP 29.40.Cs ,29.40.Gx ,95.35.+d
Introduction {#sec::introduction}
============
Weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) are good candidates for constituents of a dark-matter halo around our galaxy, and a target of several experimental searches (see e.g. [@DMreview] for review). An annual oscillation in the signal at the level of 1-2% was recently confirmed by DAMA collaboration [@Bernabei:2008yi]. If the asymmetry is due to Earth’s motion around Sun then much larger diurnal asymmetry in the WIMP direction is expected [@directionality]. However, the DAMA and other experiments that report zero signal [@si-exp; @sd-exp] use liquid and solid detector materials that allow for more compact detectors, but destroy information on the WIMP direction and the sense of direction (). Therefore, directionality is particularly valuable, both for suppressing background and for confirming the DAMA result by correlating a candidate dark-matter signal with astrophysical phenomena.
Reconstruction of the WIMP direction can be accomplished with detectors using low-pressure gas as the target material. Several groups, DRIFT [@DRIFT], NEWAGE [@Miuchi:2007ga], MIMAC [@Santos:2007ga] and DMTPC [@Dujmic:2007bd] have reconstructed low-momentum recoils created in elastic neutron scattering using low-pressure time-projection chambers for dark matter searches. The reconstruction of the sense of direction () using the scintillation profile of a recoiling track has been only recently achieved [@Dujmic:2007bd].
The low density of gaseous detectors and the small WIMP cross section necessitate the use of large detector volumes with fine detector granularities. A significant improvement of the current experimental limits may require a ton-scale detector. In the case of 4 as the detector material, one ton of gas occupies a volume of approximately $16\times16\times16$ m$^3$ at 50 Torr of pressure. A 50 keV fluorine recoil created in a WIMP collision travels 1.5 mm at 50 Torr of pressure. Therefore, a multi-cubic meter detector with resolution of the order of hundreds of micrometers is needed for a directional dark matter experiment, requiring further progress in detector technology in order to observe WIMPs.
Detector designs
================
In this paper we propose and demonstrate several designs for time-projection chambers that can be used in large-volume, directional dark matter search experiments with discrimination. In a time projection chamber, a WIMP creates a nuclear recoil that makes electron-ion pairs as it slows down in the detector gas. We use 4 gas that has good charge multiplication and scintillation properties [@CF4; @ionization; @Pansky:1994zh; @Kaboth:2008mi]. Fluorine, in addition, has non-zero angular momentum, which allows probing for spin-dependent dark matter interactions. The electron diffusion limits the maximum drift distance to about 25 cm [@Miuchi:2007ga; @Dujmic:2007bd]. The initial ionization electrons drift in electric field toward the charge-amplification region, where in case of 4 , the threshold for charge multiplication is approximately 45 V/(cm$\cdot$Torr) [@CF4; @ionization]. Traditionally, design choices for amplification regions have been based on the multiwire proportional chamber (MWPC) [@Charpak:1997kd], where strong electric fields are created in the vicinity of thin wires. The pitch between wires, and therefore the spatial resolution in MWPC is limited to above 1-2 mm due to mechanical and electrostatic reasons. Finer spatial resolution can be achieved with micropattern detectors (e.g. [@micropattern]), but the size and the gain of detector modules are constrained by manufacturing limitations.
In this paper we demonstrate designs for micropattern detectors that provide good gain, fine granularity and scalability to large volumes. Electrodes used in the charge multiplication are made of woven meshes, indium-tin-oxide (ITO) films, or copper. All designs allow production of large-area modules as the meshes and ITO foils are produced in 1.2 m-wide rolls. In the first case shown in Figure \[fg::amplifier\]a), the amplification region is made of a stainless-steel mesh and copper-clad G10 board. The stainless steel mesh is made of 28 $\mu$m diameter wires with periodicity of 256 $\mu$m, which gives optical transmittance of 77%. Woven meshes are used in air filtration systems and can be mass produced in a cost-effective way. The mesh and the copper-clad board are separated by fluorocarbon resistive (fishing) wires of 0.54 mm diameter and spaced every 2 cm, with transparency of 97%. With this design, we demonstrate the reconstruction of 2D recoil segments with improved gain and no additional cost compared to our previous detector. Further improvement in gain may be achievable with the use of transparent electrodes that allow scintillation light to be read out from two sides. We test a design shown in Figure \[fg::amplifier\]b), where the amplification electrodes are made of ITO layers deposited on mylar foil and a stainless steel mesh. ITO is 90:10 mix ratio, by weight, of indium-oxide (In$_2$O$_3$) and tin-oxide (SnO$_2$), respectively. ITO is widely used in consumer electronics (e.g. touch screens, LCD screens) and available in 1.2 m wide rolls of ITO-coated mylar foils. The thickness of the ITO coating determines electrical and optical properties of the foil: we use a surface resistance of 15 Ohm/cm$^2$, which gives light transmittance of around 80%. In the third design shown in Figure \[fg::amplifier\]c), we use two meshes to create the amplification field and the same fluorocarbon wires to separate the planes. The transparency of electrodes can potentially increase the gain by almost a factor of two due to simultaneous readout of two drift volumes.
The experimental setup with a time-projection chamber (TPC) and a CCD camera for optical readout [@ccd; @readout] of the amplification plane is shown in Figure \[fg::TPC\]. The cathode mesh used to create the drift field has a periodicity of 312 $\mu$m and wire thickness of 31 $\mu$m, which gives an optical transparency of 88%. The drift distance is limited to approximatelly $\pm5~\rm{cm}$ by the size of the vacuum vessel. The CCD camera is manufactured by Finger Lake Instrumentation and equipped with a Kodak KAF-0401ME chip with a cooler that maintains the temperature in the range \[$-20$,$-18$\] C to minimize electronic noise (25 ADU). The photographic lens has an aperture ratio, f/\# of 0.95, and a focal length of 25 mm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a\) mesh-copper
![Schematics of amplification regions formed with a) mesh and a copper sheet, b) mesh and ITO-film, and c) two meshes. In all cases the electrodes are separated with 0.54 mm fluorocarbon wires. \[fg::amplifier\]](mesh_cu_amplifier.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}
b\) mesh-ITO film
![Schematics of amplification regions formed with a) mesh and a copper sheet, b) mesh and ITO-film, and c) two meshes. In all cases the electrodes are separated with 0.54 mm fluorocarbon wires. \[fg::amplifier\]](mesh_ito_amplifier.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}
c\) mesh-mesh
![Schematics of amplification regions formed with a) mesh and a copper sheet, b) mesh and ITO-film, and c) two meshes. In all cases the electrodes are separated with 0.54 mm fluorocarbon wires. \[fg::amplifier\]](mesh_mesh_amplifier.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![A schematic of the TPC chamber used in these studies. The inner diameter of the chamber is 23 cm, and the height of a drift region is 5 cm. The ITO-mesh configuration has two drift regions that can be read out simultaneously. \[fg::TPC\]](mesh_ito.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
Results {#sec::results}
=======
Detector gain
-------------
We measure the detector gain using 5.5 MeV $\alpha$ particles from a collimated $^{241}$Am source. The chamber is filled with 4 at various pressures in the range 50-200 Torr. The drift field is 500 V/cm, and the amplification voltage ranges between 0.65 and 1.1 kV. Images are taken sequentially with 500 ms exposure time and resolution of 96$\times$64 pixels, where each pixel is $488\times 488~\mu\rm{m}^{2}$ (72$\times$72 $\mu$m$^2$ on chip). Pixels that have intensity greater than 5 standard deviations from the mean dark field at least 10% of the time are flagged as ‘hot channels’ and excluded in the data analysis. ADC bias is corrected for by subtracting from each image the average of 100 images taken with the shutter closed.
The gain of the detector is determined from the intensity of scintillation light recorded by the CCD camera in a 5 mm track segment close to the alpha source. The stopping power of alpha tracks in this region is approximately uniform and we estimate it using the SRIM [@srim] program, as 0.75 MeV/(mg/cm$^2$), which corresponds to 87, 130, 175, 264 and 355 keV of energy loss at 50, 75, 100, 150 and 200 Torr of 4 pressure, respectively.
We convert the observed light intensity into charge gain by accounting for the transmittance of the amplification and drift meshes (70%), vessel window (90%), camera lens and window (90%). Scintillation light created in the lower drift region has an additional transmittance loss of approximately 60% as it passes through ITO layers and acrylic plate, or two amplification meshes. We compute the lens acceptance to be $1.1 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and estimate the average CCD efficiency as $40\pm 10$% using the manufacturer’s quantum efficiency curve and the scintillation spectrum of 4 gas [@Kaboth:2008mi]. The gain of the camera is measured to be $1.6$ ADU/e$^-$. The ratio of the total number of scintillation photons to the electrons in the avalanche is taken as 1/3 [@Pansky:1994zh; @Kaboth:2008mi]. We use $w=54$ eV for the average ionization energy in 4 gas, or 18.5 ionization e$^-$ per keV of energy loss [@Sharma:1998xw]. Hence, the total gain, $g$ is computed from observed number of counts per keV of energy loss, $I_{CCD}$ as $g = I_{CCD}/2.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$.
We measure the gain in the mesh-copper detector (Figure \[fg::amplifier\]a) and plot the observed intensity $I_{CCD}$ as a function of the amplification voltage and pressure in Figure \[fg::gain with alpha tracks\]a). The voltage is increased until the total charge created in the amplification region reaches a sparking threshold. The maximum gain varies from 15-45 ADU/keV, which is roughly 13 times larger than charge amplification achieved with wires [@Dujmic:2007bd], after accounting for different light collection efficiencies. Since the lower ionization density allows larger charge multiplication, the maximum gain increases with decreasing pressure, as is evident in Figure \[fg::gain with alpha tracks\]a). The maximum electronic stopping power of alpha particles occurs in the Bragg peak at around 800 keV. The same electronic stopping power is reached at 250 keV for fluorine ions, presenting an upper-energy threshold for detection of nuclear recoils at a given gain. We also compare different gaps between anode and ground planes using different widths of fishing lines. After adjusting the amplification voltage, we find that the separation has no effect on the maximum achievable gain, which is limited by the total charge created in the amplification region.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
a\) mesh-copper
![The gain measured in the three amplification designs. \[fg::gain with alpha tracks\]](run00377-00381_gain_vs_Vanode_pressure.pdf "fig:"){width="9cm"}
b\) mesh-ITO film
![The gain measured in the three amplification designs. \[fg::gain with alpha tracks\]](run00366-00370_gain_vs_Vanode_pressure.pdf "fig:"){width="9cm"}
c\) mesh-mesh
![The gain measured in the three amplification designs. \[fg::gain with alpha tracks\]](run00390-00394_gain_vs_Vanode_pressure.pdf "fig:"){width="9cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
The gain (or reduction in the number of CCD cameras) can be further improved by placing drift regions opposite to each other along with transparent amplification electrodes, as shown in designs with ITO and all-mesh electrodes in Figures \[fg::amplifier\]b,c). Two $^{241}$Am sources are placed in opposite drift regions approximately 1 cm from the amplification region, which is made of an ITO-mesh sandwich (Figure \[fg::amplifier\]b). Both drift regions are read out by the same CCD camera as shown in Figure \[fg::TPC\]. An image taken with a 500 ms-exposure of several alpha tracks from two $^{241}$Am sources is shown in Figure \[fg::images of alpha tracks\]. Note that the signal from tracks in the lower source is attenuated due to passage through two ITO-coated anodes and a ground mesh. We measure the attenuation to be $(52 \pm 2)$%, which is close to the expected attenuation of $(58 \pm 1)$% when we assume the same gain for the upper and lower amplification regions. We evaluate the gain using the signal from the upper source, and plot it in Figure \[fg::gain with alpha tracks\]b). The gain is found to be 20-30% lower than with the copper-mesh amplification plane. Further improvements are possible with foils that have higher resistivity (light transmittance) and better quality control during shipment and module production, as our current foils arrived slightly damaged.
![An image of alpha tracks from 500 ms exposure at 200 Torr with two $^{241}$Am sources placed in opposite drift regions. The amplification electrodes are mesh and ITO foil. \[fg::images of alpha tracks\]](run00373_event006_gray.pdf){width="10cm"}
Finally, we test a detector that has the amplification plane made entirely of meshes. The gain measurement is shown in Figure \[fg::gain with alpha tracks\]c). Values are comparable with ITO-based detector and approximately 30% lower than the copper-mesh detector. Operation with a readout of two drift regions can be realized by adding a third mesh.
An energy resolution of approximately 10% and spatial resolution of $400~\mu$m are measured here and found to be comparable with our previous measurements using MWPC [@Dujmic:2007bd]. Contribution to the spatial resolution from the diffusion of electrons that are 2 cm above the amplification plane is $140~\mu\rm{m}$, finite CCD bin size adds $488/\sqrt{12}\approx 140~\mu\rm{m}$, and finite mesh pitch adds $256/\sqrt{12} \approx 74 \mu\rm{m}$.
Gain uniformity
---------------
The uniformity of the gain is demonstrated by observing a clear Bragg peak in mesh-ITO and mesh-copper detector designs (Figure \[fg::amplifier\]a,b). A scintillation profile of an alpha track that has a range of approximately 4.5 cm in 250 Torr of 4 is shown in Figure \[fg::images of alpha tracks\].
In the case of the mesh-mesh detector (Figure \[fg::amplifier\]c), gain non-uniformity can occur on a smaller scale if the relative alignment between the meshes varies across the surface of the detector. The charge multiplication and light collection are more efficient if wires of the anode mesh fall in between wires of the ground mesh, i.e. with offset of half of a mesh pitch in both $x$ and $y$ directions. The variation in relative alignment between the two meshes may be the result of a non-zero relative angle, non-uniform mesh tensioning, or variation in spacing between the mesh planes. We show an example of this by taking a photograph of light scattered from the bottom mesh and transmitted through the upper mesh, as shown in Figure \[fg::gain uniformity of mesh-mesh detector\]a). A moiré pattern with periodicity of roughly 2 mm is created by the change in relative alignment between two meshes. In order to evaluate the effect on the gain, we expose the detector to x-rays from an $^{55}$Fe with gas pressure set to 400 Torr and anode voltage to 1.74 kV. The average gain of approximately 9 ADU/keV is determined from the total light emitted by 5.5 MeV alpha particles. An $^{55}$Fe source is mounted on the top of the cathode mesh and several minutes of 1-second exposures are taken, with accumulated CCD image shown in Figure \[fg::gain uniformity of mesh-mesh detector\]b). The average light intensity decreases with distance from the source due to the reduced flux of x-rays. The semi-circular shadow on the right is due to the Fe source, and the long shadows are due to fishing line separators. The checkered light pattern seen in the plot is due to variation of the gain and follows the moiré pattern. Using pixels that have equal distance from the source, we estimate a gain variation to be approximately 50% between maxima and minima. The non-uniformity in gain can be minimized, if not avoided, by applying extra care during fabrication of detector. Elimination of the moiré pattern during the mesh stretching and assembly can be used as a monitor for quality control. Any remaining gain variation can be accounted for by calibrating with x-ray sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a\) Moiré pattern b\) $^{55}$Fe exposure
![Evaluation of gain uniformity in the mesh-mesh detector using moiré pattern and $^{55}$Fe exposure. The distance between horizontal resistive wires is 2 cm. \[fg::gain uniformity of mesh-mesh detector\]](moire_mesh-mesh.pdf "fig:"){width="6.5cm"} ![Evaluation of gain uniformity in the mesh-mesh detector using moiré pattern and $^{55}$Fe exposure. The distance between horizontal resistive wires is 2 cm. \[fg::gain uniformity of mesh-mesh detector\]](run00395_gain_uniformity_bw.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Head-tail” effect
------------------
Finally, we demonstrate the ability to determine the directional sense of low-momentum nuclei, the effect. The ionization rate by a low-momentum nucleus decreases as it slows down in the detector gas, and the sense of its direction can be deduced from the scintillation profile along the track. We place a $^{252}$Cf source approximately 2 m from the detector’s view-field of $4.8\times 3.2$ cm$^2$, resulting in a well determined direction of the neutron flux. We use the copper-mesh amplification plane (see Figure \[fg::amplifier\]a) with the anode voltage set to 740 V and the 4 pressure at 75 Torr. Typical ranges for nuclear recoils created in neutron scattering are of the order of a few millimeters.
Taking 6000 1-second exposures without a trigger, we search for clusters of pixels that are 3 standard deviations above the CCD noise. In most cases there is only one cluster per event, but otherwise we select the most energetic cluster. The energy is computed from the sum of pixel yields after background subtraction, using calibration resulting from inserting an alpha source three times: before, in the middle and after the neutron exposure. We find an average gain of 27 ADU/keV. The gain decreases by 8% during the measurements, probably due to air leakage into the vacuum vessel. We describe quenching correction for a recoil with energy $E$ in terms of electronic $S_e(E)$ and nuclear $S_n(E)$ stopping powers, $q(E) \approx \left ( S_e(E) + S_n(E) \cdot 0.3 \right ) / \left ( S_e(E) + S_n(E) \right )$, where factor 0.3 is chosen to be small and non-zero. The quenching correction, $q$, which is about 25% at 100 keV and 3% at 900 keV [@srim; @Hitachi:2008kf], is used in the calculation of light output for fluorine recoils. The range of the recoil track is determined as the maximum distance between the pixels in the cluster. Recoils are defined to have at least 6 CCD bins that are not touching the boundary of the CCD view field. We require a ratio of principal moments of inertia greater than 5, which imposes a minimum energy cut of around 100 keV on nuclear recoils. Discharge events are removed with a cut on the maximum light per event, and remaining spot-like events are removed with the cut on the ration of principal moments. A plot of energy versus range of simulated events and data is shown in Figure \[fg::energy vs range\] for recoil candidates that have reconstructed energy above 100 keV. The simulation is based on cross sections found in a nuclear scattering library [@endf] and fluorine ion propagation determined from the SRIM [@srim].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Range (top left), skewness (top right), and cosine of 2D recoil angle (bottom left) vs. reconstructed energy for nuclear recoil candidates in a $^{252}$Cf exposure at 75 Torr. Black points are data, the box-histogram is simulation. Signed distribution of the cosine of 2D recoil angle (bottom right), with data and simulation normalized to the same area. \[fg::energy vs range\]](run00383-00386_energy_vs_range.pdf "fig:"){width="6.5cm"} ![Range (top left), skewness (top right), and cosine of 2D recoil angle (bottom left) vs. reconstructed energy for nuclear recoil candidates in a $^{252}$Cf exposure at 75 Torr. Black points are data, the box-histogram is simulation. Signed distribution of the cosine of 2D recoil angle (bottom right), with data and simulation normalized to the same area. \[fg::energy vs range\]](run00383-00386_energy_vs_skewness.pdf "fig:"){width="6.5cm"}
![Range (top left), skewness (top right), and cosine of 2D recoil angle (bottom left) vs. reconstructed energy for nuclear recoil candidates in a $^{252}$Cf exposure at 75 Torr. Black points are data, the box-histogram is simulation. Signed distribution of the cosine of 2D recoil angle (bottom right), with data and simulation normalized to the same area. \[fg::energy vs range\]](run00383-00386_energy_vs_cosRecoil.pdf "fig:"){width="6.5cm"} ![Range (top left), skewness (top right), and cosine of 2D recoil angle (bottom left) vs. reconstructed energy for nuclear recoil candidates in a $^{252}$Cf exposure at 75 Torr. Black points are data, the box-histogram is simulation. Signed distribution of the cosine of 2D recoil angle (bottom right), with data and simulation normalized to the same area. \[fg::energy vs range\]](run00383-00386_cosRecoil.pdf "fig:"){width="6.5cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We show images of recoil tracks with highest energies in Figure \[fg::recoil images\]. In all images neutrons are incident from the right, along the $x$ axis. The nuclear recoils also propagate from the right, and we observe a decreasing light intensity as the recoils slow down in the 4 gas, as expected. We quantify the scintillation asymmetry along the track using skewness, which is described previously in more detail [@Dujmic:2007bd]. It is a dimensionless ratio of the third moment and the root-mean-square cubed of the light distribution along the track. Negative skewness is expected for recoils heading in the direction of the neutron beam. The top-right plot in Figure \[fg::energy vs range\] shows the skewness distribution for tracks in data and simulation.
The two pixels with maximum separation that are used in the range measurement are also used in the calculation of the recoil angle. Figure \[fg::Q and sigma angle\] shows the resolution for the recoil angle based on the simulation. The sense of direction is determined from the (skewness) measurement. We show for the first time, distributions for the signed cosine of the 2D recoil angle, $\cos\theta_{Recoil}$ vs. energy and signed cosine of the 2D recoil in Figure \[fg::energy vs range\].
We define a quality factor, $Q_{HT}$ for the asymmetry at given recoil energy, $E_R$ as $$Q_{HT}(E_R) = \varepsilon(E_R) \cdot \left (1-2~\omega(E_R) \right )^2$$ where the recoil reconstruction efficiency, $\varepsilon$ and the fraction of wrong assignments, $\omega$ are determined from simulation. The $Q_{HT}$ is the effective fraction of reconstructed recoils with information, and the error on the asymmetry scales as $1/\sqrt{Q_{HT}}$. Figure \[fg::Q and sigma angle\] shows the quality factor in the energy range that has been explored so far.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a\) 935 keV b\) 550 keV
![Scintillation profile of nuclear recoil candidates in a $^{252}$Cf exposure at 75 Torr. Neutrons are incident from the right, along the $x$ axis. \[fg::recoil images\]](run00383_ev1249_recoilCandidate.pdf "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![Scintillation profile of nuclear recoil candidates in a $^{252}$Cf exposure at 75 Torr. Neutrons are incident from the right, along the $x$ axis. \[fg::recoil images\]](run00384_ev0239_recoilCandidate.pdf "fig:"){width="6cm"}
a\) 530 keV b\) 475 keV
![Scintillation profile of nuclear recoil candidates in a $^{252}$Cf exposure at 75 Torr. Neutrons are incident from the right, along the $x$ axis. \[fg::recoil images\]](run00383_ev0763_recoilCandidate.pdf "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![Scintillation profile of nuclear recoil candidates in a $^{252}$Cf exposure at 75 Torr. Neutrons are incident from the right, along the $x$ axis. \[fg::recoil images\]](run00384_ev1203_recoilCandidate.pdf "fig:"){width="6cm"}
c\) 365 keV d\) 313 keV
![Scintillation profile of nuclear recoil candidates in a $^{252}$Cf exposure at 75 Torr. Neutrons are incident from the right, along the $x$ axis. \[fg::recoil images\]](run00383_ev0419_recoilCandidate.pdf "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![Scintillation profile of nuclear recoil candidates in a $^{252}$Cf exposure at 75 Torr. Neutrons are incident from the right, along the $x$ axis. \[fg::recoil images\]](run00386_ev1462_recoilCandidate.pdf "fig:"){width="6cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Quality factor for the measurement vs. reconstructed energy (top), and 2D angular resolution (bottom) based on simulation for neutron scattering experiment. \[fg::Q and sigma angle\]](mcrun_00057_Q.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}
![Quality factor for the measurement vs. reconstructed energy (top), and 2D angular resolution (bottom) based on simulation for neutron scattering experiment. \[fg::Q and sigma angle\]](mcrun_00057_sigmaAngle.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion and outlook {#sec::conclusion}
======================
Directional detection of dark matter requires large detector volumes with fine granularities. TPC modules filled with low-pressure 4 gas can provide directionality and directional sense, in particular for spin-dependent dark matter searches. We have demonstrated three possibilities for charge-amplification that allow directional detection and determination. In all three cases the gain is improved by more than an order of magnitude compared to the previous MWPC design [@Dujmic:2007bd]. This results in improvement in the discrimination due to the larger gain, 2D detection of recoil images, and reduced pressure from 200 to 75 Torr, allowing for longer recoil tracks. We estimate the sensitivity for the WIMP detection using standard assumptions about the dark matter halo [@Lewin:1995rx]. Cross-section limits for spin-dependent WIMP scattering on proton are shown in Figure \[fg::WIMP\]. We can improve current experimental limits [@sd-exp] with approximately $0.1~\rm{kg}\cdot\rm{y}$ of 4 exposure, and test MSSM models [@Ellis:2000jd] with approximately $100~\rm{kg}\cdot\rm{y}$. In both cases we assumed operation in an underground laboratory with a neutron-induced background rate of $0.01~\rm{events/(keV}\cdot\rm{kg}\cdot{y})$ [@Mei:2005gm], uncorrelated with Cygnus direction, and a 50 keV recoil-energy threshold. We plan to pursue these technologies and construct a cubic-meter module that will be a basic building block of a ton-scale detector.
![Estimated sensitivity (90% C.L.) for spin-dependent WIMP scattering with a mesh detector. We expect that MSSM models can be tested with approximately $100~\rm{kg}\cdot\rm{y}$ of target mass-exposure in an underground laboratory. \[fg::WIMP\]](WIMP_limit.pdf){width="10cm"}
Acknowledgments
===============
We wish to thank the Office of Environment, Health & Safety at MIT for supplying radioactive sources, the Laboratory for Nuclear Science MIT for technical support. We thank Akira Hitachi and Jeff Filippini for helpful discussions, and Gus Zhang of Prochema for providing samples of ITO-mylar foils. We acknowledge support by the Advanced Detector Research Program of the U.S. Department of Energy (contract number 6916448), the Reed Award Program, the Ferry Fund, the Pappalardo Fellowship program, the MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, and the Physics Department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[00]{}
R. J. Gaitskell, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**54**]{}, 315 (2004). R. Bernabei [*et al.*]{} \[DAMA Collaboration\], arXiv:0804.2741 \[astro-ph\]. Recent limits on spin-independent WIMP interactions: J. Angle [*et al.*]{} \[XENON Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 021303 (2008); Z. Ahmed [*et al.*]{} \[CDMS Collaboration\], arXiv:0802.3530 \[astro-ph\].
Recent limits on spin-dependent WIMP interactions: G. J. Alner [*et al.*]{} \[UK Dark Matter Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**616**]{}, 17 (2005); E. Behnke [*et al.*]{} \[COUPP Collaboration\], Science [**319**]{}, 933 (2008); H. S. Lee. [*et al.*]{} \[KIMS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 091301 (2007).
D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 1353 (1988); A. M. Green and B. Morgan, Astropart. Phys. [**27**]{}, 142 (2007); O. Host and S. H. Hansen, JCAP [**0706**]{}, 016 (2007); M. S. Alenazi and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 043532 (2008).
S. Burgos [*et al.*]{}, Astropart. Phys. [**28**]{}, 409 (2007). P. K. Lightfoot, N. J. C. Spooner, T. B. Lawson, S. Aune and I. Giomataris, Astropart. Phys. [**27**]{}, 490 (2007); D. P. Snowden-Ifft, C. J. Martoff and J. M. Burwell, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 101301 (2000); C. J. Martoff, D. P. Snowden-Ifft, T. Ohnuki, N. Spooner and M. Lehner, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**440**]{}, 355 (2000).
K. Miuchi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**654**]{}, 58 (2007); T. Tanimori, H. Kubo, K. Miuchi, T. Nagayoshi, R. Orito, A. Takada and A. Takeda, Phys. Lett. B [**578**]{}, 241 (2004). D. Santos, O. Guillaudin, T. Lamy, F. Mayet and E. Moulin, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**65**]{}, 012012 (2007).
D. Dujmic [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**584**]{}, 327 (2008).
P. G. Datskos, J. G. Carter, and L. G. Christophorou, J. Appl. Phys. 71 (1982) 15.
A. Pansky, A. Breskin, A. Buzulutskov, R. Chechik, V. Elkind and J. Va’vra, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**354**]{}, 262 (1995).
A. Kaboth [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0803.2195 \[physics.ins-det\].
G. Charpak, R. Bouclier, T. Bressani, J. Favier and C. Zupancic, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. [**62**]{}, 262 (1968).
F. Angelini, R. Bellazzini, A. Brez, M. M. Massai, R. Raffo, G. Spandre and M. A. Spezziga, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**335**]{}, 69 (1993); Y. Giomataris, P. Rebourgeard, J. P. Robert and G. Charpak, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**376**]{}, 29 (1996); F. Sauli, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**386**]{}, 531 (1997).
F.A.F. Fraga et al.. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 471 (2001), p. 125
A. Sharma, SLAC-JOURNAL-ICFA [**16**]{} (1998) 3.
J. F. Ziegler, J. P. Biersack, U. Littmark, Pergamon Press, New York, 1985. The code is available online at www.SRIM.org.
A. Hitachi, arXiv:0804.1191.
M.B. Chadwick [*et al.*]{}, Nuclear Data Sheets 107 (2006), 2931-3060
D. Mei and A. Hime, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 053004 (2006). J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, Astropart. Phys. [**6**]{}, 87 (1996).
J. R. Ellis, A. Ferstl and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 065016 (2001).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Fast radio bursts (FRB) are millisecond-duration radio pulses with apparent extragalactic origins. All but two of the FRBs have been discovered using the Parkes dish which employs multiple beams formed by an array of feed horns on its focal plane. In this paper, we show that (i) the preponderance of multiple-beam detections, and (ii) the detection rates for varying dish diameters, can be used to infer the index $\alpha$ of the cumulative fluence distribution function (the log$N$-log$F$ function: $\alpha=1.5$ for a non-evolving population in a Euclidean universe). If all detected FRBs arise from a single progenitor population, multiple-beam FRB detection rates from the Parkes telescope yield the constraint $0.52<\alpha<1.0$ with $90$% confidence. Searches at other facilities with different dish sizes refine the constraint to $0.66<\alpha<0.96$. Our results favor FRB searches with smaller dishes, because for $\alpha<1$, the gain in field-of-view for a smaller dish is more important than the reduction in sensitivity. Further, our results suggest that (i) FRBs are not standard candles, and (ii) the distribution of distances to the detected FRBs is weighted towards larger distances. If FRBs are extragalactic, these results are consistent with a cosmological population, which would make FRBs excellent probes of the baryonic content and geometry of the Universe.'
author:
- 'Vedantham H. K., Ravi V., Hallinan G.'
- 'Shannon R. M.'
bibliography:
- 'mombib.bib'
title: The Fluence and Distance Distributions of Fast Radio Bursts
---
Introduction
============
Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are millisecond-duration, intense ($\sim 1$ Jy ms) radio bursts that have dispersion measures (DMs) well in excess of expected Milky Way contributions [@lorimer2007; @thornton2013; @ravi2015; @champ2015; @petroff2015; @spitler2014; @masui2015a; @keane2016]. Although the progenitors of FRBs and the associated emission mechanisms are interesting in their own right, the apparent extragalactic origin, if true, can be used to probe the intergalactic medium and the geometry of the Universe [@mcquinn2014; @masui2015b; @deng2014; @zheng2014; @kulkarni2014]. All reported bursts have been detected using single-dish telescopes that lack the angular resolution to obtain meaningful localizations, or even conclusively rule out a near-field or atmospheric origin. However (i) the strong adherence of FRBs to the dispersion and scattering laws expected from propagation through cold, turbulent plasma, and (ii) the measurement of Faraday rotation measure [@masui2015a] consistent with a magnetic field strength many orders of magnitude weaker than the terrestrial field, and (iii) detection of repeating bursts with a consistent sky poistion and dispersion measure [@spitler2016], all favor an astrophysical origin.\
An important attribute of any astrophysical population is the integral source counts, or the log$N$-log$F$ curve, which is the number of sources expected to have an observed fluence, ${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$, above a certain threshold. We model the log$N$-log$F$ curve as a power law with index $\alpha$: $$\label{eqn:lnls}
\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}) \propto {\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}^{-\alpha}.$$ where $\alpha=1.5$ for a non-evolving population in Euclidean space. We show that for far-field events, the fraction of events detected in multiple focal-plane feeds on a given telescope is mostly determined by the index, $\alpha$. In particular, source counts with flatter slopes (values of $\alpha$ closer to zero) yield a relative abundance of brighter events which results in an increased propensity for multiple-beam detections. The principal motivation for this paper is a surprising large fraction (2 out of 16) of multiple-beam FRB detections with the Parkes multi-beam receiver. We use simulated far-field beam models of the Parkes multibeam receiver and the observed multiple-beam detection rates to constrain the value of $\alpha$ (Section \[sec:alpha\_mbs\]). While doing so, we fully account for possible detections of bright events beyond the nominal beam Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM), and also ensure that our results are robust to survey incompleteness at low fluence levels.\
A flatter log$N$-log$F$ distribution that yields many bright events also makes telescope sensitivity less important than the field of view, i.e., a smaller dish may discover more FRBs than a larger one! Many authors have reported (non-)detections from telescopes with varying dish sizes [@siemion2012; @spitler2014; @saint2014; @law2015] at L-band (around 1.4 GHz). The common frequency band used by these surveys allows us to compute their respective detection rates in a way that is largely independent of the inherent spectral or scattering properties of FRBs. We refine our Parkes multi-beam constraints with independent bounds on the value of $\alpha$ from such (non-)detections (Section \[sec:alpha\_mt\]).\
Finally, we discuss the implications of our bounds on $\alpha$ (Section \[sec:disc\]). The inconsistency we find of the FRB log$N$-log$F$ distribution with a non-evolving source population in Euclidean space has some important implications. To explore these implications, we consider a simple scenario where the FRB population cuts-off at some minimum and/or maximum distance. We find that FRB detection rates are either unbiased with or weighted towards larger distances to the progenitors. This bodes well for the use of FRBs as cosmological probes, even with telescopes with modest collecting areas.
Multiple-beam detection statistics {#sec:mbs}
==================================
Beam-pattern calculations
-------------------------
We now describe the simulation set-up used to compute the beam patterns for a dish with multiple feed-horns in the focal plane. Our simulations do not assume a far-field geometry; the telescope-source distance is left as an input parameter. We have done so to facilitate future studies of terrestrial and atmospheric transients [@dolin2014; @katz_perytons; @danish2014], which may be of great interest to atmospheric physicists, and at the very least, form a source of foreground ‘confusion’ to the astronomer.[^1]\
The multi-beam receivers on the Parkes [@smith1996] and Arecibo [@cordes2006] dishes have a central feed horn surrounded by an ‘inner-ring’ of 6 feed horns. Parkes has an ‘outer-ring’ of 6 additional feed horns. To compute the response of a feed-horn to a point-like radiator of spherical waves, we first compute the electric field on the dish surface. We employ Huygens’ principle and treat each segment of the dish as a secondary spherical radiator. We then sum up the electric fields of the ensuing spherical waves at each point on the focal plane. We finally average the aggregate electric field on the focal plane, over the aperture of the horn. The final averaging step gives us the response of the fundamental TE$_{11}$ mode of the horn to unpolarized radiation. By varying the position of the radiator, we can evaluate the response of any feed-horn to near and far field events occurring at varying angular positions with respect to the telescope’s boresight. We do not consider the response to polarized signals in this paper.\
Fig. \[fig:beams\] shows a set of beams for the central feed (top row) and an inner-ring feed. The columns represent the near-field response at varying distances $D$ from the dish, indexed here in terms of the Fresnel number[^2] $n_{\rm f} = \frac{d^2}{4\lambda D}$, where $d$ is the dish diameter, and $\lambda$ is the wavelength. The $n_{\rm f}=0.25$ beams are representative of the far-field response to good accuracy, and for increasing $n_{\rm f}$ (decreasing $D$) the beams get progressively defocused. The far-field FWHM of the central beam in our simulation for the Parkes dish is about 14’.5 at 1.4 GHz which agrees with the quoted value of 14’4 to better than 5%. The first coma lobes for the inner and outer ring feeds in our simulation are respectively at 18 dB and 13.85dB below the peak gain values. The departure of the coma lobe levels from quotes values of 17 dB and 14 dB is less than $20$% and $5$% respectively.\
{width="\linewidth"}
Probability of multiple-beam events {#sec:pmbe}
-----------------------------------
The probability of multiple-beam events depends on the number of neighboring beams at different points on the focal plane. Anticipating this dependence, we partition the sky into as many regions as the number of beams. Each region then has a ‘principal’ beam which will register the highest flux-density among all beams were a burst to occur in that sky region. The burst may be additionally detected in one or more auxiliary beams. We consider integral source counts of the form in Equation \[eqn:lnls\]. We assume that the same detection threshold is applied to the data streams from all beams. We absorb any inter-beam variation in system temperature and aperture efficiency into the antenna-beam gain (see Appendix A1). The probability of detecting a burst coming from a solid-angle element $\delta^2{{\bm l}}$ at an angular offset ${{\bm l}}$ from a beam’s boresight is then $\mathcal{P}({{\bm l}}) \propto g^{\alpha}({{\bm l}})\delta^2{{\bm l}}$, where $g({{\bm l}})$ is the antenna beam gain towards direction ${{\bm l}}$.\
To compute the probabilities of multiple-beam events, we use the following algorithm.
1. For each pixel ${{\bm l}}$ in the sky, sort the gains of the beams towards that pixel in decreasing order: $[g_1({{\bm l}}),\, g_2({{\bm l}}),\, ...]$ etc. Here, $i=1$ is the principal beam by construction.
2. The threshold fluence for detection in the $i^{\rm th}$ beam is proportional to $g^{-1}_i({{\bm l}}) $. The probability of a $n$-beam detection at pixel ${{\bm l}}$ is thus $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}(n,{{\bm l}}) \propto & g^{\alpha}_n({{\bm l}})-g^{\alpha}_{n+1}({{\bm l}});& n<n_{\rm beam}\nonumber \\
& g^{\alpha}_{n};& n=n_{\rm beam}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{\rm beam}$ is the number of feed-horns.
3. Marginalize over ${{\bm l}}$ to get $\mathcal{P}(n) = \int {\rm d}^2{{\bm l}}\mathcal{P}(n,{{\bm l}})$. We set the normalization to get $\sum_{i=1}^{i=n_{\rm beam}}\int {\rm d}^2{{\bm l}}\mathcal{P}(i,{{\bm l}}) = 1$, such that all probabilities computed are conditional upon a burst being detected.
4. The probabilities for cases where a particular beam is chosen [*a priori*]{} as the principal beam can be computed by only integrating over the sky pixels that belong to the beam’s partition.
In Table 1, we present the probabilities for Parkes multiple-beam detections for far-field events. These probabilities were computed using frequency-averaged simulated beam patterns over the range 1182–1525 MHz. Corresponding probabilities for near-field events are given in the Appendix (Fig. \[fig:prob13\]).
\[tab:mbp\]
[llll]{} Feed,$\alpha$ & 1-beam & 2-beam & 3-beam\
\
Central, $\alpha=0.5$ & 0.7839 & 0.0452 & 0.0476\
Central, $\alpha=1.0$ & 0.9608 & 0.0146 & 0.0116\
Central, $\alpha=1.5$ & 0.9935 & 0.0033 & 0.0019\
Inner, $\alpha=0.5$ & 0.7506 & 0.1074 & 0.0530\
Inner, $\alpha=1.0$ & 0.9542 & 0.0311 & 0.0099\
Inner, $\alpha=1.5$ & 0.9918 & 0.0065 & 0.0014\
Outer, $\alpha=0.5$ & 0.8409 & 0.0155 & 0.0155\
Outer, $\alpha=1.0$ & 0.9775 & 0.0194 & 0.0014\
Outer, $\alpha=1.5$ & 0.9954 & 0.0044 & 0.0001\
\
As seen from Table 1, the expected number of multiple-beam detections from a non-evolving population in Euclidean space ($\alpha=1.5$) is very low: $\lesssim$ 1 in 300, 150 and 230 events for central inner-ring and outer-ring feeds as their principal beams respectively (95% confidence). The Parkes beams are spaced further apart than their half-power widths which leads to such low probabilities for multiple-beam detections. These numbers are in stark contrast with 2 in 16 events seen at Parkes in two or more beams.
Parkes multi-beam constraints on $\bm{\alpha}$ {#sec:alpha_mbs}
==============================================
We will now compute the value of $\alpha$ that best satisfies the rate of multiple-beam detections among FRBs discovered at the Parkes telescope. If the probability of detecting a burst in $i$ beams is $\mathcal{P}(i)$, then the probability of detecting $k$ bursts out of $n$ in $i$ beams is then given by the binomial distribution $$\mathcal{P}[k\textrm{ in }n;\, i\textrm{ beams}] = {n \choose k} \left[\mathcal{P}^k(i)\left(1-\mathcal{P}^{n-k}(i)\right)\right],$$ where $${n\choose k} = \frac{n!}{k! (n-k)!}$$ is the number of ways of picking $k$ unordered items from $n$ possibilities. In reality, the probability $\mathcal{P}(i)$ depends on the principal beam, since different feeds have different numbers and orientations of neighboring feeds. Accounting for this dependence is telescope specific. The computation for the FRBs detected at Parkes is given below.
All 15 published FRBs observed at Parkes are cataloged by @frbcat. Of these events, 14 were reported as single-beam detections[^3]; 2, 8, and 4 detections had their principal beam corresponding to the central, inner, and outer ring feeds respectively. One [@lorimer2007] was detected in 4 beams, with an inner-ring providing the principal detection. An additional burst (Ravi et al., in prep) was detected in two beams, again with an inner-ring principal beam. We defer an analysis of the probability of a given feed to be the principal beam to future work. In this paper, we take the principal beams for each event as given.
The aggregate probability of achieving these 16 Parkes detections is: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}(\textrm{parkes 16} | \alpha) &=& {16 \choose 8}\mathcal{P}^8_{\rm i}(1) \times {8 \choose 4}\mathcal{P}^4_{\rm o}(1)\nonumber \\
&& \times {4 \choose 2}\mathcal{P}^2_{\rm c}(1) \times \mathcal{P}_{\rm i}(4)\nonumber \\
&& \times \mathcal{P}_{\rm i}(2)\end{aligned}$$ where a dependence on $\alpha$ of all the probabilities on the right hand side is implicitly assumed for brevity, and the subscripts denote the position of the principal beam. We now assume that FRBs are all far-field events, i.e., they originate from $n_{\rm f}\lesssim 0.25$ or equivalently from distances $d\gtrsim 20$ km. The posterior probability distribution of the 16 Parkes detections for various values of $\alpha$ as $$\mathcal{P}(\alpha | \textrm{Parkes 16}) = \frac{\mathcal{P}(\textrm{Parkes 16} | \alpha) \mathcal{P}(\alpha)}{\mathcal{P}(\textrm{Parkes 16})}$$ Being agnostic about the FRB progenitors, we choose a flat prior on $\alpha$ in the (unconstraining) range $0.2<\alpha\leq1.8$, and by restricting ourselves to only models with variations on $\alpha$, we can evaluate the evidence in the denominator as $$\mathcal{P}(\textrm{Parkes 16}) = \sum_i \mathcal{P}(\textrm{Parkes 16} | \alpha_i)\mathcal{P}(\alpha_i).$$ Fig. \[fig:alpha\_modsel\] shows the posterior probability of $\alpha$ given the 16 Parkes detections. Very low and very high values of $\alpha$ are disfavored by the relative paucity and abundance respectively of multiple-beam detections. The 90% confidence bound on $\alpha$ is given by $0.52<\alpha <1.0$, which is significantly different from the value of $\alpha=1.5$ expected for a non-evolving population in Euclidean space. We reject $\alpha=1.5$ with $>99\%$ confidence.\
We have evaluated the robustness of our results against survey incompleteness at faint fluence levels where the bursts are predominantly expected to be single-beam events. [@keane2015] studied survey incompleteness effects in simulations and found that up to 22% of the bursts can be missed for a Euclidean distribution of FRB fluences ($\alpha=1.5$). This corresponds to 5 missed detections. We recomputed the bounds on $\alpha$ for a hypothetical scenario where 5 more FRBs are discovered at Parkes. We assume that all 5 are single-beam detections, 3 of which are detected in an inner ring beam and the remaining 2 in an outer ring beam. The constraint on $\alpha$ for this hypothetical scenario is $0.58<\alpha<1.06$ at 90% confidence, which clearly demonstrates the robustness and unbiased nature of our bounds on $\alpha$ against survey incompleteness. In addition, our results are robust to variations in intrinsic burst properties since they do not affect the *fraction* of multiple-beam detections as considered here.\
We finally note that our bounds are, as expected, highly sensitive to the number of multiple-beam detections. For instance, dropping the 4-beam event FRB010724 [@lorimer2007] from our calculations revises the constraint to $0.88<\alpha<1.52$. This is still marginally inconsistent with a Euclidean population.
![Posterior probability distribution of $\alpha$ given the 16 Parkes detections (solid red curve), conditional upon FRBs being far-field events with integral source counts given by $N(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}) \propto {\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}^{-\alpha}$. The green dashed curve is the corresponding cumulative distribution function, and the blue dotted line is its complement. The posterior bounds on $\alpha$ are $0.52<\alpha<1.0$ at 90% confidence. \[fig:alpha\_modsel\]](alpha_modelsel.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Multi-telescope detection statistics {#sec:alpha_mt}
====================================
Several telescopes have been searching for FRBs, each with their own sensitivities and survey volumes. The number of expected FRB detections from a given telescope depends on the nature of the source count distribution (log$N$-log$F$ curve) for FRBs. For instance, larger dishes have more collecting area but narrower fields of view. They are thus best suited to detecting faint events, and are favored by a steep log$N$-log$F$ slope that implies a large number of faint objects. Shallower log$N$-log$F$ distributions, on the other hand, yield large numbers of bright events which makes the telescope sensitivity less relevant than the field of view in achieving greater detection rates. Hence, detections, or the lack thereof, from telescopes with varying sensitivities and fields of view carry important information about that the nature of FRB source counts. Motivated by this, we will now derive the posterior probability distribution for the source-count parameter $\alpha$.
[llllllllll]{}\
Name & $d$ \[m\] & $T_{\rm sys}$ \[K\] & $\eta_{\rm eff}$ & $\Delta\nu$ \[MHz\] & $\tau_{\rm ds} [ms]$ & $N_{\rm ant}$ & $N_{\rm day}$ & $\zeta$ & Reference\
\
ATA & 6.0 & 92 & 0.6 & 210 & 3.9 & 1.0 & 16.475 & 5.5 & @siemion2012\
ARC & 220.0 & 50 & 0.6 & 322.6 & 0.8 & 1.0 & 82.6 & 7.0 & @spitler2014\
VLA & 25.0 & 50 & 0.6 & 256 & 2.4 & 27 & 6.917 & 7.5 & @law2015\
AS1 & 0.1 & 850 & 1.0 & 590 & 2.7 & 1 & 285 & 6.0 & @saint2014\
AS2 & 1.2 & 850 & 1.0 & 590 & 2.7 & 1 & 591.7 & 6.0 & @saint2014\
\[tab:survey\_params\]
Although the Parkes constraint on $\alpha$ was independent of the normalization of the source counts, this is not the case here. We assume the following integral source-counts in this section [@law2015]: $$\label{eqn:eventrate}
\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}) = \frac{1.2\times 10^4}{4\pi}\left(\frac{{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}}{1.8\textrm{~Jy~ms}}\right)^{-\alpha}\textrm{sr$^{-1}$day$^{-1}$},$$ and consider the sensitivity of our results to variations in the source-count normalization in Section 4.2. Table 2 summarizes the various telescope parameters for the different published results we consider here; for details, see Appendix A2. To design a common algorithm to compute the necessary statistics, we have absorbed telescope efficiency parameters into the system temperature, $T_{\rm sys}$, so that the final thermal noise per time-integration in our formalism matches the values quoted.\
Detection rates
---------------
We assume that FRBs have a mean duration of $\tau_{\rm FRB}=3$ ms, a mean DM of 780 pc cm$^{-3}$ [@law2015], and no correlation between the two quantities. If $\Delta\nu$ is the bandwidth, $d$ is the aperture diameter, $\eta$ is the aperture efficiency, and $\tau_{\rm int}$ is the spectrometer integration time, then the thermal noise flux-density in a single time-integration for an incoherent summation of signals from $N_{\rm ant}$ antennas is $$\label{eqn:th_noise}
S_{\rm th} = \frac{8k_{\rm B}T_{\rm sys}}{\eta\pi d^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_{\rm ant}\Delta\nu\tau_{\rm int}}},$$ where $k_{\rm B}$ is Boltzmann’s constant. The threshold for detection depends on the amount of dispersion smearing, the temporal width of the burst with respect to the integration time, and the threshold used for detection (number of $\sigma$ above thermal noise) $\zeta$. The fluence threshold for detection can then be written as $$\mathcal{F}_{\rm det}(\theta) = S_{\rm th}\tau_{\rm FRB} \,\frac{\zeta}{r_1r_2g(\theta)}$$ where $g(\theta)$ is the power gain of the telescope aperture for an angular offset $\theta$ from boresight. The factors $r_1$, and $r_2$ approximately account for dilution of FRB fluence due to time integration, and SNR boost due to the number of independent epochs combined during a detection. They are respectively given by $$r_1 = \left[\frac{\mathcal{M}(\tau_{\rm FRB},\tau_{\rm ds})}{\tau_{\rm int}} \right]_0^1$$ $$r_2 = \left[\sqrt{\frac{\mathcal{M}(\tau_{\rm FRB},\tau_{\rm ds})}{\tau_{\rm int}}} \right]_1^\infty$$ where the subscript and superscript in $\left[. \right]_a^b$ represent the lower and upper bounds for the values within the square brackets, and the function $\mathcal{M}(.)$ yields the largest of its arguments. If a survey observes for $N_{\rm day}$ days, then the expected number of detections is given by. $$\label{eqn:ndet}
N_{\rm det} = N_{\rm day}\int {\rm d}\theta 2\pi\sin\theta\, \mathcal{N}\left( > \mathcal{F}_{\rm det}(\theta)\right)$$ where $2\pi\sin\theta{\rm d}\theta$ is the differential solid angle. Finally, while computing the multi-telescope detection statistics, we will assume that $g(\theta)$ is given by the Airy function: $$\label{eqn:airy}
g(\theta) = \left(2\,\frac{J_1(\pi d/\lambda \sin\theta)}{\pi d/\lambda\sin\theta} \right)^2.$$ As all surveys that we consider operate in approximately the same frequency bands, the effects of frequency-dependent scatter-broadening are absorbed into the assumed burst width.
### Constraints on $\alpha$
We now use Equation \[eqn:eventrate\] along with the survey parameters mentioned in Table 2 to constrain $\alpha$. While doing so, we are invariably extrapolating the source counts computed from one fluence regime to another since different telescopes have different detection thresholds. We must thus carefully consider possible turn-overs or cut-offs in the source population towards large fluences.\
As will be shown in Section \[subsec:optimum\_dish\], for $\alpha<1$, a survey with a smaller dish (larger FOV) will detect more events as compared to one with a larger dish. Since the Parkes multiple-beam detection rates imply $\alpha\lesssim 1$, it is important to consider the (non-)detections from the ASSERT survey [@saint2014], which among published rate-limits at L-band has both the largest exposure time and the smallest dish. Since ASSERT found no FRBs, we make the reasonable assumption that there is a maximum FRB fluence cut-off at about $50$kJyms— consistent with the sensitivity of the ASSERT program. In addition, the inferred fluence of the brightest event observed thus far sets a lower limit on the maximum cut-off fluence. Based on modeling of the ‘Lorimer burst’ event at Parkes [@lorimer2007], the intrinsic fluence of the brightest Parkes burst is expected to be, at most, about 500 Jy ms (Ravi et al., in prep.). We thus marginalize all probabilities derived in this section over the cut-off fluence while assuming a uniform prior between 0.5 and 50 kJy ms.\
Fig. \[fig:alpha\_bounds\_multitel\] shows the probability density function of $\alpha$ evaluated using Equation \[eqn:ndet\] for the various surveys whose parameters are given in Table 2. In doing so we have assumed Poisson statistics for the arrival of FRBs, i.e if the expected numbers of events for a survey is $N_{\rm det}$, then the probability of discovering $N_{\rm event}$ events in a survey is $$\mathcal{P}(N_{\rm event},N_{\rm det}) = \frac{N_{\rm det}^{N_{\rm event}} {\rm e}^{-N_{\rm det}}}{N_{\rm event}!}.$$ As seen in the Figure, the strongest constraints on $\alpha$ come from the Arecibo telescope, owing to its excellent sensitivity afforded by the large collecting area. For very flat log$N$-log$F$ distributions ($\alpha\lesssim 0.5$), we expect a large number of bright events which will be detected even in the sidelobes of the Arecibo’s beam pattern. This partially offsets the small FOV of the Arecibo dish. Steeper log$N$-log$F$ distributions ($\alpha\gtrsim 1.1$) simply yield a large number of faint events which will cross Arecibo’s detection threshold around boresight. The VLA also has a large collecting area, but since its FRB search is only restricted to the FWHM of the primary beam, the VLA non-detections cannot rule out low values of $\alpha$. The Allen Telescope Array (ATA) on the other hand is only sensitive to relatively bright events that occur close to its boresight, and the non-detections from the ATA can only rule out very flat ($\alpha\lesssim 0.6$) log$N$-log$F$ distributions.\
Since the surveys are independent trials, we multiply their respective probabilities for (non-)detections to get the aggregate probability. The posterior probability of $\alpha$ is then computed by assuming an evidence that normalizes the integral of the the aggregate probability to unity. The multi-telescope constraints on $\alpha$ thus obtained are $0.67<\alpha<1.07$ at 90% confidence, which is in excellent agreement with the Parkes multiple-beam detection constraint. Multiplying the Parkes multiple-beam and multi-telescope probability density functions, we obtained our final constraint of $0.66<\alpha<0.96$ at 90% confidence.\
![Bounds on log$N$-log$F$ parameter $\alpha$ imposed by detections and non-detections at other facilities with different aperture diameters and sensitivities: $0.67<\alpha<1.07$ (90% confidence). The probabilities have been marginalized with respect to the maximum cutoff fluence $\mathcal{F}_{\rm cut}$.\[fig:alpha\_bounds\_multitel\]](alpha_bound_multitel.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Some caveats
------------
We caution the reader that the multi-telescope constraints may suffer from certain systematic errors. As pointed out by @law2015, the source count assumed here (Equation \[eqn:eventrate\]) has been estimated based on average burst properties such as DMs, intrinsic widths, scattering timescales etc. The distribution functions for these properties are not well known. In addition, the constraints on $\alpha$ are somewhat degenerate with the over-all normalization of the all-sky FRB rate[@oppermann2016]. To gauge the sensitivity of our constraints to such effects in a simplified manner, we have recomputed the confidence interval for $\alpha$ for a selection of cases. We have assumed the fiducial values for DM, $\tau_{\rm FRB}$ and the normalization of FRB source counts of 780 pc cm$^{-3}$, 3 ms, and $1.2\times 10^4$ events above a fluence of 1.8 Jy ms per day respectively. In each case, we vary one of these three parameters by 100% while fixing the other to their fiducial values.
- Consider the number of events per day above a fluence of 1.8 Jy ms to be $0.6\times10^4$ or $2.4\times 10^4$ (see Equation \[eqn:eventrate\]). The respective constraints on $\alpha$ are $0.63<\alpha<1.16$ and $0.71<\alpha<0.99$.
- Consider the mean FRB width to be $\tau_{\rm FRB}=1.5$ ms or $\tau_{\rm FRB}=6$ ms. The respective constraints on $\alpha$ are $0.66<\alpha<0.99$ and $0.68<\alpha<1.15$.
- Consider the mean DM to be 375 pc cm$^{-3}$ or 1600 pc cm$^{-3}$. The respective constraints on $\alpha$ are $0.68<\alpha<1.07$ and $0.66<\alpha<1.06$.
Hence, our constraints are robust to even $100$% changes in the assumed FRB-rate normalization, mean FRB width and DM. We do however note that a drastic reduction in the all sky FRB rate by a factor of $\sim 10$ yields values of $\alpha$ that are roughly consistent with a Euclidean population.\
In addition to burst properties, there may be systematic effects due to practical choices in experimental design and detection algorithms. The Arecibo search for FRBs for instance, was limited to low Galactic latitudes where observed FRB fluences may be significantly lower due to scintillation-induced biases [@macquart2015].[^4] In addition, since the Arecibo FRB search was limited to DM less than 2000 pc cm$^{-3}$ [@spitler2014], weaker events that preferentially originate from larger distances may have been overlooked. Finally, as single-burst detection techniques are evolving, different surveys (even on the same telescope) may be employing algorithms with different missed-detection and false-positive rates which makes it difficult to bring their (non-)detections into a common probabilistic framework. Nevertheless, the robustness of our constraints on $\alpha$ against large variations in the event-rate normalization and mean FRB characteristics lends credibility to our results despite these misgivings.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
The Parkes multiple-beam detection rates and the non-detections at other facilities strongly favor an FRB distribution that has a remarkably flat log$N$-log$F$ distribution: $0.66<\alpha<0.96$ (90% confidence) as compared to that expected in a Euclidean Universe $(\alpha=1.5$) with a non-evolving source population. This has implications both for design of future surveys and for theories regarding the progenitor population. We discuss these aspects below.
Implications for survey design {#subsec:optimum_dish}
------------------------------
{width="\linewidth"}
We will now compute the observed number of FRB-like events for a hypothetical array as a function of dish size (single pixel receiver). Our aim is to determine the ‘optimum’ dish-diameter to maximize the number of detections. Fig. \[fig:eventrate\] shows the number of detections per month computed using Equations \[eqn:th\_noise\] to \[eqn:airy\] for a (hypothetical) array of $10$ dishes whose outputs are incoherently combined to detect FRBs. We assume the following parameters: $T_{\rm sys}=60$ K, $\eta=0.6$, $\nu=1.5$ GHz, $\Delta\nu=500$ MHz, $\tau_{\rm ds}=1$ ms, $\tau_{\rm FRB} = 3$ ms, $\zeta=8$. The different curves are for different values of the log$N$-log$F$ slope parameter $\alpha$. We assume that the source-counts cut-off at fluence $\mathcal{F}_{\rm max}$, and that the source-count normalization is given by Equation \[eqn:eventrate\].\
Clearly, $\alpha=1$ is the dividing line between the FOV and sensitivity domains: $\alpha>1$ yields a paucity of bright events and larger, more sensitive telescopes win. Brighter events are relatively plentiful for $\alpha<1$ which favors smaller dishes with larger fields of view. If we conservatively assume that $\alpha=1.0$ and that the maximum cut-off fluence is 500 Jy ms (see Fig. \[fig:eventrate\]), then the optimal dish diameter is $d\sim 6$ m— a value at which the $\alpha=1$ line begins to saturate. Smaller dishes may be insensitive to a large number of events, and significantly larger dishes will have excluded large numbers of events due to their narrow fields of view. For the most likely range of $0.66<\alpha<0.96$, we find that dish diameters of between 1m and 6m are preferred, and that the detection rate could be well over 10 events per month. Hence, we conclude that given the constraints on $\alpha$ presented here, a modest array ($N_{\rm ant}\sim 10$) of small dishes of about $d\sim 6$ m will detect at least $\gtrsim 1$ FRB per month. Future FRB surveys may take advantage of this fact and design for a system that detects events using the incoherent sum of the dish spectra, and dump raw voltages (written in real time to a circular buffer) for interferometric localization post-detection. The ATA with its 6-meter dishes may benefit greatly from the implementation of such a detection and localization strategy.\
![Improvement in the detection rate expected with the subarray-mode at the VLA for 3 subarrays (broken red line) and 8 subarrays (solid blue line) as a function of the log$N$-log$F$ parameter $\alpha$. The improvement is computed over the observation mode used by @law2015 ($\Delta\nu=256$ MHz, $\tau_{\rm int}=5$ ms). The thin vertical lines represent the 90% confidence bounds of $0.66<\alpha<0.96$ from this work. We have assumed that the reduction in the total number of baselines due to subarraying will allow for a larger bandwidth $\Delta\nu=750$ MHz, and a smaller integration interval of $\tau_{\rm int}=2.5$ ms.\[fig:vla\_subarrays\]](improvement.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
We next consider the FRB discovery and localization program at the VLA [@law2015] as a ‘case in point’ for how our bounds on $\alpha$ can have a significant impact on survey design. Consider partitioning the 27 antennas of the VLA into ‘subarrays’— groups of antennas that operate as independent interferometers, each with a unique pointing center.[^5] Subarraying is essentially a FoV–sensitivity trade-off, and since we find $\alpha<1$ with 95% confidence, the expected number of detections improves with increasing number of subarrays. In addition, since the data rate of an interferometer with $N$ elements, scales as $N^2$, the data rate for $N_{\rm sub}$ subarrays scales as $N^{-1}_{\rm sub}$. This reduction in data rate opens up the possibility to employ larger bandwidths and shorter correlator integration-times further improving the sensitivity to detection. In Fig. \[fig:vla\_subarrays\], we compute the improvement in detection rates that we expect by using subarrays at the VLA. We have assumed that the reduced number of baselines will allow for an increased bandwidth of $\Delta\nu=750$ MHz and a reduced integration time $\tau_{\rm int}=2.5$ ms, as compared to the values of $\Delta\nu=256$ MHz, and $\tau_{\rm int}=5$ ms used by @law2015 [(no sub-arraying)]. We find that given our constraints on $\alpha$, detection rates with the VLA can be increased three-fold by using 8 subarrays.
Implications for FRB distances
------------------------------
### Euclidian-space calculation
First, our bounds on $\alpha$ strongly disfavor models where FRBs are standard candles, since in that case, the log$N$-log$F$ function will have a slope of $\alpha=1.5$ barring carefully contrived source population evolution with distance (see Appendix A3). Next, we consider cases where FRBs have an intrinsic burst energy distribution that is a power-law with index $\beta$, i.e $\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}) \propto {\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{-\beta}$ where ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$ is the intrinsic burst energy.[^6] Note that if $\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}})$ does not evolve with distance, then the observed fluence distribution follows the Euclidean values of $\alpha=1.5$ for any intrinsic energy distribution function $\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}})$. Considering $\beta$ and the distance evolution law as unrestricted, we can obtain a large range of values for $\alpha$, which we will not consider here, since we do not have good physical motivations to assume values for either of the factors. Instead, we will consider two limiting cases where there is a minimum and maximum cutoff distance (${R_{\rm min}}$ and ${R_{\rm max}}$) to FRBs respectively. We will further assume that the observed population is affected by such cut-offs, failing which, the observed fluence distribution will revert to a Euclidean value. That is, ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{\rm min}>4\pi{R_{\rm min}}^2{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$ and/or ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{\rm max}<4\pi{R_{\rm max}}^2{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$, where ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{\rm min}$ and ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{\rm max}$ are the minimum and maximum intrinsic energies of the FRB population. In such cases, under reasonable assumptions, we can show that $\alpha=\beta$ (proof in Appendix A3).\
In addition, the number of sources detected in a survey that are within a distance $R$ evolves as $R^{3-2\beta} = R^{3-2\alpha}$, which for our bounds of $0.66<\alpha<0.96$ yields an event rate that scales as $\mathcal{N}(<R)\propto R^{+1.7}$ to $R^{1.1}$. The corresponding differential source counts are given by $$\label{eqn:rlaw}
\frac{{\rm d}\mathcal{N}(R)}{{\rm d}R} \propto R^{0.1} {\rm ~to~} R^{0.7} {\rm ~at~ 90\%~ confidence.}$$ This implies that the FRBs are preferentially detected from larger distances. This is in stark contrast with a non-evolving population in Euclidean space for which the differential source-counts scale as $R^{-1}$. Note that this does not prove that FRBs originate at cosmological distances, because the $\mathcal{N}(<R)$ curve will eventually saturate at some $R_{\rm s}$ at which ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{\rm max}\approx 4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}R_{\rm s}^2$, and $R_{\rm s}$ cannot be uniquely determined from the observed log$N$-log$F$ curve alone.\
### Cosmological effects
Motivated by the above distance bias, we have recomputed the expected FRB fluence and distance distributions while taking cosmological effects into account (non-Euclidean geometry). For such a population we still find $\alpha=\beta$ but the distance-distribution is markedly different from the Euclidean-geometry case because of cosmological effects (Appendix A4). Fig. \[fig:logN-logz\] shows the source counts for a cosmological population $\mathcal{N}(<z)$ for $\beta=0.65$, $\beta=1.05$ and $\beta=1.5$. The two sets of curves (thick and thin) are for intrinsic spectral indices of $\gamma=0.0$ and $\gamma=3.0$, where the observed and intrinsic fluence for a burst at redshift $z$ are related as ${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}= {\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}(1+z)^{-\gamma}$. The cumulative counts saturate at $z\gtrsim 1$ mainly due to a dramatic reduction in the rate at which the comoving volume element increases with redshift. This saturation is an important aspect of progenitor theories that place FRBs at cosmological distances, since it explains why a population of FRBs must come from a bounded volume despite the distance bias that is implied by our bounds on $\alpha$.\
The black lines with markers in Fig. \[fig:logN-logz\] show the empirical cumulative distributions for the 17 published FRBs assuming different DM to redshift conversion factors. We have chosen the conversion factors to approximately span the uncertainty range that may be expected given simulations of the IGM baryon density structures [@dolag2015]. We only consider the excess DM over the expected Milky Way contribution in each case, and assume a host galaxy DM contribution of 50 pc cm$^{-3}$. As is evident from the Figure, the uncertainties in the DM to redshift conversion and in the intrinsic burst spectral indices preclude us from evaluating which of the theoretical curves are best favored by the data. FRB localization and spectroscopic followup are required to definitively establish whether the FRB population adheres to the redshift-scaling implied by our constraints on $\alpha$.\
As seen in Fig. \[fig:logN-logz\], there is a clear paucity of events with ${\rm DM}\gtrsim1000$ pc cm$^{-3}$, i.e the cumulative distribution saturates at DM $\sim 1000$ pc cm$^{-3}$. Unlike theories that place FRB progenitors at cosmological distances, progenitor theories that apportion the bulk of the extragalactic dispersion to the circum-burst media do not have a natural explanation for this apparent deficit of FRBs at ${\rm DM}\gtrsim$ 1000. They are thus disfavored by our analysis. However, we are unable to make definitive statements on this point since high-DM events result in large burst durations prior to de-dispersion, and a sizable fraction may therefore be undetectable due to the greater chance of co-incident human-generated interference. We defer a detailed analysis of survey biases at high DMs to a future paper.\
Finally, we caution the reader that in placing constraints on $\alpha$, we have implicitly made two assumptions: (i) FRB progenitors belong to a single family of objects, i.e., there is only one progenitor population, and (ii) the FRB fluence distribution is a power law with some index $\beta$, and some maximum cut-off fluence. It is often the case in astronomy that the diversity of objects whose emission adheres to some parameter space is not immediately apparent.[^7] It is therefore entirely plausible, for example, that FRBs consist of two independent populations, with one being significantly brighter than the other. In this case, we may misconstrue events drawn from the aggregate as a common population with a flatter-than-usual log$N$-log$F$ law that shows an unusual propensity from brighter events.
![Integral source counts $\mathcal{N}(<z)$ for a cosmological population of FRBs. The three curves are for $\beta=0.65$ and $\beta=1.05$ and $\beta=1.5$. The markers show the empirical cumulative FRB distribution where DM has been converted to redshift. Color correction has been applied with an FRB spectral index of $\gamma=1.0$. \[fig:logN-logz\]](logN-logz.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
### Comparison with previous work
Other authors [@manisha; @li2016] have inferred log$N$-log$F$ slopes of $\alpha\approx 1$. @li2016 discounted the effects of the primary beam by assuming that all FRBs are detected close to the antenna boresight, which may systematically bias their results towards larger values of $\alpha$. @manisha included the effects of the primary beam in their simulations and showed that a relatively large range of values of $\alpha$ ($0.9\pm0.3$) were consistent with the data. We note that, unlike previous studies, our Parkes multiple-beam constraints are largely insensitive and unbiased with respect to variations in burst properties due to scattering and dispersion.\
Our results are at great odds with those of @macquart2015 who infer that $\alpha>2.5$. @macquart2015 invoked Galactic scattering to account for the apparent paucity of FRBs at low Galactic latitudes as reported by @FRB010125. @FRB010125 found that even after accounting for Galactic scattering and dispersion, there is a deficit in low Galactic latitude detection rates, as compared to @thornton2013, at the 2.9$\sigma$ level. Its important to note that @FRB010125 also found a discrepancy with an isotropic model at the 3.6$\sigma$ level. Since both models are rejected at high significance, a conservative interpretation of these results is that there is something other than FRB-latitude dependence that yields lower detection rates than those based on @thornton2013. In addition, $\alpha>2.5$ is strongly disfavored by the low detection rates with a large dishes such as Arecibo as shown in Fig. \[fig:alpha\_bounds\_multitel\]. It is possible, however, that a majority of the faint events expected in the case of $\alpha>2.5$ are at DM$\gtrsim 2000$, which @spitler2014 did not consider.
Conclusions
===========
We have empirically constrained the fluence distribution (‘log$N$-log$F$’) of FRBs using two complementary approaches. Both (a) the probability of multiple-beam events registered by an array of receivers in the focal plane of a dish, and (b) the expected number of detections from dishes of different diameters, are dependent on the log$N$-log$F$ slope $\alpha$ (Equation \[eqn:lnls\]). We have combined these constraints on $\alpha$ to reach the following conclusions. All probabilities quoted below are computed with the prior assumption that the fluence distribution of FRBs is a simple power law with some maximum cut-off fluence. In addition, we have assumed that the detected population of FRBs has not been severely biased due to effects such as radio frequency interference, human errors (in evaluating candidate events) etc.
- The incidence of multiple-beam events in the Parkes FRB sample constrains the log$N$-log$F$ slope to be $0.52<\alpha<1.0$ (90% confidence).
- The non-detections in FRB searches at the VLA, ATA, and ASSERT, together with the Arecibo FRB detection, yield $0.67<\alpha<1.07$ (90% confidence). Taking this and the Parkes multiple-beam detection constraints together, we get $0.66<\alpha<0.96$ (90% confidence).
- The inconsistency of $\alpha$ with a value of 1.5 ($>99\%$ confidence) implies that (i) FRBs are not standard candles, and (ii) either the FRB luminosity distribution evolves strongly with distance, and/or FRBs progenitors are at cosmological distances. The former is disfavored by the relative paucity of FRBs at DM$\gtrsim 1000$ pc cm$^{-3}$, although more work is needed to properly account for survey biases at high DMs, due to human-generated interference for instance. If FRBs are extragalactic, this result is inconsistent with a predominantly local-Universe population.
- If the intrinsic FRB cumulative energy distribution can be modeled as a power law with index $\beta$ ($\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}})\propto {\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{-\beta}$), then $\beta=\alpha$ which gives $0.63<\beta<0.95$ at 90% confidence.
- The expected number of detections of FRBs occurring at a distance $R$ scales as ${\rm d}\mathcal{N}(R)/{\rm d}R\propto R^{0.1}$ to $R^{0.7}$ for our constrained range of $\alpha$ values. Hence distant events are either just as likely or more likely to be detected by FRB surveys than nearby events. Note however that this does not prove that FRBs are at cosmological distances since the data are also consistent with $\mathcal{N}(>R)$ saturating at a non-cosmological distance.
- The relatively shallow slope of the FRB log$N$-log$F$ curve implies that a modest telescope array with $N_{\rm dish}\sim 10$ and $d\lesssim 6$ m aperture is sufficient to detect and localize a large population ($\gtrsim 1$ month$^{-1}$) of FRBs.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Prof. Shrinivas Kulkarni for insightful discussions. We thank the CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility for providing the engineering drawings of the 13-horn feed assembly on the Parkes telescope. HKV thanks Dr. Sarah Burke-Spolaor, Dr. Paul Demorest, and Dr. Casey Law for discussions regarding the concept of splitting the VLA into sub-arrays.
A1. Multiple-beam detection statistics
======================================
The probability of $n$-beam detections depends on the geometry of the feed-horn arrangement on the focal plane, the size and focal ratio of the dish, wavelength, and relative detection thresholds of the feeds. We assume a focal ratio of 0.41 for the Parkes dish. Using the procedure described in Section \[sec:pmbe\], we have computed the probabilities of a burst being detection in $i$ beams ($i=1,2,3...13$) for different principal beams, as a function of the Fresnel number of the source. Fig. \[fig:prob13\] shows a plot of these probabilities. The three rows correspond to cases where the central, an inner-ring and an outer-ring feed horn forms the principal beam. The columns correspond to values of the log$N$-log$F$ parameter, $\alpha$, of 1.5, 1.0, and 0.5. $\alpha=1.5$ corresponds to the case of non-evolving sources in Euclidean space and lower values of $\alpha$ give progressively flatter log$N$-log$F$ curves i.e an increasing propensity for brighter events. As the Fresnel number increases, the source moves closer to the telescope and appears progressively defocused at the focal plane, as a result of which, is detected in multiple beams with increasing probability. The probability for multiple-beam detection increases when the central feed forms the principal beams, since the central feed has more neighbors than the inner and outer ring feeds. All principal beams lead to very low probabilities ($\sim 1$ in 100) of multiple beam detection for $\alpha=1.5$ (see also Table \[tab:mbp\]), for far field sources ($n_{\rm f}\lesssim 1$).\
The relative detection thresholds for the Parkes 13-beam feed array for the central, inner ring and outer ring feeds are taken into account by scaling the simulated beam-gains with $\eta^{-1}_{\rm eff}T^{-1}_{\rm rec}$, where $T_{\rm rec}$ is the receiver temperature. The quoted values for $\eta_{\rm eff}$ are 1.36, 1.45, and 1.72 Jy K$^{-1}$ respectively. The quoted values for $T_{\rm rec}$ are 29, 30, and 36 K respectively[^8]. The multiple-beam probabilities are, however, only affected by the ratio of detection thresholds between different feeds.
{width="\linewidth"}
A2. Multi-telescope detection statistics
========================================
The various FRB surveys used to constrain the log$N$-log$F$ slope (see Table 2) are described here.
- *ASSERT*: The ASSERT program observed with two antennas: a log-periodic dipole, and a horn antenna. @saint2014 quote an SNR of 10 for a 2.5 K event lasting for 10 ms. Based on this and their bandwidth of $560$ MHz, we use a system temperature of 850 K. Since ASSERT does not use dish antennas, we have assumed an aperture efficiency of $\eta_{\rm eff}=1$. Given the large FWHM of the dipole (110 $\times$ 70 deg$^2$), we have assumed a equivalent dish diameter of $\lambda/2=0.1$ m akin to a dipole antenna. For the horn antenna to obtain a FWHM of 10 deg we have assumed $d=1.2$ m. We expect these approximations to affect the conversion from antenna temperature to flux-density at few tens of percent level. Given the inability of current experiments (save the VLA) to obtain an accurate localization and hence an accurate flux-density, these approximations are justified.\
- *ATA*: The Allen Telescope Array parameters are somewhat difficult to incorporate in our unified analysis since @siemion2012 observed with 14 of the 30 antenna in dual-pol mode and the rest in single-pol mode. @siemion2012 quote a single-pol SEFD of 10 kJy as an average for the 44 single-pol inputs used in the analysis. This corresponds to a single-pol system temperature of 120 K, which we used in our analysis. In addition, since the ATA observations were in Fly’s Eye mode, i.e each antenna was pointed to a different sky location, take $N_{\rm ant}=1$ and multiply the total observing time with 30 which is the number of independent concurrent pointings. @siemion2012 used 580 input $\cdot$ days of data which corresponds to $N_{\rm day}$ = 580 / (44 inputs) $\times$ (30 antenna) / (24 hr/day) = 16.47 days.\
- *Arecibo*: @spitler2014 quote values of 10.4 and 8.2 K Jy$^{-1}$ for the central and inner-ring beams of the Arecibo multiple-beam receiver. We take a weighted average of 8.5 K Jy$^{-1}$, which corresponds to a $d=220$ m aperture with an efficiency of $\eta_{\rm eff}=60$%. The Arecibo receivers have a $T_{\rm sys}$ of $30$ K.\
- *VLA*: The VLA is a special case of a search for FRBs in interferometric images. Since the search was limited to the FWHM of the VLA dishes, for the VLA case, we have restricted the angular integration in Equation \[eqn:ndet\] to the FWHM. In addition, during interferometric imaging, the signals from the $N_{\rm ant}=27$ VLA dishes were combined coherently, and thus $N_{\rm ant}$ was replaced with $N_{\rm ant}^2$ in Equation \[eqn:th\_noise\] for the VLA.
A3. Population statistics in Euclidean space
============================================
Let the intrinsic burst energy and its observed fluence be ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$ and ${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$ respectively. Let a non-evolving population of FRB sources be distributed between distances of ${R_{\rm min}}$ and ${R_{\rm max}}$, and let the number of sources per unit volume with intrinsic energies between $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}+{\rm d}\mathcal{F}$ be $\rho(\mathcal{F})$. Then, ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$ and ${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$ for a source at distance $R$ are related by $${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}= \frac{{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}} {4\pi R^2}$$ Sources with intrinsic energy ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$ will be observed to have a fluence in excess of ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$ if they are within a distance of $\left[{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}/(4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}) \right]^{0.5}$. The total number of sources with intrinsic energy ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$ that have an observed fluence larger than some value ${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$ is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ {\rm d} \mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}},{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}})}{ {\rm d} {\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}} &=& 0 \,\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}<4\pi{R_{\rm min}}^2{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}\nonumber\\
&=&\rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}) \int_{{R_{\rm min}}}^{\sqrt{\frac{{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}}{4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}}}} {\rm d}R\, 4\pi R^2; \,\,\,\,\,\,\, 4\pi{R_{\rm min}}^2 {\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}< {\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}< 4\pi{R_{\rm max}}^2{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}\nonumber \\
&=& \rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}) \int_{{R_{\rm min}}}^{{R_{\rm max}}} {\rm d}R\, 4\pi R^2; \,\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}> 4\pi {R_{\rm max}}^2 {\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}\\\end{aligned}$$
Evaluating the integrals, and then integrating over ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:nfobs}
\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}) &=& \frac{4\pi}{3}\int_{4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}{R_{\rm min}}^2}^{4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}{R_{\rm max}}^2} {\rm d}{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}\rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}) \left[{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{1.5} (4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}})^{-1.5}-{R_{\rm min}}^{3} \right]\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{4\pi\left( {R_{\rm max}}^3-{R_{\rm min}}^3\right)}{3} \int_{4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}{R_{\rm max}}^2}^{\infty}{\rm d}{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}\rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}) \end{aligned}$$ Assuming $\rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}})=\propto {\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{-\beta-1}$, which yields an intrinsic energy distribution with a log$N$-log$F$ index of $\beta$, the integrals can be evaluated analytically: $$\label{eqn:nfobs_red}
\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}) \propto \frac{{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}^{-\beta}}{\beta(1.5-\beta)} \left( {R_{\rm max}}^{3-2\beta}-{R_{\rm min}}^{3-2\beta} \right).$$ We have shown that in Euclidean space, in the presence of a minimum and/or maximum distance to the population, the log$N$-log$F$ parameter for the observed fluences is the same as that of the intrinsic energy distribution. Furthermore, the number of detected events within a sphere of radius ${R_{\rm max}}$ scales as ${R_{\rm max}}^{3-2\beta}$, or the number of events from a infinitesimally thin shell of thickness ${\rm d}R$ at radius $R$ scales as $R^{2(1-\beta)}$. For $\beta<1$, the detected population is biased towards larger distances, and for $\beta=1$ there is no distance bias in the detected population. Note that we have implicitly assumed that ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{\rm min}<4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}{R_{\rm min}}^2$, and ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}^{\rm max}>4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}{R_{\rm max}}^2$. The former is a reasonable assumption, but the latter will break down for very large values of ${R_{\rm max}}$, at which point, $\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}})$ will saturate (for $\beta<1.5$) and equation \[eqn:nfobs\_red\] will not longer be valid.\
We can treat the ‘standard candle’ scenario as follows. In the absence of any distance evolution in $\rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}})$, the observed fluence distribution can be obtained from Equation \[eqn:nfobs\] by substituting $\rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}) = \delta({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}-\mathcal{L}_0)$, where $\mathcal{L}_0$ is the standard-candle energy, and $\delta(.)$ is the Dirac delta function. We assume that $\mathcal{L}_0$ is finite and set $R_{\rm max}$ to some high value such that $\mathcal{L}_0<{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}R^2_{\rm max}$. Under these conditions, the second integral in Equation \[eqn:nfobs\] goes to zero, and the first integral yields the observed fluence distribution under the standard candle hypothesis: $$\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}) = \frac{4\pi}{3} \left[\mathcal{L}_0^{1.5} \left(4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}\right)^{-1.5} -R_{\rm min}^3 \right]\,\,\,\,\, {\rm (standard~candle)}$$ For small values of $R_{\rm min}$, the index of the log$N$-log$F$ function is $\alpha=1.5$, as expected. If $\mathcal{L}_0>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}R^2_{\rm max}$, then the first integral in Equation \[eqn:nfobs\] reduces to 0, and the second integral yields $\mathcal{L}_0$. The observed log$N$-log$F$ function becomes independent of ${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$ i.e $\alpha=0$ which is strongly disfavored by our constraints.\
Motivated by our findings that strongly disfavor $\alpha=1.5$, we have considered a ‘toy model’ where FRBs are standard candles and $\rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}})$ evolves with distance as $\rho(R) \propto R^{\kappa}$. In this case, the integrations over $R$ and ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$ are coupled, but for the standard-candle case, the algebra is greatly simplified. All events within a distance of $\left[{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}/(4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}})\right]^{0.5}$ will have an observed fluence in excess of ${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$. Hence, the observed fluence distribution may be evaluated as: $$\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}) = \int_{0}^{\sqrt{\frac{{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}}{4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}}}} \rho(R) 4\pi R^2 {\rm d}R \propto \frac{4\pi}{3} \left(\frac{{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}}{4\pi{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}} \right)^{\frac{k+3}{2}}$$ Hence the relationship between the log$N$-log$F$ parameter $\alpha$ and the distance evolution parameter $\kappa$ is $\kappa = 2\alpha-3$. The bounds on $\kappa$ corresponding to the 90% bounds $0.66<\alpha<0.96$ are $-1.68<\kappa<-1.08$ at 90% confidence. We find such a distance-evolution law to be a contrived arrangement since physical parameters that may contribute to FRB rates such as galaxy counts and star-formation rate do not adhere to such laws. Based on this, the standard-candle hypothesis is strongly disfavored.
A4. Statistics for a cosmological population
============================================
For a cosmological population, we can follow the same steps as that for a local population with the inclusion of the effects of (i) redshift evolution of comoving volume element and luminosity distance, and (ii) effects of time dilation on the fluence due to cosmic expansion. Fluence has units of erg m$^{-2}$ s, which unlike flux-density which has units of erg m$^{-2}$, is affected by time dilation. We will express all distances in units of the Hubble distance. ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$ and ${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$ are then related as $${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}= \frac{{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}(1+z)}{(1+z)^2r^2(z)}$$ where the denominator is the square of the luminosity distance, $(1+z)$ in the numerator accounts for time-dilation due to cosmic expansion, and $r(z)$ is the radial coordinate which is in-turn given by $$\begin{aligned}
r(z) &=& \int_{0}^{z} {\rm d}z'E(z') \nonumber \\
E(z) &=& \sqrt{\Omega_{\rm m}(1+z)^3 + \Omega_{\Lambda}}\end{aligned}$$ The number of detected events above some threshold fluence ${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$ is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}) &=& \int_{0}^{\infty}{\rm d}{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}\rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}})\,\,\int^{\Psi^{-1}\left( \frac{{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}}{{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}}\right)}_{0} {\rm d}V(z) \nonumber\\
{\rm d}V(z) &=& 4\pi\frac{r^2(z)}{E(z)}{\rm d}z\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi(z) = (1+z)r^2(z)$, is the ratio between the intrinsic energy and observed fluence, and ${\rm d}V(z)$ is the comoving volume element.\
In this formalism, the effects of color-corrections and intrinsic source evolution can be incorporated easily. If an burst has a spectral index $\gamma$, that is ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}(\nu)\propto \nu^{-\gamma}$, then we have a modified relationship between ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$ and ${\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}$: $\Psi(z,\gamma) = (1+z)^{1-\gamma}r^2(z)$. Similarly, any function of redshift that describes the evolution of intrinsic source counts may be taken into the redshift integral over the comoving volume element.\
Finally, the cumulative number of events from sources out to some redshift $z_{\rm max}$ can be evaluated as $$\mathcal{N}(>{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}},<z_{\rm max}) =\int_{0}^{{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}\Psi(z_{\rm max})}{\rm d}{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}\rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}})\,\,\int^{\Psi^{-1}\left( \frac{{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}}{{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}}\right)}_{0} {\rm d}V(z) + \int_{{\mathcal{F}_{\rm obs}}\Psi(z_{\rm max})}^{\infty}{\rm d}{\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}\rho({\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}})\,\,\int_{0}^{z_{\rm max}} {\rm d}V(z)$$ The above integrals must again be computed numerically. We assume the following cosmological parameters: $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.25$, and $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}=0.75$.
[^1]: We point the interested reader to a intriguing study by @close2010 of radio transients caused by meteor impact on spacecrafts.
[^2]: Fresnel number is the phase difference, in units of $\pi$, of the incident field between the center of the aperture to its edge.
[^3]: We encourage the discoverers of FRBs to always report on adjacent-beam constraints.
[^4]: Scintillation is not expected to change the log$N$-log$F$ slope for a fluence-range away from any cut-offs [@macquart2015].
[^5]: The Fly’s Eye search at the ATA is a special case of the subarrays concept where each subarray has a single primary antenna element.
[^6]: We assume that any relativistic beaming effects are absorbed into ${\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}}$.
[^7]: The discovery of sub-populations of gamma-ray transients is an example.
[^8]: <http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/multibeam/.overview.html>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Donald Marolf\
Physics Department, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244
date: 'May, 2000'
title: 'Chern-Simons terms and the Three Notions of Charge'
---
Introduction
============
One of the intriguing properties of supergravity theories is the presence of Abelian Chern-Simons terms and their duals, the modified Bianchi identities, in the dynamics of the gauge fields. Such cases have the unusual feature that the equations of motion for the gauge field are non-linear in the gauge fields even though the associated gauge groups are Abelian. For example, massless type IIA supergravity contains a relation of the form $$\label{MBid}
d\tilde F_4 + F_2 \wedge H_3 = 0,$$ where $\tilde F_4, F_2, H_3$ are gauge invariant field strengths of rank $4,2,3$ respectively.
Such relations complicate our usual understanding of charge in a gauge theory. On the one hand, the fields $F_2$ and $H_3$ are invariant under the gauge transformations naively associated with $\tilde F_4$ so that one would not consider them to carry charge. On the other, these fields are clearly sources of $\tilde F_4.$ Thus, one may ask what is the proper definition of charge in a theory with Chern-Simons terms. This question is central to the issue raised by Bachas, Douglas, and Schweigert [@BDS] and continued by several authors [@Taylor; @JP; @Mor] as to in just what sense D0-brane charge should be quantized.
The approach adopted here is not to argue for a particular notion of charge, but instead to discuss the fact that there are at least three natural notions of charge in a theory with Chern-Simons terms or a modified Bianchi identity. A closely related discussion in which multiple notions of charge were of use can be found in [@IT]. Which notion of charge is most useful depends on the goal that one has in mind. One of the main purposes of this work is to provide a language for the proper discussion of these ideas. The notions of charge discussed below are referred to as ‘brane source charge,’ ‘Maxwell charge,’ and ‘Page charge.’
Brane source charge is a notion of charge most directly associated with external objects coupled to the theory. As implied by the name, this charge is localized. That is to say that it is not carried by the gauge fields but is instead associated directly with external sources (or topological non-trivialities of the spacetime manifold) which take the shape of various branes. This charge is gauge invariant, but not conserved. However, the non-conservation rules take a precise form which can be directly related to the Hanany-Witten effect [@HW]. The relationship is a generalization of the argument for the case of D0/D8-branes presented in [@PS; @BGL]. In general, brane source charge is not quantized. It is in fact this charge that was directly computed by Bachas, Douglas, and Schweigert [@BDS] and found not to be quantized in a particularly interesting example. This is also the notion of charge used to identify the branes in the supergravity solution of [@GM].
Another notion, ‘Maxwell charge,’ is conserved and gauge invariant but not localized. Instead, it is carried by the gauge fields themselves and so is diffused throughout a classical solution. As a result, the Dirac quantization argument does not require its integral over an arbitrary volume to be quantized and, in general, it will be quantized only when integrated to infinity with appropriate fall-off conditions on the fields. It is this charge that was recently discussed by Taylor [@Taylor].
The third type of charge is “Page charge.” Here we follow tradition (e.g., [@Stelle]) by naming this charge after the author of the paper in which it first appeared [@Page]. This charge is again localized and not carried by the gauge fields. It is also conserved and under appropriate conditions it is invariant under small gauge transformations. However, it does transform under large gauge transformations. By looking at how Chern-Simons terms and modified Bianchi identities originate in Kaluza-Klein reduction, one can argue that the Page charge is quantized. The Page charge quantization conditions were matched with the Dirac quantization conditions of the higher dimensional theory in [@BLPS]. From the perspective of the theory on the D2-brane, this is the charge that was conjectured to be quantized in [@BDS] and, although it was not discussed in these terms there, it also matches the notion of charge discussed by Alekseev, Mironov, and Morozov in [@Mor].
These types of charge are not new, as they have all appeared in the literature. However, as is clear from the recent discussion of D0-brane charge in [@BDS; @Taylor; @Mor], a coherent discussion of these charges will prove useful and a proper language for discussing these charges is needed.
We discuss in turn the brane source, Maxwell, and Page notions of charge in sections II-IV. Due to limitations of space, we discuss the details only in the particularly illustrative case of D4-brane charge in type IIA supergravity. In each case, we make a number of observations about that particular notion of charge and the relation to D0-brane charge in the setting of Bachas, Douglas, and Schweigert. A few closing comments are contained in section V.
Brane Source Charge and Brane-ending effects {#bsSec}
============================================
Let us recall that that type IIA supergravity contains a three-form Ramond-Ramond gauge field $A_3$ for which D4-branes carry magnetic charge. One class of gauge transformations act on this field as $A_3 \rightarrow A_3 + d \Lambda_2$ for an arbitrary smooth two-form $\Lambda_2$. Throughout this work, we find it convenient to indicate the rank of each form with a subscript. An unusual property of this field, however, is that it also transforms under the gauge transformations normally associated with the Ramond-Ramond potential $A_1$: $$(A_1,A_3) \rightarrow (A_1 + d \Lambda_0, A_3 - B_2 \wedge d \Lambda_0),$$ where $B_2$ is the Neveu-Schwarz two-form (i.e., the Kalb-Ramond field). This means that the field strength $F_4 =
dA_3$ is not gauge invariant, but instead transforms as $F_4 \rightarrow F_4 - H_3 \wedge
d \Lambda_0.$ Here, $H_3 = dB_2$ is the gauge invariant Neveu-Schwarz field strength. As a result, it is convenient to introduce the gauge invariant ‘improved field strength’ $\tilde F_4 = dA_3
- A_1 \wedge H_3$ and to write the Bianchi identity in the form of equation (\[MBid\]). Such a relation is known as a modified Bianchi identity. Similar equations appear involving the dual field $*\tilde F_4$ (associated with D2-brane charge) in the equations of motion due to Chern-Simons terms of the form $A_i \wedge F_j
\wedge F_k$ for various $i,j,k$ in the type IIA action. One can often exchange a modified Bianchi identity for a Chern-Simons term by performing an electromagnetic duality transformation. Due to their similar forms, our discussion in all cases below applies equally well to the effects of modified Bianchi identities and those of Chern-Simons terms.
We wish to discuss the various notions of charge in terms of a language of currents associated with external sources. This language, however, is sufficiently general so as to be useful for what one might call ‘solitonic charge’ associated with topological nontrivialities (such as black holes, any singularities that one might deem to allow, and so on). Suppose for example that we are given a spacetime containing a wormhole that is threaded by some electric flux. Then we may choose to consider a related spacetime in which the neck of the wormhole has been rounded off by hand. The new spacetime will of course not satisfy the supergravity equations of motion in the region that has been modified. We can describe this departure from pure supergravity by saying that some external source is present in this region. Using such a language will allow us to suppose that we work on the manifold $R^n$ and that the spacetime is smooth.
We begin with what, from the standpoint of the modified Bianchi identity, is perhaps the most natural parameterization of this external source. We simply define the nonvanishing of the modified Bianchi identity to be the dual $*j_{D4}^{bs}$ of some current, which will in some way be associated with D4-branes. Thus, we have $$\label{bs}
d \tilde F_4 + F_2 \wedge H_3 = *j_{D4}^{bs}.$$ We repeat that this is nothing other than a definition of $*j_{D4}^{bs}$, now providing a parameterization of the external sources. In general, we would write each modified Bianchi identity and equation of motion for the gauge fields as a polynomial in the gauge invariant improved field strengths, their hodge duals, and exterior derivatives of these and then let the right hand side be some $*j$. Each such current will be associated with some brane, either a D-brane, NS5-brane, or a fundamental string. Similar sources for the metric are associated with energy and momentum, while sources for the dilaton are associated with NS instantons and NS7-branes.
Let us make a few simple observations about the current defined in (\[bs\]). Examining the left-hand side, we see that our current is gauge invariant. It is also ‘localized’ in the sense that it vanishes wherever the spacetime is described by pure supergravity. In this sense, it is naturally associated with [*external*]{} brane sources that are coupled to supergravity. For this reason, we refer to this notion of charge as ‘brane source charge.’
We note that this notion of charge coincides with many familiar conventions. For example, suppose that we rewrite type IIA supergravity in terms of the magnetic field strength $A_5$ dual to $A_3.$ Then the modified Bianchi identity for $A_3$ becomes an equation of motion for $A_5$. In this case, the brane source current is just what results from additional terms of the form $-\int A_5 \wedge *j_{D4}^{bs}$ that one would add to the action to represent external sources. A similar discussion for the case of D0-brane charge on a D2-brane coupled to supergravity shows that since brane source charge arises from varying the brane action with respect to the gauge field, it is this notion of charge which raised the puzzle in [@BDS], as they found this charge not to be quantized.
In fact, supergravity considerations also lead one to expect this charge not to be quantized. This follows from the fact that it is not conserved, and that its non-conservation takes a special form. Let us simply take the exterior derivative of (\[bs\]), allowing also sources $*j_{D6}^{bs} = dF_2$ and $*j_{NS5}^{bs} = dH_3$ for the other relevant gauge fields. We find: $$d*j^{bs}_{D4} = F_2 \wedge * j_{NS5}^{bs} + *j_{D6}^{bs} \wedge H_3,$$ so that both NS5-branes and D6-branes can be sources of our charge in the proper backgrounds. What is particularly interesting about this result is that, due to the ranks of the forms involved, it has components in which all indices take spatial values. This means that such components have no time derivatives and instead constitute a [*constraint*]{}, telling us how D4-brane charge must change in spatial directions. In particular, integrating this result over some six-dimensional volume $V_6$ tells us that the net number of D4-branes (as counted by brane-source charge) ending inside $V_6$ is controlled by the fluxes of gauge fields captured by NS5-branes and D6-branes inside $V_6$: $$\int_{V_6} *j_{D4} = \int_{V_6 \cap NS5} F_2 + \int_{V_6 \cap D6} H_3.$$ Note that the intersection of $V_6$ with the worldvolume of an NS5-brane is generically of dimension 2, and that the intersection with the worldvolume of a D6-brane is generically of dimension 3. The normalization is such that if a single NS5-brane captures all of the $F_2$ flux emerging from a D6-brane, then this constraint states that exactly one D4-brane worth of charge will begin (or end, depending on the sign) on the NS5-brane. This constraint tells us that D4-brane source charge must be created continuously over the world volume of NS5- and D6-branes. Since constraints are typically not significantly modified by quantization, it would be quite surprising if such a charge were quantized. This point was also made in [@BDS] working from the perspective of the worldvolume theory on a brane.
Such constraints connect Chern-Simons terms and modified Bianchi identities with the same types of branes ending on branes as in Townsend’s ‘Brane Surgery’ argument [@surgery]. These arguments are not equivalent, however, as [@surgery] considers that case where brane source charge (say, for a D4-brane) is not created or destroyed, but instead flows away through the worldvolume of the other (D5- or D6-) brane.
Finally, we note (see also [@GM]) that such constraints provide yet another derivation of the Hanany-Witten effect [@HW]. The argument is a generalization of the argument of that of [@PS; @BGL] for the D0/D8 case. Suppose that an NS5-brane lies on one side of a D6-brane in such a way that there is no D4-brane charge in the vicinity. Typically, the constraints can still be satisfied if other NS5- and D6-branes are nearby. When the NS5-brane is moved past the D6-brane, the flux captured by each of these branes changes by one unit. The NS5-brane must then be a source of one D4-brane, while the D6-brane must be a sink. If the branes are moved quickly, causality considerations show that we must now have a D4-brane stretching from the NS5-brane to the D6-brane. Whether or not one wishes to use brane source charge to count ‘real D4-branes,’ one finds that some sort of brane must be stretched between the NS5- and D6-branes. A corresponding argument from the perspective of the worldvolume theory was presented in [@DFK; @K] but it is nice to arrive at this result via such a short argument in supergravity. Other complimentary derivations of this effect can be found in [@Lif; @dA; @HoWu; @OSZ; @NOYY; @Yosh]. Some of these derivations use an ‘anomaly inflow’ argument, and we refer the reader to [@IT] to connect such a perspective directly with the present discussion, closing the circle of ideas.
Maxwell Charge and Asymptotic Conditions {#MaxSec}
========================================
Our next notion of charge follows from the idea that any source of the gauge field should be considered to constitute a charge. Consider again the relation $d\tilde F_4 + F_2 \wedge H_3 = 0$ which holds in the absence of external sources. Clearly, $F_2 \wedge H_3$ is a source for the field strength $\tilde F_4$, so that we might count it as carrying charge. To this end, let us define the Maxwell charge current to be the exterior derivative of the gauge invariant field strength: $$\label{Max}
d\tilde F_4 = *j_{D4}^{Maxwell}.$$ Such a relation describes the familiar currents of Yang-Mills theories, in which the gauge fields also carry charge. A similar idea allowing gravitational fields to contribute to energy and momentum is captured by the ADM mass for gravity. A study of [@Taylor] shows that this is in fact the notion of charge used by Taylor in that reference.
This current has many useful properties. It is manifestly gauge invariant and conserved. However, it is not localized, as it is carried by the bulk fields. This means that the conservation law for Maxwell charge is somewhat less useful that one might hope. Consider for a moment integrating $\tilde F_4$ over some surface $\partial V$ to obtain the total charge associated with some region $V$. The charge measured in this way is unchanged when we deform the surface $\partial V$ so long as this surface does not pass through any charge. Since Maxwell charge is carried by the bulk fields, such charge-preserving deformations may not exist at all.
This of course is the case in Yang-Mills theory or gravity, where one solves the problem by using Gauss’ law for surfaces at infinity where the bulk charge density vanishes under appropriate fall-off conditions. This works well for charges carried by pointlike objects, but is somewhat less satisfactory for the present case in which the sources are branes. The point is that one might like the charge measured to remain unchanged when the Gauss’ law surface is deformed in space as well as when translated in time. A charge associated with $p$-branes is measured by a Gauss’ law surface of co-dimension $p+2$, so that interesting deformations of the Gauss’ law surface in space are indeed possible for $p > 0$.
Consider in particular the D4-brane case. Note that the Maxwell and brane source currents are related by $*j_{D4}^{Maxwell} = *j_{D4}^{bs} - F_2 \wedge H_3.$ Suppose that we have some region $V$ with $\partial V = S_1 - S_2$. Then $\int_{S_1} \tilde F_4 = \int_{S_2} \tilde F_4$ if and only if $\int_V *j_{D4}^{Maxwell} =0.$ In a region of infinity in which the supergravity equations of motion hold (and thus there are no external sources), we have $\int_V *j_{D4}^{Maxwell} = - \int_V F_2 \wedge H_3.$ Note that this will not in general vanish (so long as $V$ spans a finite fraction of infinity) as $\int F_2$ measures the D6-brane charge while $\int H_3$ measures the NS5-brane charge. The asymptotically flat version of [@GM] or, analogously [@CGS] for D3-branes and test D5-branes, are examples in which this can be seen. Note that one does not need the complete supergravity solution to obtain this result.
Thus, even at infinity the Maxwell charge is not localized. In fact, unless $F_2$ and $H_3$ flux is confined, the Maxwell D4 charge in a region $V$ must change continuously with $V$ even at infinity. This means that Maxwell charge associated with generic surfaces at infinity cannot be quantized. Note, however, that in the case of D0-brane charge studied in [@Taylor] there is a unique sphere at infinity at which Gauss’ law can be applied and the issue does not arise.
Page Charge and Kaluza-Klein reduction
======================================
The final notion of charge that we will consider is one first introduced by Page in [@Page]. The idea is first to write the modified Bianchi identity (or equation of motion with a Chern-Simons term) as the exterior derivative of some differential form, which in general will not be gauge invariant. In the presence of an external source, it is this exterior derivative that is identified with a current or charge. Thus, for our case of D4-branes we would write $$d( \tilde F_4 + A_1 \wedge H_3) = *j_{D4}^{Page}.$$ There is some ambiguity in this process as the second term could also have been taken to be of the form $F_2 \wedge B_2.$ This ambiguity will be discussed further below.
We see immediately that the Page current is conserved and localized, in the sense that it vanishes when the pure supergravity equations of motion hold. However, it is also clear that this current is gauge dependent as it transforms nontrivially under gauge transformations of $A_1.$ This problem is to some extent alleviated by integrating the current over some five-volume $V_5$ to form a charge: $$Q_{D4,V}^{Page} = \int_{V_5} *j_{D4}^{Page} = \int_{\partial V} (
\tilde F_4 + A_1 \wedge H_3).$$ If $A_1$ is a well-defined 1-form on $\partial V$ and $dH_3=0$ on $\partial V$, then an integration by parts shows that the Page charge is invariant under small gauge transformations $A_1 \rightarrow A_1 + d \Lambda_0$. However, in general it will still transform under large gauge transformations. The qualification that $A_1$ be a well-defined 1-form means that there can be no ‘Dirac strings’ of $A_1$ passing through $\partial V$ in the chosen gauge. A similar integration by parts shows that, when $\partial V$ does not intersect any NS5 or D6 branes or the associated Dirac strings, the same page charge would be obtained from $\tilde F_4 + F_2 \wedge B_2.$
We note that the Page charge differs from the Maxwell charge only by the boundary term discussed in the last section. That is, we have $Q^{Page}_{D4,V_5} = Q^{Maxwell}_{D4,V_5} + \int_{\partial V}
A_1 \wedge H_3.$ A similar expression holds for D0-brane charge. For the case studied by Taylor in [@Taylor], the corresponding boundary term was explicitly assumed to vanish when $\partial V$ was the sphere at infinity. Thus, although [@Taylor] began with the idea of Maxwell charge, in that case a discussion in terms of Page charge would be equivalent. Similarly, when one works out the D0-brane Page charge for the case of [@BDS] one finds $*j^{Page}_{D0} = *j_{D0}^{bs} -
\int B \wedge *j_{D2}^{bs}.$ It was exactly a term of the form $\int B \wedge *j_{D2}^{bs}$ that created the puzzle in [@BDS], and we see that it is explicitly cancelled in the Page charge. Computing the Page charge for other examples agrees with [@Mor], although it was discussed there in a somewhat different language.
We would now like to argue that it is the Page charge which is naturally quantized. The argument that we will give is essentially contained in [@BLPS] and perhaps earlier works as well. However, let us first embark on a small tangent which is in fact not a convincing argument for quantization. We note that D2-branes couple electrically to $\tilde F_4$ and that the D2-brane action contains a term $\int_{D2} A_3.$ In order for $e^{iS_{D2}}$ to be insensitive to Dirac strings, $\int_\Sigma A_3$ should be quantized for any 3-surface $\Sigma$ wrapping tightly around a Dirac string. But $\int_{\partial_V} (\tilde F_4
+ A_1 \wedge H_3) = \int_{\partial_V} (dA_3) = \int_\Sigma A_3$ where $\Sigma$ wraps tightly around all Dirac strings of $A_3$ passing through $\partial V$. Thus, requiring $e^{iS_{D2}}$ to be well-defined in the presence of Dirac strings would force quantization of the Page charge. We agree with [@BDS], however, that this is not by itself a convincing argument for quantization of Page charge as it assumes that the effective action of the D2-brane is known a priori. In fact, the Chern-Simons terms of such an effective action are typically deduced from properties of the bulk fields. Nevertheless, it is reassuring that Page charge quantization is consistent with the usual D2-brane action.
Now, for a more convincing argument. Recall that many of the Chern-Simons terms and modified Bianchi identities of type IIA supergravity arise from the Kaluza-Klein reduction of 11-dimensional supergravity. Of course, 11-dimensional supergravity has its own Chern-Simons terms as required by supersymmetry. Nevertheless, our discussion of D4-brane charge would be the same if, instead of type IIA supergravity, we considered the reduction to ten dimensions of an 11-dimensional Einstein Maxwell theory given by $$S_{11} = \int \sqrt{g} R + \frac{1}{2} F^M_4 \wedge * F^M_4,$$ and in particular having no Chern-Simons term. We have labelled the 4-form field strength of this pseudo M-theory $F_4^M$ in order to distinguish it from the $F_4$ of the ten dimensional theory.
In such a simple Einstein-Maxwell theory, charge quantization is believed to be well understood with $\int_{\partial V} F^M_4$ and $\int_{\partial V} *F^M_4$ being quantized. In Kaluza-Klein reduction along $x_{10}$, the relation between 10- and 11-dimensional fields is just $$F^M_4 = F_4 + H_3 \wedge dx_{10} = (\tilde F_4 + A_1 \wedge H_3) + H_3
\wedge dx_{10}.$$ As a result, if $Q_{D4}^{Page}(S_4) = \int_{S_4} (\tilde F_4 +
A_1 \wedge H_3)$ is the Page charge associated with the surface $S_4$, we see that this is identical to the M5-brane charge $Q_{M5}(S_4,x_{10}=const)$ defined by integrating $F_4^M$ over the surface at constant $x_{10}$ that projects to $S_4$ in the ten-dimensional spacetime. This observation was used in [@BLPS] to match the ten- and eleven-dimensional Dirac quantization conditions. Thus, it is the Page charge that lifts to the familiar notion of charge in 11-dimensions. Quantization of the usual charge in 11-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell theory directly implies quantization of D4-brane Page charge in ten-dimensions. It is for this reason that we have chosen to use D4-brane charge as our example system. Quantization of the Page charge for other branes then follows from T-duality. T-duality directly implies Page charge quantization in systems with sufficient translational symmetry, and one can use homotopy invariance of the Page charge to complete the argument. Quantization of the Page charge in 2+1 dimensional theories with $A \wedge F$ Chern-Simons terms was derived in [@HT].
Note that under the Kaluza-Klein assumption of translation invariance in $x_{10}$ the precise value of $x_{10}$ is unimportant. Furthermore, under a change of gauge $A_1 \rightarrow A_1 + d \Lambda_0$ in the 10-dimensional spacetime, we have $x_{10} \rightarrow x_{10} - \Lambda.$ This means that a change of gauge in ten dimensions corresponds to a change of [*surface*]{} in 11-dimensions. This provides a clear physical meaning to the change in the Page charge under a large gauge transformations: in the 11-dimensional theory, we have replaced the M5-brane charge contained in one surface with the M5-brane charge contained in a homotopically inequivalent surface.
Discussion {#Disc}
==========
We have seen that three notions of charge can be useful in theories with Chern-Simons terms. Brane source charge is gauge invariant and localized, but not conserved or quantized. Its non-conservation, however, summarizes consistency conditions that must be satisfied by external sources coupled to the theory and leads directly to the Hanany-Witten brane creation effect.
In contrast, Maxwell charge is carried by the bulk fields and so is not localized. It is quite similar to the ADM mass, energy, and momentum of gravitating systems, which is in fact one of the reasons for its use in [@Taylor]. This charge is both gauge invariant and conserved. However, in certain interesting cases involving $p$-branes with $p>0$, the fall-off conditions at infinity are too weak for this conservation law to be as useful as one might like.
Finally, while it transforms nontrivially under large gauge transformations, the Page charge is localized and conserved. When the Chern-Simons term or modified Bianchi identity arises from Kaluza-Klein reduction, this charge is naturally associated with charge in the higher dimensional theory. As a result, it is this charge that is naturally taken to be quantized. The gauge dependence of the Page charge is nothing other than the ambiguity associated with choosing a surface in the higher dimensional theory that projects onto the chosen surface in the lower dimensional spacetime. Note that, due to its relation to the higher dimensional fields, it is also the Page charge which is naturally associated with supersymmetry.
It is interesting to consider Page charge in the context of branes created in the Hanany-Witten effect. In many cases involving D0- and D8-branes, the created string clearly has a Page charge of zero as the associated Gauss’ law surface can be slipped over the end of the D0-brane and contracted to a point. However, a non-zero Page charge can arise for higher branes. A number of examples are under investigation.
Such considerations apply not only to supergravity, but also for example to the D2-brane theory directly investigated by Bachas, Douglas, and Schweigert. They argued that a certain charge $\int F$ should be quantized, where $F=dA$ is a gauge field on the D2-brane that is in fact not gauge invariant. One can check that this is also a Page charge of the D2-brane theory. Again, Kaluza-Klein reduction provides a useful perspective. If one investigates the relation between the D2-brane theory and the theory of an M2-brane, one finds that $\int F$ is exactly the canonical momentum of the M2-brane in the compact $x_{10}$ direction, and so is again naturally quantized.
The author would like to thank Andrés Gomberoff, Rajesh Gopakumar, Michael Gutperle, Marc Henneaux, Rob Myers, Djordje Minic, Shiraz Minwalla, Michael Spalinski, Andy Strominger, Paul Townsend, and Arkady Tseytlin for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY97-22362 to Syracuse University, the Alfred P. Sloan foundation, and by funds from Syracuse University.
[99]{} C. Bachas, M. Douglas, and C. Schweigert, [“Flux Stabilization of D-branes,”]{} hep-th/0003037.
W. Taylor, [*“D2-branes in B fields”*]{}, hep-th/0004141.
J. Polchinski, as cited in [@Taylor].
A. Alekseev, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov, [*“On B-independence of RR charges”*]{}, hep-th/0005244.
J.M. Izquierdo and P.K. Townsend, [*“Axionic Defect Anomalies and their Cancellation,”*]{} Nucl. Phys. [**B414**]{} (1994) 93-113, hep-th/9307050.
A. Hanany and E. Witten, [*“Type IIB Superstrings, BPS Monopoles, and Three-Dimensional Gauge Dynamics,”*]{} Nucl. Phys. [**B492**]{} (1997) 152, hep-th/9611230.
J. Polchinski and A. Strominger, [“New Vacuua for Type II String Theory,”]{} Phys. Rev. Lett., [**B388**]{} (1996) 736-742, hep-th/9510227.
O. Bergman, M. R. Gaberdiel, and G. Lifschytz, [*“Branes, Orientifolds, and the Creation of Elementary Strings,”*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B509**]{} (1998) 194-215, hep-th/9705130.
A. Gomberoff and D. Marolf, [*“Brane Transmutation in Supergravity,”*]{} JHEP [**02**]{} (2000) 021.
K. S. Stelle, [*“BPS branes in supergravity,”*]{} Trieste 1997, High energy physics and Cosmology, hep-th/9803116.
D. N. Page, [*“Classical stability of round and squashed seven-spheres in eleven-dimensional supergravity”*]{} Phys. Rev. [**D 28**]{}, 2976 (1983).
M.S. Bremer, H. Lu, C.N. Pope, and K.S. Stelle, [*Dirac Quantization Conditions and Kaluza-Klein Reduction*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B529**]{} (1998) 259-294.
P.K. Townsend, [*“Brane Surgery”*]{}, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**58**]{} (1997) 163-175, hep-th/9609217.
U. Danielsson, G. Ferretti, and I. R. Klebanov, [“Creation of Fundamental Strings by Crossing D-branes,”]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 1984-1987, hep-th/9705084.
I. R. Klebanov, [“D-branes and Creation of Strings,”]{} Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**68**]{} (1998) 140, hep-th/9709160.
G. Lifschytz, [*Comparing D-branes to Black Branes*]{}, hep-th/9604156.
S. P. de Alwis, [“A note on brane creation,”]{} Phys. Lett. [**B388**]{} (1996) 720, hep-th/9706142.
P. Ho and Y. Wu, [*Brane Creation in M(atrix) Theory,”*]{} Phys. Lett. [**B420**]{} (1998) 43-50, hep-th/9708137.
N. Ohta, T. Shimizu, and J-G Zhou, [*“Creation of Fundamental String in M(atrix) Theory,”*]{} Phys. Rev. [**D57**]{} (1998) 2040-2044, hep-th/9710218.
T. Nakatsu, K. Ohta, T. Yokono, and Y. Yoshia, [*“A proof of Brane Creation via M-theory,”*]{} Mod. Phys. Lett., [**A13**]{} (1998) 293-302, hep-th/9711117.
Y. Yoshia, [*“Geometrical Analysis of Brane Creation via $M$-theory,”*]{} Prog. Theor. Phys., [**99**]{} (1998) 305-314, hep-th/9711177.
C. G. Callan, A. Guijosa, and K. G. Savvidy, [“Baryons and String Creation from the Fivebrane Woldvolume Action,”]{} Nucl. Phys. [**B547**]{} (1999) 127-142, hep-th/9810092.
M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, [*“Quantization of Topological Mass in the Presence of a Magnetic Pole,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett., [**56**]{} (1986) 689-692.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We describe a broadband optical device that is capable of rotating the polarization plane of a linearly polarized light at any desired angle over a wide range of wavelengths. The device is composed of a sequence of half-wave plates rotated at specific angles with respect to their fast-polarization axes. This design draws on an analogy with composite pulses, which is a well-known control technique from quantum physics. We derive the solutions for the rotation angles of the single half-wave plates depending on the desired polarization rotation angle. We show that the broadband polarization rotator is robust against variations of the parameters of both the crystal and the light field.'
author:
- 'Andon A. Rangelov'
- Elica Kyoseva
title: Broadband composite polarization rotator
---
Introduction
============
One of the fundamental properties of light is its polarization [@Hecht; @Wolf; @Azzam; @Goldstein; @Duarte], and the ability to observe and manipulate the polarization state is highly desirable for practical applications. For example, there are many optical measurement techniques based on polarization which are used in stress measurements, ellipsometry, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and others [@Pye; @Damask; @Landolfi]. Furthermore, the controlled rotation of the light polarization is the underlying principle on which display and telecommunications technologies are based [@Matioli].
Key optical elements for polarization state manipulation are optical polarization rotators, which rotate the light polarization plane at a desired angle [@Hecht; @Wolf; @Azzam; @Goldstein; @Duarte]. The commercially available polarization rotators, which typically exploit the effect of circular birefringence, possess two main advantages. First, the angle of light polarization rotation is independent of rotation of the rotator around its own optical axis; and second, they are fairly inexpensive. However, they are useful only for a limited range of wavelengths. Alternatively, polarization plane rotation can be achieved through consecutive reflections, which is the underlying principle of Fresnel rhombs [@Hecht; @Wolf; @Azzam; @Goldstein; @Duarte]. They posses the advantages of operating over a wide range of wavelengths but are quite expensive.
A scheme to rotate the light polarization plane for several fixed wavelengths was suggested by Koester [@Koester]. The design presented in Ref. [@Koester] uses up to four half-wave plates in a series to ensure good rotation of the polarization plane for four different wavelengths. Another possible method to enlarge the spectral width of a light polarization plane rotation is to use two wave plates of the same material as shown by Kim and Chang in Ref. [@Kim].
In this paper, we further extend the approach of Kim and Chang [@Kim] in combination with the Koester idea [@Koester] and design an arbitrary broadband polarization rotator which outperforms existing rotators for broadband operation. Our scheme consists of two crossed half-wave plates, where the angle between their fast axes is half the angle of polarization rotation. We design the two half-wave plates to be broadband using composite pulses approach [Ivanov,Peters,Rangelov,Kyoseva]{}. That is, each composite half-wave plate consists of a number of individual wave plates arranged at specific angles with respect to their fast axes. This ensures that the proposed polarization rotator is broadband and stable with respect to wavelength variations. We provide the recipe for constructing a polarization rotator device such that, in principal, an arbitrary broadband polarization profile can be achieved.
Background
==========
Any reversible polarization transformation can be represented as a composition of a retarder and a rotator [@Hurvitz]. A rotation at an angle $\theta $ is represented by the Jones matrix in the horizontal-vertical (HV) basis as, $$\mathfrak{R}(\theta )=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \theta & \sin \theta \\
-\sin \theta & \cos \theta%
\end{array}%
\right] .$$ A retarder is expressed in the HV basis by the Jones matrix, $$\mathfrak{J}(\varphi )=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{i\varphi /2} & 0 \\
0 & e^{-i\varphi /2}%
\end{array}%
\right] ,$$where the phase shift is $\varphi =2\pi L(n_{\mathnormal{f}}-n_{\mathnormal{s%
}})/\lambda $, with $\lambda $ being the vacuum wavelength, $n_{\mathnormal{f%
}}$ and $n_{\mathnormal{s}}$ the refractive indices along the fast and slow axes, correspondingly, and $L$ the thickness of the retarder. The most widely-used retarders are the half-wave plate ($\varphi =\pi $) and the quarter-wave plate ($\varphi =\pi /2$). The performance of such retarders is usually limited to a narrow range of wavelengths around $\lambda$ due to their strong sensitivity to variations in the thickness and the rotary power of the plate.
Let us now consider a single polarizing birefringent plate of phase shift $%
\varphi $ and let us present a system of HV polarization axes (HV basis), which are rotated at an angle $\theta $ with reference to the slow and the fast axes of the plate. The Jones matrix $\mathfrak{J}$ then has the form $$\mathfrak{J}_{\theta }(\varphi )=\mathfrak{R}(-\theta )\mathfrak{J}(\varphi )%
\mathfrak{R}(\theta ). \label{jones2}$$ In the left-right circular polarization (LR) basis this matrix attains the form $\mathbf{J}_{\theta }(\varphi )=\mathbf{W}^{-1}\mathfrak{J}%
_{\theta}(\varphi )\mathbf{W}$, where $\mathbf{W}$ connects the HV and LR polarization bases, $$\mathbf{W}=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
-i & i%
\end{array}
\right] .$$ Explicitly, the Jones matrix for a retarder with a phase shift $\varphi $ and rotated at an angle $\theta $ is given as (in the LR basis), $$\mathbf{J}_{\theta }(\varphi )=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \left( \varphi /2\right) & i\sin \left( \varphi /2\right) e^{2i\theta }
\\
i\sin \left( \varphi /2\right) e^{-2i\theta } & \cos \left( \varphi /2\right)%
\end{array}
\right] . \label{retarder}$$ For example, half- and quarter- wave plates rotated at an angle $\theta $, $%
(\lambda /2)_{\theta }$ and $(\lambda /4)_{\theta }$, are described by $%
\mathbf{J}_{\theta }(\pi )$ and $\mathbf{J}_{\theta }(\pi /2)$, respectively.
Composite broadband half-wave plate {#sec3}
===================================
Our first step is to design a half-wave plate that is robust to variations in the phase shift $\varphi $ at $\varphi =m\pi $ ($m=1,2,3...$). Such half-wave plates allow for imperfect rotary power $\varphi /L$ and deviations in the plate thickness $L$, and furthermore, operate over a wide range of wavelengths $\lambda $. To achieve this, we will follow an analogous approach to that of composite pulses [Ivanov,Peters,Rangelov,Kyoseva]{}, which is widely adopted for robust control in quantum physics [@Torosov1; @Genov; @Torosov2]. In detail, we replace the single half-wave plate with an arrangement of an odd number $N=2n+1$ half-wave plates (shown schematically in Fig.\[Fig1\]). Each wave plate has a phase shift $\varphi =\pi $ and is rotated at an angle $\theta _{k}$ with the anagram condition $%
\theta_{k}=\theta _{N+1-k}$, $(k=1,2,...,n)$. The composite Jones matrix of the above described arrangement of wave plates in the LR basis is given by, $$\mathbf{J}^{\left( N\right) }=\mathbf{J}_{\theta _{N}}\left( \varphi \right)
\mathbf{J}_{\theta _{N-1}}\left( \varphi \right) \cdots \mathbf{J}_{\theta
_{1}}\left( \varphi \right) . \label{Jn}$$Our objective is to implement an ideal half-wave plate propagator with Jones matrix $\mathbf{J}_{0}$ in the LR basis (up to a global phase factor), $$\mathbf{J}_{0}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & i \\
i & 0%
\end{array}%
\right] ,$$
![(Color online) Schematic structure of the composite broadband half-wave plate, which consist of a stack of $N$ ordinary half-wave plates rotated at specific angles $\protect\theta _{k}$. The fast polarization axes of the wave plates are represented by dashed lines, while the solid lines represent the $x$ direction of the coordinate system.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
$N$ Rotation angles $(\theta _{1}$; $\theta _{2}$; $\cdots $; $%
\theta _{N-1}$; $\theta _{N}$)
----- --------------------------------------------------------------
3 (60;120;60)
5 (51.0;79.7;147.3;79.7;51.0)
7 (68.0;16.6;98.4;119.8;98.4;16.6;68.0)
9 (99.4;25.1;64.7;141.0;93.8;141.0;64.7;25.1;99.4)
11 (31.2;144.9;107.8;4.4;44.7;158.6;
44.7;4.4;107.8;144.9;31.2)
13 (59.6;4.9;82.5;82.7;42.7;125.8;147.2
125.8;42.7;82.7;82.5;4.9;59.6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
: Rotation angles $\protect\theta _{k}$ (in degrees) for composite broadband half-wave plates with different number $N$ of constituent half-wave plates. []{data-label="Table1"}
by the product of half-wave plates $\mathbf{J}^{\left( N\right) }$ from Eq. . That is, we set $\mathbf{J}^{(N)} \equiv \mathbf{J}_{0}$ at $%
\varphi =\pi $ which leaves us with $n$ independent angles $\theta _{k}$ to use as control parameters. We then nullify as many lowest order derivatives of $\mathbf{J}^{(N)}$ vs the phase shift $\varphi $ at $\varphi =\pi $ as possible. We thus obtain a system of nonlinear algebraic equations for the rotation angles $\theta _{k}$:
\[nullify\] $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \partial _{\varphi }^{k}\mathbf{J}_{11}^{\left( N\right) }\right]
_{\varphi =\pi } &=&0\quad \left( k=1,2,...,n\right) , \label{Ja} \\
\left[ \partial _{\varphi }^{k}\mathbf{J}_{12}^{\left( N\right) }\right]
_{\varphi =\pi } &=&0\quad \left( k=1,2,...,n\right) . \label{Jb}\end{aligned}$$
The anagram symmetry assumption for the angles $\theta _{k}$ ($\theta
_{k}=\theta_{N+1-k}$), ensures that all even-order derivatives of $\mathbf{J}%
_{11}^{\left( N\right) }$ and all odd-order derivatives of $%
\mathbf{J}_{12}^{\left( N\right) }$ vanish; hence, the $n$ angles allow us to nullify the first $n$ derivatives of the matrix $\mathbf{J%
}^{(N)} $ .
Solutions to Eqs. (\[nullify\]) provide the recipe to construct *arbitrary broadband* composite half-wave plates. A larger number $N$ of ordinary half-wave plates provides a higher order of robustness against variations in the phase shift $\varphi $ and thus, the light wavelength $%
\lambda $. We list several examples of broadband half-wave plates in Table \[Table1\].
![(Color online) Fidelity $F$ vs phase shift $\protect\varphi $ for broadband polarization rotator, for different number of constituent plates $%
N $ in the composite half-wave plates. The rotation angles of the two composite half-wave plates are those given in Table \[Table2\]. Frame (a) for polarization rotation of $90$ degree, frame (b) for polarization rotation of $45$ degree, frame (c) for polarization rotation of 30 degree, and frame (d) for polarization rotation of 10 degree. The black dashed line is for a rotator composed of just two half-wave plates, given for easy reference.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Broadband rotator
=================
We proceed to show how a broadband rotator can be constructed as a sequence of two broadband half-wave plates with an additional rotation between them. Let us first consider a simple sequence of two ordinary half-wave plates with a relative rotation angle $\alpha /2$ between them. We multiply the Jones matrices of the two half-wave plates ($\varphi =\pi $) given in Eq. (\[retarder\]), where one is rotated at $\alpha /4$ while the other is rotated at $-\alpha/4 $. Thus, we obtain the total propagator $$\mathbf{J}_{\alpha /4}(\pi )\mathbf{J}_{-\alpha /4}(\pi )=-\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{i\alpha } & 0 \\
0 & e^{-i\alpha }%
\end{array}%
\right] , \label{rotator2}$$ which represents a Jones matrix for a rotator in the LR basis (up to unimportant $\pi$ phase), $$\mathbf{R}(\alpha )=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{i\alpha } & 0 \\
0 & e^{-i\alpha }%
\end{array}%
\right] . \label{rotator Jones matrix}$$
However, a rotator constructed from two ordinary half-wave plates according to Eq. is not broadband. We overcome this limitation and extend the range of operation of the rotator by replacing the two ordinary half-wave plates with two identical broadband composite half-wave plates as described in Section \[sec3\]. In order to calculate the efficiency of our composite polarization rotator we define the fidelity $F$ [Ivanov,Ardavan]{} according to, $$F=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\left( \mathbf{R}^{-1}(\alpha )\mathbf{J}_{\mathnormal{%
tot}}\right),$$where $\mathbf{J}_{\mathnormal{tot}} = \mathbf{J}_{\alpha /4}^{(N)}\mathbf{J}%
_{-\alpha/4}^{(N)}\mathbf{\ }$ with $\mathbf{J}_{\alpha /4}^{(N)}$ and $%
\mathbf{J}_{-\alpha /4}^{(N)}$ representing the $N$-composite broadband half-wave plates from Eq. rotated additionally to $\alpha /4$ and $-\alpha /4$, respectively.
![(Color online) Fidelity $F$ vs wavelength $\lambda $ for broadband polarization rotator, for different number of constituent plates $%
N $ in the composite half-wave plates. The rotation angles of the two composite half-wave plates are those given in Table \[Table2\]. Frame (a) for polarization rotation of $90$ degree, frame (b) for polarization rotation of $75$ degree, frame (c) for polarization rotation of 60 degree, and frame (d) for polarization rotation of 45 degree. The black dashed line is for a rotator composed of just two half-wave plates, given for easy reference.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$N+N$ Rotation angles of composite half-wave plates ($\theta _{1}$-$\alpha
/4;$ $\theta _{2}$-$\alpha $/4; $\cdots $;$\theta _{N}$-$\alpha $/4)$%
(\theta _{1}$+$\alpha $/4;$\theta _{2}$+$\alpha $/4;$\cdots $;$\theta
_{N}$+$\alpha $/4)
------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3+3 (60-$\alpha $/4;120-$\alpha $/4;60-$\alpha $/4)(60+$\alpha $/4;120+$\alpha $/4;60+$\alpha $/4)
5+5 (51.0-$\alpha $/4;79.7-$\alpha $/4;147.3-$\alpha $/4;79.7-$%
\alpha $/4;51.0-$\alpha $/4)(51.0+$\alpha $/4;79.7+$\alpha $/4;147.3+$%
\alpha $/4;79.7+$\alpha $/4;51.0+$\alpha $/4)
7+7 (68.0-$\alpha $/4;16.6-$\alpha $/4;98.4-$\alpha $/4;119.8-$%
\alpha $/4;98.4-$\alpha $/4;16.6-$\alpha $/4;68.0-$\alpha $/4)
(68.0+$\alpha $/4;16.6+$\alpha $/4;98.4+$\alpha $/4;119.8+$\alpha $/4;98.4+$\alpha $/4;16.6+$\alpha $/4;68.0+$\alpha $/4)
9+9 (99.4-$\alpha $/4;25.1-$\alpha $/4;64.7-$\alpha $/4;141.0-$%
\alpha $/4;93.8-$\alpha $/4;141.0-$\alpha $/4;64.7-$\alpha $/4;25.1-$%
\alpha $/4;99.4-$\alpha $/4)
(99.4+$\alpha $/4;25.1+$\alpha $/4;64.7+$\alpha $/4;141.0+$\alpha $/4;93.8+$\alpha $/4;141.0+$\alpha $/4;64.7+$\alpha $/4;25.1+$\alpha $/4;99.4+$\alpha $/4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several examples of broadband polarization rotators, using the composite broadband half-wave plates from Table \[Table1\], are given in Table [Table2]{}. Their fidelity with respect to variations in the phase shift $%
\varphi $ is illustrated in Fig.\[Fig2\].
Furthermore, in Fig. \[Fig3\] we illustrate the fidelity of the suggested broadband polarization rotator, using true zero order half-wave plates, which operate around 1 $\mu m$, made from quartz (thickness $L$ of each wave plate is 57 $\mu m$). The retardance of the wave plates is calculated using the Sellmeier equations for ordinary and extraordinary refractive indexes [@Ghoshr].
Conclusion
==========
We have presented an approach to construct an arbitrary broadband composite polarization rotator which can rotate the polarization of a linearly polarized light at any desired angle $\alpha$. The polarization rotator is comprised of two composite broadband half-wave plates with a relative rotation of $\alpha /2$ between them. Furthermore, using a sequence of zero order quartz half-wave plates, we numerically showed that the polarization rotator is broadband and operates over a wide range of wavelengths. An experimental implementation of the suggested broadband polarization rotator with half-wave plates which are readily available in most laboratories should be straightforward. Finally, we note that this technique has an analogue in atomic physics in terms of composite phase gates as recently was demonstrated by Torosov and Vitanov [@Torosov].
We acknowledge financial support by Singapore University of Technology and Design Start-Up Research Grant, Project no. SRG-EPD-2012-029 and SUTD-MIT International Design Centre (IDC) Grant, Project no. IDG31300102. The authors are grateful to Svetoslav Ivanov for useful discussions.
[99]{} E. Hecht, Optics, Addison Wesley, San Francisco, 2002.
M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
M. A. Azzam, N. M. Bashara, Ellipsometry and Polarized Light, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1977.
D. Goldstein, E. Collett, Polarized Light, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2003.
F. J. Duarte, Tunable Laser Optics, Elsevier Academic, New York, 2003.
J. D. Pye, Polarised Light in Science and Nature, Institute of Physics, Bristol, 2001.
J. N. Damask, Polarization Optics in Telecommunications, Springer, New York, 2005.
E. L. Degl’innocenti and M. Landolfi, Polarization in Spectral Lines, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2004.
E. Matioli, S. Brinkley, K. M. Kelchner, Y. L. Hu, S. Nakamura, S. P. DenBaars, J. S. Speck, and C. Weisbuch, Light: Sci. Appl. 1 (2012) e22.
C. J. Koester, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 49 (1959) 405.
J. S. Kim, J. K. Chang, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 48 (2006) 51.
S. S. Ivanov, A. A. Rangelov, N. V. Vitanov, T. Peters, T. Halfmann, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 29 (2012) 265.
T. Peters, S. S. Ivanov, D. Englisch, A. A. Rangelov, N. V. Vitanov, T. Halfmann, Appl. Opt. 51 (2012) 7466.
A. A. Rangelov, Opt. Comm. 285 (2012) 4157.
E. Kyoseva, N. V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. A 88 (2013) 063410.
H. Hurvitz, R. C. Jones, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 31 (1941) 493.
B. T. Torosov, N. V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. A 83 (2011) 053420.
G. T. Genov, B. T. Torosov, N. V. Vitanov Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011) 063413.
B. T. Torosov, S. Guerin, N. V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 233001.
A. Ardavan, New J. Phys. 9 (2007) 24.
G. Ghoshr, Opt. Commun. 163 (1999) 95.
B. T. Torosov, N. V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. A 90 (2014) 012341.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we proposed VeSC-CoL (Version Space Cardinality based Concept Learning) to deal with concept learning on extremely imbalanced datasets, especially when cross-validation is not a viable option. VeSC-CoL uses version space cardinality as a measure for model quality to replace cross-validation. Instead of naive enumeration of the version space, Ordered Binary Decision Diagram and Boolean Satisfiability are used to compute the version space. Experiments show that VeSC-CoL can accurately learn the target concept when computational resource is allowed.'
author:
- |
[**Kuo-Kai Hsieh**]{}\
University of California, Santa Barbara\
[email protected]\
\
University of California, Santa Barbara\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'uai18.bib'
title: A Concept Learning Tool Based On Calculating Version Space Cardinality
---
INTRODUCTION
============
In hardware Electronic Design Automation (EDA) and Test, learning methods have been widely used in diverse applications to analyze data from design simulation and testing of silicon chips [@wang2017experience]. In many applications, data can be encoded with discrete features and the underlying learning approach can be formulated as concept learning. However, in those applications, the applicability of concept learning is usually limited by the availability of the data. For example, the data comprises two classes of samples, positive and negative, and there are very few or no positive samples. This scenario occurs quite often when the goal of learning is to uncover the cause for some special property observed on the positive samples. To give an example, in functional verification (e.g. for a System-on-Chip (SoC) design) the data are simulation traces based on applying a set of input stimuli to the design. The interest can be on a particular property observed in the simulation traces. Usually, there are few traces showing the property. The learning goal is to understand what characteristics in the input stimuli lead to those few traces, i.e. the causes. In this context, features are used to describe the input stimuli.
Abstractly, the learning problem faced in those applications can be formulated as the following. Two classes of samples are given, $D^+$ and $D^-$. Each sample $s$ is encoded with a set of discrete features $f_1, \ldots, f_n$. Let $m_p=|D^+|$ and $m_n=|D^-|$. Usually we have $m_p \ll m_n$, $m_p$ is very small or can be zero. The cause(s) of the positive samples can be described as a target concept. And the learning goal is to uncover this target concept from $D^+$ and $D^-$. Without loss of generality, we can assume the features are binary. This is because multiple binary features can be used to encode a single multi-value feature. Furthermore, we can assume the target concept falls into the scope of a $k$-term disjuctive normal form (DNF) with a small $k$. In practice, a single cause for a property can be described as a combination of feature values, e.g. a monomial. If a property has multiple causes, then they can be described as a $k$-term DNF. Because the number of causes for a property is small (e.g. 2 to 4), usually there is no need to consider a large $k$.
Cross-validation is a common way to select and validate a learning model in practice. However, for the concept learning problem described above, cross-validation is not a viable option due to the lack of positive samples. Because the samples are obtained through simulation or silicon measurement, there is a significant cost to get an additional sample. By the nature of the problem, getting more positive samples is difficult without knowing the cause, i.e. without learning the target concept.
Because cross-validation cannot be used, in practice validation of a learning result relies on a separate process outside the learning. For example, this validation may involve expert’s investigation of a target concept or through discussion among a group of engineers to determine its meaningfulness. Because the cost associated with such a model validation process can be significant, it is desirable for a learning tool to output a model with some sort of guarantee.
In traditional concept learning, there is no requirement that the output concept is unique. In other words, the version space can still contain many concepts that can fit the data and the output concept is just one of them. Usually, a tool can report several models if the user adjusts some learning parameters. However, a tool does not report the size of the version space, i.e. how many remaining concepts that can all fit the data.
Suppose we have a tool that can calculate the size of version space. Then, this tool can be used not only to find the concept that fits the data but also to identify the concept hypothesis space that results in a small version space based on the data. In other words, a learning strategy can be implemented to search for the hypothesis space assumption that fits the data where the “fitting” can be defined as resulting in a very small version space, e.g. size $<10$. Note that given a set of hypothesis space assumptions to choose from, it is possible that none of them can fit the data. In this case, the learning fails. Then, the user has two choices, either to expand the data or to include additional hypothesis space assumptions.
Based on the discussion above, in this paper, we present Version Space Cardinality based Concept Learning (VeSC-CoL). The idea of VeSC-CoL is to search for a fitting hypothesis space with increased complexity. This implies that VeSC-CoL works with a set of pre-defined hypothesis space assumptions where the complexity of each hypothesis space is defined and can be calculated. Outputs from the VeSC-CoL tool include a learned concept and the version space cardinality as a quality measure for the concept. For example, if the cardinality is one, this means that the concept is unique and this indicates the highest quality for the model. If the cardinality is small, the tool can also list all fitting concepts.
VERSION SPACE LEARNING
======================
Version space learning originates in [@mitchell1978version]. Given a hypothesis space $H$, a set of positive samples $D^+$, and a set of negative samples $D^-$, version space is defined as the set of hypotheses that are consistent to the given samples. Formally speaking, $VS =$ $\{h \in H|\forall s \in D^+ \; h(s) = 1, \forall s \in D^- \; h(s) = 0 \}$.
In [@mitchell1978version], version space ($VS$) is represented by the boundary sets $S$ and $G$, where $S$ is the set of most specific hypotheses in $VS$ and $G$ is the set of most general hypotheses in $VS$. Then, for every hypothesis $h \in VS$, $h$ is as or more general than some hypothesis in $S$ and as or more specific than some hypothesis in $G$.
Following research in version space learning include investigating new methods to manipulate $S$ and $G$, e.g. incremental version-space merging that utilizes set intersection idea to calculate the boundary sets [@hirsh1994generalizing], proposing alternative version space representations [@lau2003programming], and arguing that representation is not the key problem in version space learning [@hirsh2004version].
Our work differs from the above research mainly in that we investigate methods to calculate version space cardinality. Except for naive enumeration, there is no published work solving this problem.
VeSC-CoL OVERVIEW
=================
In this work, VeSC-CoL adopts a particular learning strategy enabled by the capability to calculate version space cardinality. Given a general assumption of hypothesis space, a sequence of hypothesis sub-spaces are defined. Each sub-space comprises hypotheses of the same complexity. VeSC-CoL then tries to find the simplest hypothesis sub-space that fits the data.
HYPOTHESIS SPACE PARTITION
--------------------------
The search of VeSC-CoL can be thought of as following the Occam’s razor principle to find the simplest hypothesis to fit the data as well. The added-value of VeSC-CoL is that it also identifies the simplest fitting hypothesis sub-space if it exists. As mentioned above, it is possible that a fitting hypothesis can be found while the simplest fitting hypothesis sub-space does not exist because the version space cardinality is too large. Hence, VeSC-CoL can fail. This is in contrast to a traditional learning tool where if there exists a fitting model, the tool would not fail. Take decision tree classifier as an example. Such learning can also follow the Occam’s razor principle where the process of node splitting stops when a node contains only one class of data. Such learning would not fail if there exists a decision tree to fit the data.
With above strategy, the learning problem can be stated as the following: given a seqeunce of hypothesis sub-spaces $H_1, H_2, \ldots$, a complexity measure $comp$, a hypothesis fitting evaluator $fit$, a cardinality bound $B$, and data $D$, find a hypothesis $h \in H_i$ such that $comp(h)$ is minimized subject to (1) $fit(h, D)$ is true and (2) the cardinality of the version space based on $H_i$ is $\leq B$.
Figure \[fig:minimization\_by\_search\] illustrates a simple search process to solve the learning problem. Given the complexity measure $comp$, the original hypothesis space $H$ is partitioned into a sequence of hypothesis sub-space $H_1, H_2, \ldots$ where each sub-space comprises the hypotheses of the same complexity. The search proceeds from the lowest-complexity sub-space to highest-complexity sub-space. The search process stops when it first finds a hypothesis that satisfies the two constraints.
![Sub-space partitioning based on complexity[]{data-label="fig:minimization_by_search"}](hypothesis_space_split){width="45.00000%"}
Suppose $H_i$ is a hypothesis sub-space where every hypothesis $h$ does not satisfy the first constraint ($fit(h, D)$ is not true). This indicates an under-fitting situation. On the other hand, suppose $H_j$ for $j>i$ contains a hypothesis $h$ satisfying the first constraint but the version space of $H_j$ violates the second constraint. This indicates an over-fitting situation. If $j=i+1$, then there is no solution to the learning problem. This means that there is no hypothesis sub-space to fit the data or there is not enough data to obtain a small enough version space.
Recall that in this work VeSC-CoL is applied for learning a $k$-term DNF formula. Given a $k$-term formula $h$, the complexity measure $comp$ used by VeSC-CoL is defined as $comp(h) = (l, k)$, where $k$ is the number of terms and $l$ is the number of literals in $h$. We say $(l_1, k_1) < (l_2, k_2)$ if and only if $l_1 < l_2$ or $l_1 = l_2 \;\land\; k_1 < k_2$.
For example, suppose our hypothesis space is $k$-term DNF with $k$ no greater than $3$. The partitioned sub-space in the order of increasing complexity is $(1,1), (2,1), (2,2), (3,1), (3,2), (3,3), (4,1), \dots$.
VeSC-CoL FLOW
-------------
Figure \[fig:flow\] depicts the flow of VeSC-CoL. It starts from calculating the version space cardinality of the simplest-complexity sub-space. If there is no hypothesis consistent with the data, i.e. $|VS| = 0$, then VeSC-CoL moves onto the next hypothesis sub-space. The iteration stops when both constraints are satisfied. At this point, VeSC-CoL reports at most $B$ hypotheses in version space as well as version space cardinality as a measure of learning quality. $B$ is an application-specific parameter and usually is set to the maximum number of hypotheses that a user can handle in model evaluation.
![Illstration of VeSC-CoL flow[]{data-label="fig:flow"}](VeSC-CoL_flow){width="45.00000%"}
In theory, this problem is proved to be no easier than \#P-complete [@hirsh2004version]. Even determining whether a version space is empty or not for $k$-term DNF is NP-hard [@pitt1988computational].
Though this problem is intractable in theory, in practice a useful tool can still be developed. In this paper, we propose two methods to calculate version space cardinality. The first method is based on Ordered Binary Decision Diagram (BDD) [@bryant1986graph]. The version space cardinality can be obtained by calculating the number of minterms in BDD. The second method is based on Boolean Satisfiability (SAT). For the SAT implementation, VeSC-CoL does not calculate version space cardinality. Rather, VeSC-CoL tries to find at most $B+1$ hypotheses in the version space.
BDD-BASED LEARNING
==================
The basic idea of the proposed BDD-based version space learning method is based on set intersection [@hirsh1994generalizing]. Figure \[fig:version\_space\_learning\] illustrates this idea. BDD is used to represent a set of hypothesis. In a version space BDD, there is a bijection between a minterm of the BDD and a DNF representation.
![Version space learning by set intersection[]{data-label="fig:version_space_learning"}](version_space_learning){width="40.00000%"}
First, a set of hypotheses with a given complexity is created, which is the hypothesis sub-space in Figure \[fig:version\_space\_learning\]. Then each sample is converted into the set of hypotheses that agree with the sample. The version space can be obtained by intersecting the hypothesis sub-space and all the sample spaces.
Set intersection can be performed via Boolean AND operation of BDDs. To determine the size of version space, because of bijection, we can simply count the number of minterms in the version space BDD. Note that if a hypothesis has multiple representations, special treatment is required and it is discussed in Section \[sec:non-canonicality\].
In the description below, we assume the hypothesis sub-space is a $(l,k)$-space, i.e. a $k$-term $l$-literal DNF. If another hypothesis sub-space definition is used, the BDD encoding method will be different but the encoding ideas can be reused.
IDEA OF ENCODING
----------------
Given the number of features $n$ and the number of terms $k$. Let $x^j_i$ represent the status of the $i$-th feature in the $j$-th term, wherein $x^j_i \in$ {neg, pos, dcare}, which denotes appearing in negative form, in positive form and don’t care (not appearing). Since $x^j_i$ is a three-value variable, we use two Boolean variables to represent it in BDD. An example is shown in Figure \[fig:bdd\_encoding\_idea\]. In sum, there are $2nk$ variables in BDD.
![Using BDD to encode a three-value variable[]{data-label="fig:bdd_encoding_idea"}](BDD_encoding_idea){width="35.00000%"}
BASE HYPOTHESIS SPACE ENCODING
------------------------------
Algorithm \[alg:hypo\_bdd\_base\] shows the method to create a BDD representing an $n$-feature and $k$-term DNF hypothesis space. This algorithm simply forces each $x^j_i$ to be in its three possible values. Note that there is a bijection between a satisfiable assignment in the returned BDD and a $k$-term DNF representation.
\[alg:hypo\_bdd\_base\] dd $\leftarrow$ BDD\_One() $dd$
HYPOTHESIS SUB-SPACE ENCODING
-----------------------------
Algorithm \[alg:hypo\_bdd1\] describes the method to create a BDD representing an $n$-feature, $k$-term DNF, $l$-literal space. Line 1 to Line 4 is the initialization process for dynamic programming. The idea is that at the end, an assignment that makes lit\_dd\[$w$\] == 1 can be mapped to a DNF formula having at least $w$ literals.
\[alg:hypo\_bdd1\] lit\_dd\[0\] $\leftarrow$ BDD\_One()
$dd$ $\leftarrow$ BDD\_And(lit\_dd\[$l$\], BDD\_Not(lit\_dd\[$l+1$\])) $dd$
Line 5 to Line 13 updates the BDDs used in dynamic programming. lit\_dd is used to save intermediate results. At line 10, an assignment that makes lit\_dd\[$w$\] == 1 can be mapped to a DNF formula with at least $w$ literals in the processed $x^j_i$. The outer two loops iterate all $x^j_i$, then for each $x^j_i$, lit\_dd is updated accordingly. Note that lit\_dd is updated from the highest index to the lowest index. After processing all the $x^j_i$, line 14 creates the result BDD representing the $l$-literal sub-space.
Note that the returned BDD does not guarantee a bijection between a minterm and a DNF representation due to the NOT operation. To have this bijection, a minterm in the returned BDD must be in the base hypothesis space BDD as well. Also, with proper BDD variable ordering, it can be shown that the complexity of Algorithm \[alg:hypo\_bdd1\] is $O(nkl)$.
POSITIVE SAMPLE SPACE ENCODING
------------------------------
Algorithm \[alg:pos\_bdd\] converts a positive sample to a BDD representing a set of consistent hypotheses. Its input parameters are $n$, the number of features, $k$, the number of terms, and $s[i] \in \{0, 1\}$, the value of the $i$-th feature. The key idea is in line 12, given a hypothesis, at least one term of the hypothesis must be evaluated as true so the hypothesis is evaluated as true.
\[alg:pos\_bdd\]
$dd$ $\leftarrow$ BDD\_Zero()
$dd$
Suppose $s = 101$. For a single term to be evaluated as true, feature $1$ and feature $3$ must not be negative literals and feature $2$ must not be a positive literal in the term. Otherwise, this term is evaluated as false. The generalization of this idea shown in line 3 to line 11.
At line 10, each minterm in term\_dd can be mapped to a single DNF term. At line 14, each minterm in $dd$ can be mapped to a $k$-term DNF formula. With proper BDD variable ordering, the complexity of this algorithm \[alg:pos\_bdd\] is $O(kn)$.
NEGATIVE SAMPLE SPACE ENCODING
------------------------------
The algorithm of converting a negative sample to its space BDD is similar to algorithm \[alg:pos\_bdd\]. The differences are (1) all the terms must be evaluated as false and (2) the conversion rule for a single term is negated. Algorithm \[alg:neg\_bdd\] shows the conversion algorithm.
\[alg:neg\_bdd\]
$dd$ $\leftarrow$ BDD\_One()
$dd$
Again, suppose $s = 101$. For a single term to be evaluated as false, one of the following conditions must hold: at least one of feature $1$ and feature $3$ appears as a negative literal, or feature $2$ appears as a positive literal. The generalization of this idea shown in line 3 to line 11. At line 12, since all the terms must be evaluated as false, the result $dd$ is the AND of all the term\_dd. With proper BDD variable ordering, the complexity of this algorithm \[alg:neg\_bdd\] is $O(kn)$.
OBTAINING VERSION SPACE
-----------------------
Version space can be obtained by performing an AND of all the above BDDs. Recall that each BDD represents a set of hypotheses inside the hypothesis sub-space, which agree with a positive sample or a negative sample. The AND is equivalent to the set intersection operation so the resulting BDD represents the version space.
In actual implementation, the AND of a set of BDDs is accomplished by performing a sequence of AND operations on two BDDs. We observed that the ordering of AND operations on BDDs significantly influences the runtime. There can be two prferences: (1) Process the hypothesis sub-space BDD first and (2) If $k \leq2 $, process positive sample BDDs before negative sample BBDs; otherwise process negative sample BDDs before positive sample BDDs.
To illustrate the first preference, Figure \[fig:BDD\_constraint\_ordering\] shows the number of BDD nodes in the version space BDD versus the number of processed samples. There are 100 features, 3 positive samples, and 800 negative samples. For the red line, the first AND operation is applied to the hypothesis sub-space BDD and a positive sample BDD. The next two ANDs involve the remaining two positive sample BDDs. The negative sample BBDs are processed afterward. For the green line, the first three positive sample BDDs are processed first, followed by processing negative sample BDDs. The hypothesis sub-space BDD is processed last.
The runtime is proportional to the number of BDD nodes. It can be clearly observed that the difference in runtime between the two cases is significant. The reason is that processing the hypothesis sub-space BDD first can more effectively trim the version space.
![Example to illustrate that processing hypothesis sub-space BDD at the beginning is more efficient[]{data-label="fig:BDD_constraint_ordering"}](BDD_constraint_ordering){width="45.00000%"}
Table \[tbl:BDD\_pos\_neg\_ordering\] shows the runtime comparison between processing positive sample BDDs first and processing negative sample BDDs first. The comparison is presented as a ratio between the two. In each case, there are 100 features, 250 positive samples, and 250 negative negative samples. The number of literals $l$ is randomly selected in each run and $l \leq 15$. In each case, there are 10 runs for the positive first and 10 runs for the negative first. A geometric mean of the 10 runtimes is calculated. Then, the ratio is calculated from the two geometric means. The reason to use the geometric mean is that the 10 runtimes can differ significantly based on the selection of $l$. Table \[tbl:BDD\_pos\_neg\_ordering\] shows that for $k \leq2 $, processing positive sample BDDs before negative sample BDDs saves time, and vice versa.
**k** **pos-first/neg-first**
------- -------------------------
1 $1.89 * 10^{-6}$
2 $8.70 * 10^{-2}$
3 $1.76 * 10^{3}$
4 $2.38 * 10^{5}$
: Runtime ratio of processing positive sample BDDs first over processing negative sample BDDs first[]{data-label="tbl:BDD_pos_neg_ordering"}
For $k=1$, the problem is monomial learning. For monomial learning, it is well known that positive samples are far more important than negative samples, i.e. positive samples are far more effective to reduce the version space than negative samples. As a result, processing positive sample BDDs first is more effective. This property seems to somewhat carry over to the case $k=2$. It is interesting that the situation reverses for $k=3$ and $k=4$. The theoretical reason for this reverse is still unclear and should be investigated further in the future.
### Handling Non-Canonicality {#sec:non-canonicality}
A hypothesis can be represented by different DNF formulas, e.g. $a + b = b + a$. Hence the size of version space cannot be obtained by counting the number of minterms in the version space BDD in general. Here we introduce another BDD that forces each term in a DNF representation to be in lexicographical order, which reduces the permutation among terms. Algorithm \[alg:lexi\_order\_bdd\] shows the procedure to create a BDD having lexicographical order among two terms. In total $k-1$ such BDDs are required. Next, when the number of minterms in the version space BDD is in the same order as $B$, we convert each minterm to its DNF formula and then use a BDD to represent it. Since BDD is a canonical representation, we are able to obtain the size of version space.
\[alg:lexi\_order\_bdd\]
$dd$ $\leftarrow$ BDD\_Zero() eq\_dd $\leftarrow$ BDD\_One()
$dd$
SAT-BASED LEARNING
==================
The idea of SAT-based version space learning is similar to BDD-based encoding. The basic components are the same: the hypothesis sub-space, the positive sample spaces, and the negative sample spaces. The main difference is that SAT requires others encoding techniques to restrict the number of clauses and the number of symbols. Let $n$ be the number of features, $l$ be the number of literals, $k$ be the number of terms, $m_p$ be the number of positive samples and $m_n$ be the number of negative samples. Then, the encoding method described below results in a CNF formula with $\Theta(nkl)$ symbols and $\Theta(nkl + nkm_p + km_n)$ clauses.
Same as BDD encoding, each feature can appear in positive, negative or does not appear in a term. Hence, three symbols are used to represent each case.
- $X^j_{i,1}$ is True iff the $i$-th feature in the $j$-th term appears in negative form
- $X^j_{i,2}$ is True iff the $i$-th feature in the $j$-th term appears in positive form
- $X^j_{i,3}$ is True iff the $i$-th feature in the $j$-th term does not appear
Since exactly one of the three cases is true, one-hot constraints are required to enforce the requirement:
$\Pi_{i=j}^k\Pi_{i=i}^n (X^j_{i,1}+X^j_{i,2}+X^j_{i,3})(\lnot X^j_{i,1}+ \lnot X^j_{i,2})$\
$(\lnot X^j_{i,1}+ \lnot X^j_{i,3})(\lnot X^j_{i,2}+ \lnot X^j_{i,3})$.
{width="90.00000%"}
{width="115.00000%"}
HYPOTHESIS SUB-SPACE ENCODING
-----------------------------
For a given $(l, k)$, we need to constrain the space to contain only $l$ literals. It is the cardinality constraint. The performance of different encoding methods for a cardinality constraint can be found in [@Ben-Haim2012]. In our implementation, we choose the sequential counter method [@Sinz2005] because its performance is comparable to other encoding methods and it has the unit propagation property [@Ben-Haim2012]. The encoding formula shown in [@Sinz2005] cannot be used directly because it is for cardinality $\leq l$. A straightforward modification is used for cardinality $= l$, based on converting the sequential counter circuit to SAT clauses. The encoding for the cardinality constraint requires additional $l(nk-1)$ new symbols and $\Theta(nkl)$ clauses.
For this encoding, we use the same notation and symbol in [@Sinz2005], so it is easier to get the difference between the modification and the original encoding, wherein $k$ is the number of symbols passing to the cardinality constraint and $S_{i,j}$ are additional symbols.
$(x_1 + \lnot S_{1,1}) (\lnot x_1 + S_{1,1}) $,\
$\Pi_{j=2}^{k} (\lnot S_{1,j})$,\
$\Pi_{i=2}^{n} (\lnot x_i + \lnot S_{i-1, k})$,\
$\Pi_{i=2}^{n-1} (x_i + S_{i-1, 1} + \lnot S_{i, 1})(\lnot x_i + S_{i, 1})(\lnot S_{i-1, 1} + S_{i, 1})$,\
$
\Pi_{i=2}^{n-1}\Pi_{j=2}^{k} (x_i + S_{i-1, j} + \lnot S_{i, j})(S_{i-1, j-1} + S_{i-1, j} + \lnot S_{i, j}) (\lnot S_{i-1, j} + S_{i, j})(\lnot x_i + \lnot S_{i-1, j-1} + S_{i, j})
$,\
$(x_n + S_{n-1,k}) ( S_{n-1,k-1} + S_{n-1,k}) $.\
POSITIVE SAMPLE SPACE ENCODING
------------------------------
Again, given a positive sample $s = 101$. For a single term to be evaluated as true, feature $1$ and feature $3$ must not appear in negative form and feature $2$ must not appear in positive form. Then, at least one term must be evaluated as true. A naive encoding leads to $n^k$ clauses, which is not feasible. To overcome this challenge, additional $k$ symbols, $A^1$, $A^2$, $\dots$, $A^k$, are used such that $A^j$ is true if and only if the $j$-th term is evaluated as true. With these additional symbols, the number of clauses reduces to $(n+1)k+1$. The requirement of at least one term is evaluated as true is encoded by a single clause:
$(\Sigma_{j=1}^{k} A^j)$,
and for each $j$, the relation of $A^j$ and $X^j_{i,\delta}$ is maintained by
$\Pi_{i=1}^{n} (\lnot X^j_{i, 2-s[i]} + \lnot A^j)$, and\
$(\Sigma_{i=1}^{n} X^j_{i, 2-s[i]} + A^j)$.
NEGATIVE SAMPLE SPACE ENCODING
------------------------------
Given a negative sample $s = 101$. For a single term to be evaluated as false, at least one of feature $1$ and feature $3$ must appear in negative form or feature $2$ appear in positive form. Besides, all the terms must be evaluated as false. For each sample, $k$ clauses are required and each clause encodes that a term is evaluated as false. The overall encoding is
$\Pi_{j=1}^{k} (\Sigma_{i=1}^{n} X^j_{i, 2-s[i]})$.
SIZE OF VERSION SPACE
---------------------
Each satisfiable assignment in the above SAT problem can be mapped to a DNF formula. The size of version space can be obtained by counting the number of satisfiable assignments. A common approach is to add new clauses to remove previous satisfiable assignments and then call the SAT solver again. Removing a satisfiable assignment is a standard approach and omitted here. Note that we use the same approach to deal with the non-canonicality problem described in BDD-based learning, except the lexicographical order constraint is represented by SAT clauses.
EXPERIMENTS
===========
We use CUDD-3.0.0 [@somenzi2015cudd] to implement the BDD-based learning and use Lingeling [@SAT2013] for the SAT-based learning. The dynamic variable re-ordering option in CUDD is disabled to facilitate the study of various aspects of the tool performance.
RUNTIME COMPARISON
------------------
We observed different characteristics of runtime between the SAT-based method and the BDD-based method. For example, we use a simple experiment to illustrate their differences. In this experiment, the target concept is assumed to be a 5-literal monomial (i.e. $k=1$ and $l=5$). There are 1000 randomly generated negative samples. There can be 0, 1, and 2 positive samples. Figure \[fig:sat\_runtime\] and Figure \[fig:bdd\_runtime\] show the runtime results. Each point is the average of runtimes over 10 runs. The size bound $B$ is set to $1$, so if the size of version space is large than $1$, the SAT-based learning would stop after finding the second fitting hypothesis. Note that in this experiment, for all cases with $l<5$ the calculated size of version space is always $0$, for $l=5$ the calculated size of version space is exactly $1$, and for $l>5$ the calculated size of version space is always larger than $1$. This shows that both learning methods can identify the correct hypothesis sub-space and the correct hypothesis.
The results show that the runtime of the BDD-based method is exponential to $l$. On the other hand, the SAT-based method has a peak runtime at $l=5$, i.e. the size of version space is $1$. Figure \[fig:bdd\_peaks\] shows another interesting property of BDD-based learning where the number of positive sample is 1. In each case, the positive sample BDD is processed first, followed by processing the negative sample BDDs. The figure shows the number of BDD nodes as a function of the number of processed samples. As it can be observed, the peak number of BDD nodes occurs earlier in the process than later, for example within the first 200 samples. This implies that the computational limitation occurs within the processing of the first 200 samples. As a result, it is not the case that a larger dataset implies a longer run time. As mentioned above, the deciding factor for the runtime is the length $l$.
Figure \[fig:bdd\_peaks\_2\] shows similar runtime results as those shown in Figure \[fig:bdd\_peaks\]. In this experiment, the target concept is a 2-term DNF with $l=5$ where one term is of length 2 and the other item is of length 3. The number of positive samples is 5, the number of negative samples is 500, and the number of features is 100. Similarly, positive sample BDDs are processed first. Observe that the peak number of BDD nodes also occurs earlier in the process and the length $l$ is the deciding factor for the runtime.
![The peak number of nodes grows as $l$ increases[]{data-label="fig:bdd_peaks"}](BDD_peaks){width="40.00000%"}
![Similar result for 2-term DNF[]{data-label="fig:bdd_peaks_2"}](2-term_DNF_BDD_peaks){width="40.00000%"}
**VeSC-CoL** **CART** **ID3**
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$x_2x_{63}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{75}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{78}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{80}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}$ $x_3x_4x_{28}x_{47}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{53}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{55}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}\bm{{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{80}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}}$ $\bm{x_2}x_3x_4{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{30}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{47}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{53}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{81}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}$
$x_{39}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{45}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{72}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{74}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{95}$ ${\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{5}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{16}x_{35}\bm{{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{45}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{55}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{56}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{59}$ $x_8x_{40}\bm{{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{45}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}}x_{64}\bm{{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{74}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}}x_{87}$
${\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{2}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{14}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{52}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{57}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{87}$ $x_{11}\bm{{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{14}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{24}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{61}x_{64}x_{90}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{92}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}$ ${\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{5}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{6}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{16}x_{35}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{45}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{56}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{59}$
$x_{40}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{45}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{64}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{74}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{87}$ ${\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{4}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{8}\bm{{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{45}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{47}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu} \bm{x_{64}}\bm{{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{74}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{89}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}$ ${\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{2}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{14}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{24}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{61}\bm{x_{64}}x_{90}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{92}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}$
${\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{57}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{58}x_{77}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{95}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{98}$ ${\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{5}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{29}x_{38}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{43}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{79}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{99} + {\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{3}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{5}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{29}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{38}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{43}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{49}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{79}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{99}$ ${\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{5}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{6}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{11}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{14}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{18}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mux_{34}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}x_{45}$
COMPARISON WITH OTHER METHODS
-----------------------------
To compare VeSC-CoL with other concept learning methods such as CART [@cart84] and ID3 [@quinlan1986induction], we continue the experiment above where the target concept is a 5-literal monomial. There are 100 features, 2 positive samples, and 1000 negative samples. Table \[tbl:useless\_learning\_result\] shows the learning result. In each case, VeSC-CoL is able to correctly identify the target concept. On the other hand, the results from CART are less meaningful. For the first three tasks, each CART result has only 1 literal relevant to the target concept while providing 6 unrelated literals and missing 4 literals in the target. For the last task, the CART learning result is a 2-term DNF in which no feature is related to the target. The learning results from ID3 are dissimilar to the target concept as well.
COMPLEXITY ORDERING
-------------------
As mentioned before, for two hypothesis sub-space $H_i$ and $H_j$ of $k$-term DNF, we consider the complexity of $H_i$ is smaller than $H_j$ if $l_i<l_j$ where $l_i$ and $l_j$ are the numbers of literals in the hypotheses in $H_i$ and $H_j$, respectively. Recall that each hypothesis sub-space comprises hypotheses of equal length. Note that this complexity ordering is based on two main reasons: (1) As shown above, BDD-based learning is sensitive to the length $l$. Hence, the ordering ensures that the learning processes the computationally-easier hypothesis sub-spaces first. (2) In practice, a concept with a smaller length is easier to interpret than that with a larger length. Therefore, it is preferred to uncover a shorter concept if possible.
ACCURACY OF VeSC-CoL
--------------------
In the experiments to compare VeSC-CoL with CART and ID3, we observe that VeSC-CoL can always uncover the correct answer. Note that it is possible to construct a dataset to fool the VeSC-CoL tool so that it reports an incorrect answer even with the cardinality bound $B=1$. However, with randomly generated datasets, we observe that when the data is sufficiently large and $B=1$, VeSC-CoL always finds the correct target concept assuming the concept is in the hypothesis space considered (e.g. 3-term DNF up to length 15). In particular, we observed in the following experiments that VeSC-CoL always find the correct answer:
- All 1-term DNF cases with up to 100 features and $l$ up to 7. The number of positive samples can be 0 to 2 and the number of negative samples is 10000.
- All 1-term DNF cases with up to 500 features and $l$ up to 8. The number of positive samples is larger than 5 and the number of negative samples is 10000.
- All 2-term DNF cases with up to 100 feature and $l$ up to 8. For each term, there exists a positive sample that can be explained only by the term. The number of positive samples is larger than 5 and the number of negative samples is 10000.
- All 3-term DNF cases with up to 100 feature and $l$ up to 9. For each term, there exists a positive sample that can be explained only by the term. The number of positive samples is larger than 10 and the number of negative samples is 10000.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
==========================
We propose VeSC-CoL, a version space cardinality based concept learning tool, for learning extremely imbalanced datasets. We use experiment results to note several key properties of the tool. VeSC-CoL is applicable without cross-validation. The version space cardinality bound is used to control the quality of the learning result. In our study, we observed that VeSC-CoL can always identify the correct target concept assuming that the concept is included in one of the hypothesis sub-spaces to be analyzed. VeSC-CoL is supported by two implementations, one based on BDD and the other based on SAT. Their runtimes can be quite different. Therefore VeSC-CoL runs the two methods in parallel and stops when one of them completes.
One challenge is to generalize the encoding method. The current encoding method is closely related to the $k$-term DNF representation and the complexity measure. Suppose a hypothesis is represented in BDD and the complexity measure is the number of BDD nodes, the encoding will be different. Given a hypothesis representation and a complexity measure, finding an encoding method is a non-trivial task that needs further investigation.
While the experiments show several interesting properties of the implementations, further research is required to analyze the theoretical reasons behind those properties and to formalize their descriptions. While the current work focuses on the development of the tool, its performance in actual applications (such as those in EDA and Test) will be assessed and reported in the near future.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A known generalization of the Stillinger-Lovett sum rule for a guest charge immersed in a two-dimensional one-component plasma (the second moment of the screening cloud around this guest charge) is more simply retrieved, just by using the BGY hierarchy for a mixture of several species; the zeroth moment of the excess density around a guest charge immersed in a two-component plasma is also obtained. The moments of the electric potential are related to the excess chemical potential of a guest charge; explicit results are obtained in several special cases.'
author:
- 'Bernard Jancovici$^1$ and Ladislav [Š]{}amaj$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Guest Charge and Potential Fluctuations in Two-Dimensional Classical Coulomb Systems'
---
[**KEY WORDS:**]{} Coulomb systems; two dimensions; potential fluctuations; sum rules.
$^1$ Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, Université de Paris-Sud, Bâtiment 210, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France (Unité Mixte de Recherche no. 8627 - CNRS); E-mail: [email protected]
$^2$ Institute of Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská cesta 9, 845 11 Bratislava, Slovak Republic; E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
============
One of us (L. Š.) has derived a generalization of the Stillinger-Lovett sum rule for a guest charge immersed in a two-dimensional one-component plasma [@Samaj07]: an exact simple expression for the second moment of the screening cloud around the guest charge was obtained, by using a mapping technique onto a discrete one-dimensional anticommuting-field theory. In the present paper, we first show that the same result can be obtained in a simpler way by just using the BGY hierarchy, which provides also more general results.
The excess chemical potential of a guest charge (which can be expressed in terms of the charge density of the screening cloud) has an expansion in powers of the guest-particle charge $Ze$, which allows to compute the average of powers (moments) of the electric potential.
We consider a classical (i.e. non-quantum) system of charged particles located in an infinite two-dimensional (2D) plane of points ${\bf r}\in {\rm R}^2$. According to the laws of 2D electrostatics, the particles can be thought of as infinitely long charged lines in the 3D which are perpendicular to the 2D plane. The electrostatic potential $v$ at a point ${\bf r}$, induced by a unit charge at the origin ${\bf 0}$, is thus given by the 2D Poisson equation $$\label{1.1}
\Delta v({\bf r}) = - 2\pi \delta({\bf r}) .$$ The solution of this equation, subject to the boundary condition $\nabla v({\bf r})\to 0$ as $\vert {\bf r}\vert \to \infty$, reads $$\label{1.2}
v(r) = - \ln\left( \frac{r}{L} \right) ,$$ where $r=\vert {\bf r}\vert$ and the free length constant $L$, which determines the zero point of the potential, will be set for simplicity to unity. The Fourier component of this potential $\tilde{v}({\bf k})\propto 1/k^2$ exhibits the characteristic singularity at $k=0$, which maintains many generic properties (like screening) of “real” 3D charged systems.
A general Coulomb system consists of $M$ mobile species $\alpha = 1,2,\ldots,M$ with the corresponding charges $e_{\alpha}$ (which may be integer multiples of the elementary charge $e$). Mobile particles may be embedded in a fixed uniform background of charge density $\rho_b$. The most studied models are the one-component plasma (OCP), which corresponds to $M=1$ with $e_1=e$ and $\rho_b$ of opposite sign, and the symmetric two-component plasma (TCP), which corresponds to $M=2$ with $e_1=e$, $e_2=-e$, $\rho_b=0$. The interaction energy of a configuration $\{ {\bf r}_i,e_{\alpha_i}\}$ of the charged particles plus the background is $$\label{1.3}
E = \sum_{i<j} e_{\alpha_i} e_{\alpha_j} v(\vert {\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j\vert)
+ \sum_i e_{\alpha_i} \phi_b({\bf r}_i) + E_{b-b} ,$$ where $\phi_b({\bf r})$ is the one-body potential created by the background and the background-background energy term $E_{b-b}$ does not depend on the particle coordinates. In the case of point particles, for many-component systems with at least two oppositely species, the singularity of the Coulomb potential (\[1.2\]) at the origin ${\bf r}={\bf 0}$ prevents, for small enough temperatures, the thermodynamic stability against the collapse of positive-negative pairs of charges. In those cases, one introduces to $v$ a short-range repulsion which prevents the collapse.
The Coulomb system is considered in thermodynamic equilibrium, at inverse temperature $\beta=1/(k_{\rm B}T)$. The thermal average over an infinite neutral system will be denoted by $\langle \cdots \rangle$. In terms of the microscopic density of particles of species $\alpha$, $\hat{n}_{\alpha}({\bf r}) = \sum_i \delta_{\alpha,\alpha_i}
\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}_i)$, the microscopic total number density and the microscopic total charge density are defined, respectively, by $$\label{1.4}
\hat{n}({\bf r}) = \sum_{\alpha} \hat{n}_{\alpha}({\bf r}) , \qquad
\hat{\rho}({\bf r}) = \sum_{\alpha} e_{\alpha} \hat{n}_{\alpha}({\bf r})
+\rho_b.$$ The microscopic electrostatic potential created by the particle-background system at point ${\bf r}$ is given by $$\label{1.5}
\hat{\phi}({\bf r}) = \int {\rm d}{\bf r}' v({\bf r}-{\bf r}')
\hat{\rho}({\bf r}') .$$ At the one-particle level, the homogeneous number density of species $\alpha$ and the total particle number density are given respectively by $$\label{1.6}
n_{\alpha} = \langle \hat{n}_{\alpha}({\bf r}) \rangle , \qquad
n = \langle \hat{n}({\bf r}) \rangle .$$ The charge density $\rho=\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf r})\rangle$ vanishes due to the charge neutrality of the system. At the two-particle level, one introduces the translationally invariant two-body densities $$\begin{aligned}
n_{\alpha\alpha'}^{(2)}(\vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}'\vert) & = &
\left\langle \sum_{i\ne j} \delta_{\alpha,\alpha_i} \delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}_i)
\delta_{\alpha',\alpha_j} \delta({\bf r}'-{\bf r}_j) \right\rangle
\nonumber \\ & = &
\langle \hat{n}_{\alpha}({\bf r}) \hat{n}_{\alpha'}({\bf r}') \rangle
- \langle \hat{n}_{\alpha}({\bf r}) \rangle \delta_{\alpha,\alpha'}
\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}') . \label{1.7}\end{aligned}$$ It is useful to consider also the pair distribution functions $$\label{1.8}
g_{\alpha\alpha'}(\vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}'\vert) =
\frac{n^{(2)}_{\alpha\alpha'}(\vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}'\vert)}{
n_{\alpha} n_{\alpha'}},$$ the (truncated) pair correlation functions $h_{\alpha\alpha'}=g_{\alpha\alpha'}-1$, as well as the three-body analogous quantities $$\label{1.9}
g_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}({\bf r},{\bf r}',{\bf r}'') =
\frac{n^{(3)}_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}({\bf r},{\bf r}',{\bf r}'')}
{n_{\alpha} n_{\alpha'} n_{\alpha''}}$$ and the (truncated) three-body correlation function $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}({\bf r},{\bf r}',{\bf r}'') & = &
g_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}({\bf r},{\bf r}',{\bf r}'')
-h_{\alpha\alpha'}(\vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}'\vert)
-h_{\alpha'\alpha''}(\vert {\bf r'}-{\bf r}''\vert) \nonumber \\ & &
-h_{\alpha''\alpha}(\vert {\bf r''}-{\bf r}\vert)-1. \label{1.10}\end{aligned}$$
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we use the BGY hierarchy for studying the general mixture of $M$ species of mobile particles embedded in a fixed uniform background. By taking the limit of one of the densities going to zero, we get the case of a guest charge. We retrieve the second moment of the screening cloud around a guest charge immersed in an OCP; we get also the zeroth moment of the excess total number density around a guest charge immersed in a TCP. In Section 3, the general formalism for relating the moments of the electric potential to the excess chemical potential of a guest charge is established. The following Sections study special cases when explicit calculations are possible: the high-temperature (Debye-Hückel) limit in Section 4, the OCP at $\beta e^2=2$ in Section 5, the TCP in Section 6. Section 7 is a Conclusion.
Sum rules for a guest charge immersed in a Coulomb system
=========================================================
We wish to rederive and extend the result of [@Samaj07] about the 2D OCP in which a point guest charge $Ze$ is immersed. Let the charge density at ${\bf r}$ knowing that there is a guest charge $Ze$ at the origin be $\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0})$. In [@Samaj07], its second moment was shown to be $$\label{2.1}
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}\:r^2 \rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0}) =
-\frac{2}{\pi\beta e n}\left[Z\left(1-\frac{\beta e^2}{4}\right)
+Z^2\frac{\beta e^2}{4}\right].$$ Our rederivation uses only the BGY hierarchy.
General sum rule for a mixture with a background
------------------------------------------------
We start with the mixture of $M$ mobile species, with a fixed uniform background, described in the Introduction. Finally, we shall consider a mixture of only 2 species with respective charges $e_1=e$ and $e_2=Ze$; at the end, the density $n_2$ will be chosen as 0, leaving only one guest charge. But for being able to consider the TCP as well, we start with the more general case of $M$ mobile species. The neutrality constraint is $$\label{2.2}
\sum_{\alpha}n_{\alpha}e_{\alpha} = -\rho_b .$$
The mixture with a background has been studied in three dimensions by Suttorp and van Wonderen [@Suttorp]. They used the BGY hierarchy and thermodynamical properties of the system for deriving, among other things, a second-moment sum rule, which however involves some thermodynamical functions (the partial derivatives of each density $n_{\alpha}$ with respect to the background density $n_b$); there is no explicit expression for these partial derivatives. Fortunately, we found that, in two dimensions, the formalism becomes much simpler and only the BGY hierarchy has to be used (the thermodynamical properties are no longer involved).
The second equation of the BGY hierarchy [@Martin], with $h_{\alpha\alpha'}(r)$ the correlation function between a particle of species $\alpha$ at ${\bf r}$ and a particle of species $\alpha'$ at the origin, is $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^{-1}\nabla h_{\alpha\alpha'}(r) & = &
\nonumber \\
&-&\sum_{\alpha''}n_{\alpha''}\int {\rm d}{\bf r}''\:h_{\alpha'\alpha''}
(r'')e_{\alpha}e_{\alpha''}
\nabla v(\vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}''\vert) \nonumber \\
&-&h_{\alpha\alpha'}(r)
e_{\alpha}e_{\alpha'}\nabla v(r)
-e_{\alpha}e_{\alpha'} \nabla v(r) \nonumber \\
&-&\sum_{\alpha''}n_{\alpha''}\int {\rm d}{\bf r}''\:
h_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}
({\bf r},{\bf 0},{\bf r}'')e_{\alpha}e_{\alpha''}
\nabla v(\vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}''\vert). \label{2.3} \end{aligned}$$ The integral in the first term in the rhs of (\[2.3\]) is proportional to the electric field at ${\bf r}$ due to the charge distribution $h_{\alpha'\alpha''}$ which has a circular symmetry around the origin. Thus, using Newton’s theorem, one can rewrite this integral as $$\label{2.4}
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}''\:h_{\alpha'\alpha''}(r'')
\nabla v(\vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}''\vert)=
\nabla v(r)\int_{r''<r}{\rm d}{\bf r}''\:h_{\alpha'\alpha''}(r'').$$ The integral in the rhs of (\[2.4\]) can be written as $\int_{r''<r}\ldots =\int\ldots-\int_{r''>r}\ldots$ and the perfect screening of the charge $e_{\alpha'}$ gives [@Gruber] $$\label{2.5}
\sum_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}n_{\alpha''}\int {\rm d}{\bf r}''\:
h_{\alpha'\alpha''}(r'')=-e_{\alpha'}.$$ Therefore (\[2.3\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^{-1}\nabla h_{\alpha\alpha'}(r) & = &
\nonumber \\
&e_{\alpha}&\sum_{\alpha''}n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}\nabla v(r)
\int_{r''>r}{\rm d}{\bf r}''\:h_{\alpha'\alpha''}(r'') \nonumber \\
&-&h_{\alpha\alpha'}(r)e_{\alpha}e_{\alpha'}\nabla v(r) \nonumber \\
&-&e_{\alpha}\sum_{\alpha''}n_{\alpha''}\int {\rm d}{\bf r}''\:
h_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}({\bf r},{\bf 0},{\bf r}'')e_{\alpha''}
\nabla v(\vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}''\vert). \label{2.6}\end{aligned}$$
In order to make a second moment to appear, we take the scalar product of both sides of (\[2.6\]) with ${\bf r}$ and integrate on ${\bf r}$. Integrating by parts the lhs and performing the integration on ${\bf r}$ first in the first term of the rhs, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
&&-2\beta^{-1}\int {\rm d}{\bf r}\:h_{\alpha\alpha'}(r)=
-\pi e_{\alpha}\sum_{\alpha''}n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:r^2
h_{\alpha'\alpha''}(r) \nonumber \\
& &+e_{\alpha}e_{\alpha'}\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:h_{\alpha\alpha'}(r)
\label{2.7} \\
& &+e_{\alpha}\sum_{\alpha''}n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}
\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:{\rm d}({\bf r}''-{\bf r})\:
h_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}({\bf r},{\bf 0},{\bf r}'')
\frac{({\bf r}-{\bf r}'')\cdot{\bf r}}{({\bf r}-{\bf r}'')^2}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ (in the last term, since $h^{(3)}$ depends only on ${\bf r}$ and the difference ${\bf r}''-{\bf r}$, we have replaced the integration on ${\bf r}''$ by an integration on ${\bf r}''-{\bf r}$). An important simplification has occurred in 2D where ${\bf r}\cdot\nabla v(r)$ has the constant value $-1$, while in three dimensions, with the potential $v(r)=1/r$, one finds $-v(r)$, a result which has led to a more complicated calculation in [@Suttorp].
Now, we multiply both sides of (\[2.7\]) by $n_{\alpha}$ and sum on $\alpha$. The term involving $h^{(3)}$ can be simplified by using symmetries under permutations of the variables. Indeed, $h^{(3)}$ has the symmetry property $$h_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}({\bf r},{\bf 0},{\bf r}'')=
h_{\alpha''\alpha'\alpha}^{(3)}({\bf r}'',{\bf 0},{\bf r}). \label{2.8}$$ Thus, interchanging the summation variables $\alpha$ and $\alpha''$, and the variables ${\bf r}$ and ${\bf r}''$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& &\sum_{\alpha,\alpha''}n_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}
\int{\rm d}({\bf r}''-{\bf r})\:h_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}
({\bf r},{\bf 0},{\bf r}'')
\frac{({\bf r}-{\bf r}'')\cdot{\bf r}}{({\bf r}-{\bf r}'')^2}
\nonumber \\
& &=\sum_{\alpha,\alpha''}n_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}
\int{\rm d}({\bf r}''-{\bf r})\:h_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}
({\bf r},{\bf 0},{\bf r}'')
\frac{({\bf r}''-{\bf r})\cdot{\bf r}''}{({\bf r}-{\bf r}'')^2}
\nonumber \\
&&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\alpha''}n_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}
n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}
\int{\rm d}({\bf r}''-{\bf r})\:h_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}
({\bf r},{\bf 0},{\bf r}''), \label{2.9} \end{aligned}$$ where the last line is the half sum of the two first ones.
Using (\[2.9\]) in (\[2.7\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
& &-2\beta^{-1}\sum_{\alpha}n_{\alpha} \int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:h_{\alpha\alpha'}(r)
=\pi\rho_b\sum_{\alpha''} n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:r^2
h_{\alpha'\alpha''}(r) \nonumber \\
& &+e_{\alpha'}\sum_{\alpha}n_{\alpha}e_{\alpha} \int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:
h_{\alpha\alpha'}(r) \nonumber \\
& &+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\alpha''}n_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}
n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}
\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:{\rm d}({\bf r}''-{\bf r})\:
h_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}({\bf r},{\bf 0},{\bf r}''). \label{2.10}\end{aligned}$$ For the second term in the rhs of (\[2.10\]), perfect screening [@Gruber] gives $-e_{\alpha'}^2$. For the last term in the rhs of (\[2.10\]), perfect screening gives $$\begin{aligned}
& &+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\alpha''}n_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}
n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}
\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:{\rm d}({\bf r}''-{\bf r})\:
h_{\alpha\alpha'\alpha''}^{(3)}({\bf r},{\bf 0},{\bf r}'') \nonumber \\
& &=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha''}n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}
(e_{\alpha'}+e_{\alpha''})\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:h_{\alpha'\alpha''}(r)
\nonumber \\
& &=\frac{1}{2}\left[e_{\alpha'}^2-\sum_{\alpha''}n_{\alpha''}e_{\alpha''}^2
\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:h_{\alpha'\alpha''}(r)\right]. \label{2.11}\end{aligned}$$ Thus (\[2.10\]) becomes the general second-moment sum rule $$\label{2.12}
-\beta\pi\rho_b\sum_{\alpha}n_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}
\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:r^2 h_{\alpha'\alpha}(r)
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha}n_{\alpha}(4-\beta e_{\alpha}^2)
\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:h_{\alpha'\alpha}(r)-\frac{1}{2}\beta e_{\alpha'}^2.$$
By multiplying (\[2.12\]) by $n_{\alpha'}e_{\alpha'}$ and summing on $\alpha'$, one recovers the usual Stillinger-Lovett sum rule [@Martin]. But (\[2.12\]) is a stronger sum rule.
Guest charge in a one-component plasma
--------------------------------------
We come to the case of a mixture of two species, with charge $e_1=e$ and density $n_1$, charge $e_2=Ze$ and density $n_2$, respectively. We choose $\alpha'=2$ in (\[2.12\]). For dealing with one guest charge $Ze$ only, we set $n_2=0$, $n_1=n$, $-\rho_b=ne$; $n$ times the integral of $h_{21}$ is $-Z$, by perfect screening. The sum rule (\[2.12\]) becomes $$\label{2.13}
\beta \pi n^2 e^2\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:r^2 h_{21}(r)=
-2\left[Z\left(1-\frac{\beta e^2}{4}\right)+Z^2\frac{\beta e^2}{4}\right].$$ Since $\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0})=neh_{21}(r)$, (\[2.13\]) is (\[2.1\]).
This result (\[2.1\]) can also be retrieved by a different method in the next subsection.
Another derivation
------------------
(\[2.1\]) can be derived in another way if we *assume* that this second moment can be expanded in integer powers of $Z$.
In the limit of small $Z$, the term linear in Z in (\[2.1\]) can be obtained by linear response theory. Indeed, if we introduce a guest charge $Ze$, located at the origin, into an OCP, the additional Hamiltonian is $$\label{A.1}
\hat{H}'=Ze\hat{\phi}({\bf 0}),$$ where $\hat{\phi}({\bf 0})$ is the microscopic electric potential created by the OCP at the origin. To first order in $Z$, the charge density at ${\bf r}$ is $$\label{A.2}
\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0})
= -\beta\langle\hat{\rho}({\bf r})Ze\hat{{\phi}}({\bf 0})\rangle^{\rm T}
= -Ze\beta\int{\rm d}{\bf r}'\:v(r')
\langle\hat{\rho}({\bf r})\hat{\rho}({\bf r}')\rangle^{\rm T},$$ where $\langle\cdots\rangle^{\rm T}$ denotes a truncated average. We define the Fourier transforms as $$\label{A.3}
\tilde{f}({\bf k}) = \int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:\exp({\rm i}{\bf k}\cdot{\bf r})
f({\bf r}).$$ Then, the Fourier transform of $\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0})$ is $$\label{A.4}
\tilde{\rho}({\bf k}\vert Ze)=-\beta Ze\frac{2\pi}{k^2}\tilde{S}(k),$$ since the Fourier transform of $v(r)$ is $2\pi/k^2$ and the Fourier transform of the correlation of charge densities is $\tilde{S}(k)$. For small $k$, $\tilde{S}(k)$ has the expansion [@Martin] $$\label{A.5}
\tilde{S}(k)=\frac{k^2}{2\pi\beta}-\frac{(1-\beta e^2/4)k^4}{
4\pi^2 n\beta^2 e^2}+\cdots.$$ Therefore, we get the zeroth moment $$\label{A.6}
\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0})=-Ze,$$ in agreement with equation (1.20) in [@Samaj07], and the part linear in $Z$ of the second moment (\[2.1\]).
It may be remarked that the $k^4$ term of (\[A.5\]) is related to the compressibility, which is exactly known only for the 2D OCP [@Hauge]. Therefore, no extension to 3D, with a closed result, seems possible.
In the opposite case of large $Z$, the impurity expels the mobile particles from a large region around it, leaving only the background. Essentially, $\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze, {\bf 0})=-ne$ for $r<R$, where $R$ is some large radius, and $\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze, {\bf 0})=0$ for $r>R$ (there is a transition region [@JancoviciPhysique] of width of the order $n^{-1/2}$, but in the limit of large $Z$, it gives a correction of lower order in $Z$). The radius $R$ is determined by the perfect screening condition (\[A.6\]) which gives $R^2=Z/(\pi n)$. The second moment is $$\label{A.7}
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}\:r^2\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0})=-ne\pi R^4/2=
-Z^2\frac{e}{2\pi n}, \qquad Z\rightarrow\infty,$$ which is the $Z^2$ term of (\[2.1\]), and this is the highest-order power of $Z$ in the second moment.
The same argument extended to 3D gives $$\label{A.8}
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}\:r^2\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0})=
-(3Z)^{5/3}\frac{e}{5(4\pi n)^{2/3}}, \qquad Z\rightarrow\infty.$$ Therefore, in 3D, the second moment is *not* a polynomial in $Z$, and no exact formula valid for any $Z$ can be obtained by the present method.
Guest charge in a two-component plasma
--------------------------------------
A sum rule for the TCP can also be obtained from (\[2.12\]). Now, we consider a mixture of three species, with charge $e_1=e$ and density $n_1=n_+$, charge $e_2=-e$ and density $n_2=n_-$, charge $e_3=Ze$ and density $n_3$, respectively. There is no background ($\rho_b=0$). We choose $\alpha'=3$ in (\[2.12\]). Finally, for dealing with one guest charge $Ze$ only, we set $n_3=0$, $n_+=n_-$ (neutrality); the system is stable against collapse if $\beta e^2<2$ and $\beta Ze^2<2$. We call $n=n_++n_-$ the total density of the TCP. In (\[2.12\]) appears the quantity $$\label{2.14}
n_+h_{31}(r)+n_-h_{32}(r)=n({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0})-n,$$ which is the excess density around the guest charge $Ze$. Then, (\[2.12\]) becomes a sum rule for the zeroth moment of this excess density: $$\label{2.15}
\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:[n({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0})-n]
=Z^2\frac{\beta e^2}{4-\beta e^2}.$$ This result is a generalization of the compressibility sum rule [@Hill] $$\label{2.16}
\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:[n({\bf r}\vert \pm e,{\bf 0})-n]
= \frac{\partial n}{\partial (\beta p)} -1$$ with the use of the exact equation of state $\beta p = n(1-\beta e^2/4)$, where $p$ is the pressure.
Mixture without a background
----------------------------
In the case $\rho_b=0$, another derivation of (\[2.12\]) is possible starting from the known equation of state [@SP] $$\beta p=\sum_{\alpha}\left(1-\frac{\beta e_{\alpha}^2}{4}\right)n_{\alpha}.
\label{2.17}$$ The $M$-component plasma may be described in the grand-canonical ensemble, with $M$ chemical potentials $\mu_{\alpha}$ (actually [@LL], the system turns out to be neutral in the thermodynamic limit, and $M-1$ chemical potentials would suffice for determining the state of the system; but here it is more convenient to use $M$ chemical potentials). The pressure $p$ is given by $\beta p=\lim(1/V)\ln\Xi$, where $V$ is the volume (here area) of the system, $\Xi$ is the grand partition function, and $\lim$ is the thermodynamic limit. Taking the partial derivative of (\[2.17\]) with respect to $\beta\mu_{\alpha'}$ gives $$n_{\alpha'}=\sum_{\alpha}\left(1-\frac{\beta e_{\alpha}^2}{4}\right)
\left(n_{\alpha}n_{\alpha'}\int{\rm d}{\bf r}\:h_{\alpha\alpha'}(r)\;
+n_{\alpha'}\delta_{\alpha,\alpha'}\right), \label{2.18}$$ which is (\[2.12\]) with $\rho_b=0$.
Guest charge and potential fluctuations
=======================================
Putting a guest particle of charge $Ze$ at the origin ${\bf r}={\bf 0}$, the original Hamiltonian $H_0$ of the infinite Coulomb system modifies to $H = H_0+Ze \hat{\phi}({\bf 0})$, where $\hat{\phi}({\bf 0})$ is the microscopic electric potential created at the origin by the Coulomb system. The charge density around the guest charge, at point ${\bf r}$, is thus expressible as $$\label{3.1}
\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0}) =
\frac{\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf r}) \exp\left[ -\beta Z e \hat{\phi}({\bf 0})
\right] \rangle}{\langle \exp\left[ -\beta Z e \hat{\phi}({\bf 0})
\right] \rangle} ,$$ where $\langle\cdots\rangle$ denotes the thermal average over the homogeneous system with the Hamiltonian $H_0$.
Let $\mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex}$ denotes the excess (i.e., over ideal) chemical potential of the guest charge, i.e. the reversible work which has to be done to bring the guest particle of charge $Ze$ from infinity into the bulk interior of the considered Coulomb plasma. By the coupling parameter technique [@Hill], this chemical potential can be represented in terms of the charge density (\[3.1\]) as follows $$\label{3.2}
\mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex} = e \int_0^Z {\rm d}Z' \int {\rm d}{\bf r}~
v({\bf r}) \rho({\bf r}\vert Z'e,{\bf 0}) .$$ With regard to the representation (\[3.1\]), $\mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex}$ can be expressed as $$\label{3.3}
-\beta \mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex} = \int_0^{-\beta Ze} {\rm d}x
\frac{\langle \hat{\phi} \exp(x\hat{\phi})\rangle}{\langle
\exp(x\hat{\phi}) \rangle} .$$ Here, since the thermal averages are point-independent, we use the notation $\hat{\phi} \equiv \hat{\phi}({\bf 0})$.
Let us recall some basic information about the cumulant expansion. Let $\hat{\phi}$ be a random variable with the probability distribution $P(\hat{\phi})$. The cumulant expansion is defined by $$\label{3.4}
\langle \exp(x\hat{\phi}) \rangle = \exp\left(\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}
\frac{x^l}{l!} \langle \hat{\phi}^l \rangle_c\right) ,$$ where $x$ is any complex number and $\langle\hat{\phi}^l \rangle_c$ are the cumulants. They are combinations of the standard moments $\langle\hat{\phi}^l \rangle$. Differentiating the equality (\[3.4\]) with respect to $x$ gives $$\label{3.5}
\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}x}
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty} \frac{x^l}{l!} \langle \hat{\phi}^l \rangle
=\exp\left( \sum_{l=1}^{\infty}
\frac{x^l}{l!} \langle \hat{\phi}^l \rangle_c \right)
\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}x}\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}
\frac{x^l}{l!} \langle \hat{\phi}^l \rangle_c .$$ Equating the coefficients of the same power of $x$ in both sides of (\[3.5\]) gives the recursion formula $$\label{3.6}
\langle\hat{\phi}^l \rangle_c = \langle\hat{\phi}^l \rangle
- \sum_{k=1}^{l-1} {l-1\choose k-1} \langle\hat{\phi}^k \rangle_c
\langle\hat{\phi}^{l-k} \rangle .$$ The first cumulants read $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\hat{\phi} \rangle_c & = & \langle\hat{\phi} \rangle , \nonumber \\
\langle\hat{\phi}^2 \rangle_c & = & \langle\hat{\phi}^2 \rangle
- \langle\hat{\phi}\rangle^2 , \label{3.7} \\
\langle\hat{\phi}^3 \rangle_c & = & \langle\hat{\phi}^3 \rangle
- 3 \langle\hat{\phi}^2\rangle \langle\hat{\phi}\rangle
+ 2\langle\hat{\phi}\rangle^3,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ etc. In the theory of fluids, the cumulants of type (\[3.7\]) are referred to as truncations, and therefore we shall use the notation $\langle\hat{\phi}^l\rangle_c\equiv \langle\hat{\phi}^l\rangle^{\rm T}$.
Since it holds $$\label{3.8}
\frac{\langle \hat{\phi} \exp(x\hat{\phi})\rangle}{\langle\exp(x\hat{\phi})
\rangle} = \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}x} \ln \langle\exp(x\hat{\phi})\rangle ,$$ the excess chemical potential (\[3.3\]) is expressible as $$\label{3.9}
- \beta \mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex} = \ln \langle\exp(-\beta Ze\hat{\phi})\rangle .$$ Based on the recapitulation in the above paragraph, $\mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex}$ is expressible either in the form of a cumulant expansion $$\label{3.10}
-\beta \mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex} = \sum_{l=1}^{\infty}
\frac{(-\beta Ze)^l}{l!} \langle \hat{\phi}^l \rangle^{\rm T} ,$$ or in the form of the standard moment expansion $$\label{3.11}
\exp\left( -\beta \mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex}\right) =
\langle\exp(-\beta Ze\hat{\phi})\rangle \equiv
1 + \sum_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-\beta Ze)^l}{l!}
\langle \hat{\phi}^l \rangle .$$ It stands to reason that the expansions (\[3.10\]) and (\[3.11\]) are valid provided all moments exist. We conclude that the knowledge of the excess chemical potential of the guest particle with an arbitrary charge provides the exact information about all moments of the electrostatic potential at a point of the infinite homogeneous Coulomb system.
Going to the infinite system via the thermodynamic limit of a finite system with a disc geometry [@Alastuey84], the fluctuations of the potential at any point become infinite due to the presence of dipoles near the boundary. Here, the potential moments are defined directly for an infinite space, without the presence of a boundary. This corresponds to going to the infinite system via the thermodynamic limit of a finite system, e.g., with periodic boundary conditions, formulated on the surface of a sphere and so on. We thus expect that the average potential at a point is equal to zero and all its moments are finite.
Since in 2D the potential (\[1.2\]) is dimensionless, $\hat{\phi}$ has the dimension of the elementary charge $e$. It is therefore useful to introduce the dimensionless microscopic quantity $\psi = \hat{\phi}/e$ with the probability distribution $P(\psi)$. Setting in (\[3.11\]) $\beta Ze^2 = {\rm i}k$, one gets $$\label{3.12}
\exp\left( -\beta \mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex}\right) \big\vert_{\beta Ze^2={\rm i}k}
= \langle\exp(-{\rm i}k\psi)\rangle =
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d}\psi~{\rm e}^{-{\rm i}k\psi}
P(\psi) \equiv \tilde{P}(k) ,$$ where $\tilde{P}(k)$ is the Fourier component of the $\psi$-distribution. The original probability distribution $P(\psi)$ can be obtained by the Fourier inversion of this relation $$\label{3.13}
P(\psi) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{{\rm d}k}{2\pi}{\rm e}^{{\rm i}k\psi}
\exp\left( -\beta \mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex}\right) \big\vert_{\beta Ze^2={\rm i}k} .$$
All that has been said in this section is valid also for $v$ being the pure Coulomb potential plus any type of short-distance regularization.
High-temperature limit
======================
The high-temperature (weak-coupling) limit of Coulomb systems is described rigorously by the Debye-Hückel theory [@Debye; @Kennedy]. In 2D, the two-body Ursell functions $U$ of charged species are given by [@Jancovici04] $$\label{4.1}
U_{\alpha\alpha'}({\bf r},{\bf r}') \equiv
n_{\alpha\alpha'}^{(2)}({\bf r},{\bf r}') - n_{\alpha} n_{\alpha'}
= - e_{\alpha} n_{\alpha} e_{\alpha'} n_{\alpha'}
\beta K_0(\kappa\vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}'\vert) ,$$ where $K_0$ is a modified Bessel function [@Gradshteyn] and $\kappa = (2\pi\beta\sum_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}^2 n_{\alpha})^{1/2}$ is the inverse Debye length.
The potential-potential correlation function can be calculated directly from the definition $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{\phi}({\bf 0}) \hat{\phi}({\bf r}) \rangle^{\rm T} & = &
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}_1~v({\bf r}-{\bf r}_1) \int {\rm d}{\bf r}_2~v({\bf r}_2)
\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_1) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2) \rangle^{\rm T}
\nonumber \\ & = & \int {\rm d}{\bf r}_1~v({\bf r}-{\bf r}_1)
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}_2~v({\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2)
\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf 0}) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2) \rangle^{\rm T} . \label{4.2}\end{aligned}$$ Using for the Coulomb potential the expansion in polar coordinates $$\label{4.3}
v({\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2) = - \ln\vert {\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2\vert
= - \ln r_> + \sum_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{l}
\left( \frac{r_<}{r_>} \right)^l \cos l(\theta_1-\theta_2)$$ with $r_< = \min\{ r_1,r_2\}$ and $r_> = \max\{ r_1,r_2\}$, and taking into account the screening sum rule [@Martin] $$\label{4.4}
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}_2~\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf 0}) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2)
\rangle^{\rm T} = 0 ,$$ the second integral on the rhs of (\[4.2\]) can be expressed as $$\label{4.5}
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}_2~v({\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2)
\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf 0}) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2) \rangle^{\rm T} =
- \int_{r_1}^{\infty} {\rm d}r_2~2\pi r_2 \ln\left( \frac{r_2}{r_1} \right)
\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf 0}) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2) \rangle^{\rm T} .$$ Considering the charge correlation function $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf 0}) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2) \rangle^{\rm T} & = &
\sum_{\alpha,\alpha'} e_{\alpha} e_{\alpha'} \left[
U_{\alpha\alpha'}^{(2)}({\bf r}_2) + n_{\alpha} \delta_{\alpha\alpha'}
\delta({\bf r}_2) \right] \nonumber \\ & = &
- \frac{\kappa^4}{(2\pi)^2\beta} K_0(\kappa r_2)
+ \frac{\kappa^2}{2\pi\beta} \delta({\bf r}_2) \label{4.6}\end{aligned}$$ in equation (\[4.5\]) implies, after an integration by parts, $$\label{4.7}
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}_2~v({\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2)
\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf 0}) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2) \rangle^{\rm T} =
\frac{\kappa^2}{2\pi\beta} K_0(\kappa r_1) .$$ Inserting this relation into (\[4.2\]) and applying once more the expansion (\[4.3\]) results into $$\label{4.8}
\beta \langle \hat{\phi}({\bf 0}) \hat{\phi}({\bf r}) \rangle^{\rm T}
= - \ln r - K_0(\kappa r) .$$ This procedure will be repeated, without going into details, also in the cases treated in the next sections.
The result (\[4.8\]) has the correct large-distance asymptotic [@LeboMartin] $$\label{4.9}
\beta \langle \hat{\phi}({\bf 0}) \hat{\phi}({\bf r}) \rangle^{\rm T}
\mathop{\sim}_{r\to\infty} - \ln r .$$ In the zero-distance limit $r\to 0$, using the expansion $$\label{4.10}
K_0(x) = - C - \ln (x/2) + O(x^2\ln x)$$ with $C$ being the Euler number, the one-point second-moment fluctuation formula for the potential reads $$\label{4.11}
\beta \langle \hat{\phi}^2 \rangle^{\rm T} = C + \ln(\kappa/2) .$$
One can obtain the last result in an alternative way by considering the charge density induced around the guest charge [@Samaj07] $$\label{4.12}
\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0}) = - Z e \frac{\kappa^2}{2\pi} K_0(\kappa r) .$$ Then, according to (\[3.2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
-\beta \mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex} & = & -\beta e^2 \int_0^Z {\rm d}Z'~Z'
\frac{\kappa^2}{2\pi} \int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}r~2\pi r \ln r K_0(\kappa r)
\nonumber \\ & = &
\frac{\beta (Ze)^2}{2} \left[ C + \ln(\kappa/2) \right] . \label{4.13}\end{aligned}$$ With regard to the cumulant expansion (\[3.10\]), we recover the previous result (\[4.11\]).
From (\[3.10\]) and (\[4.13\]), all the higher-order truncated moments $\langle \hat{\phi}^l \rangle^{\rm T}$ with $l\ge 3$ vanish in the Debye-Hückel limit; this indicates a Gaussian distribution for the one-point potential in this limit. We shall return to this problem and present all truncated potential moments, for the TCP, in a high-temperature limit going beyond the the Debye-Hückel limit, in Sect. 6.
One-component plasma at $\beta e^2 = 2$
=======================================
The 2D OCP is exactly solvable in terms of free-fermions when the dimensionless coupling constant $\beta e^2$ has the special value 2 [@Alastuey81; @Jancovici81]. In the thermodynamic limit, the two-body Ursell function of mobile particles at distance $r$ is $$\label{5.1}
U(r) = - n^2 \exp\left( -\pi n r^2 \right) ,$$ where $n$ is the particle density. All many-body Ursell functions are known at the free-fermion point, too.
The potential-potential correlation function can be calculated in close analogy with the previous steps outlined between Eqs. (\[4.2\])-(\[4.8\]). Substituting the charge correlation function $$\label{5.2}
\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf 0}) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2) \rangle^{\rm T} =
- e^2 n^2 \exp(-\pi n r_2^2) + n \delta({\bf r}_2)$$ into the relation (\[4.5\]) and using an integration by parts, one gets $$\label{5.3}
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}_2~v({\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2)
\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf 0}) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2) \rangle^{\rm T} =
\frac{e^2 n}{2} \Gamma(0,\pi n r_1^2) ,$$ where $$\label{5.4}
\Gamma(x,t) = \int_t^{\infty} {\rm d}s~s^{x-1} {\rm e}^{-s}$$ is the incomplete Gamma function. From (\[4.2\]), one thus obtains $$\label{5.5}
\beta \langle \hat{\phi}({\bf 0}) \hat{\phi}({\bf r}) \rangle^{\rm T}
= - \ln r + \frac{1}{2} \left[ {\rm e}^{-\pi n r^2} -
(1+\pi n r^2) \Gamma(0,\pi n r^2) \right] .$$ This result has the correct large-distance asymptotic (\[4.9\]). In the zero-distance limit, it yields $$\label{5.6}
\beta \langle \hat{\phi}^2 \rangle^{\rm T} =
\frac{1}{2} \left[ 1 + C + \ln(\pi n) \right] .$$ Note that the large-distance behavior (\[4.9\]) is universal, while the zero-distance limit (\[4.11\]) or (\[5.6\]) depends on the coupling constant $\beta e^2$.
All potential moments are available for the present system due to the knowledge of the induced charge density around the guest charge [@Jancovici84; @Samaj07]: $$\label{5.7}
\rho({\bf r}\vert Ze,{\bf 0}) = - e n
\frac{\Gamma(Z,\pi n r^2)}{\Gamma(Z)} , \qquad Z\ge 0 .$$ By using the relation (\[3.2\]), one obtains after some algebra [@Jancovici84] $$\label{5.8}
- \beta \mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex} = \frac{Z^2}{2} \left[ 1 + \ln(\pi n) \right]
- \int_0^Z {\rm d}Z'~Z' \psi(1+Z') ,$$ where $\psi$ is the psi-function defined by $$\label{5.9}
\psi(x) = \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}x} \ln \Gamma(x) .$$ Its Taylor expansion around $x=1$ reads [@Gradshteyn] $$\label{5.10}
\psi(1+x) = - C + \sum_{l=2}^{\infty} (-1)^l \zeta(l) x^{l-1} ,$$ where $$\label{5.11}
\zeta(l) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k^l}$$ is the Riemann zeta function. Considering the expansion (\[5.10\]) in (\[5.8\]) gives $$\label{5.12}
-\beta \mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex} = \frac{Z^2}{2} \left[ 1 + C + \ln(\pi n) \right]
+ \sum_{l=3}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^l Z^l}{l} \zeta(l-1) .$$ The comparison of this expansion with the cumulant expansion (\[3.10\]) implies $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{\phi}^2 \rangle^{\rm T} & = & \frac{e^2}{4}
\left[ 1 + C + \ln(\pi n) \right] , \label{5.13} \\
\langle \hat{\phi}^l \rangle^{\rm T} & = & \frac{e^l}{2^l}
(l-1)! \zeta(l-1) , \qquad l\ge 3 . \label{5.14}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the second-moment formula (\[5.13\]) is identical to the previous one (\[5.6\]) derived by the direct calculation from the definition.
Two-component plasma
====================
Collapse point $\beta e^2 = 2$
------------------------------
The 2D TCP of $\pm e$ charges is mappable for the special value of the coupling constant $\beta e^2 = 2$ onto the Thirring model at the free-fermion point [@Cornu87; @Cornu89]. Although this coupling corresponds to the collapse threshold for the pointlike particles, and therefore for a fixed fugacity $z$ the particle density is infinite, the Ursell functions are well defined. Their two-body forms read $$\label{6.1}
U_{\pm,\pm}(r) = - \left( \frac{m^2}{2\pi} \right)^2
K_0^2(m r) , \qquad
U_{\pm,\mp}(r) = \left( \frac{m^2}{2\pi} \right)^2
K_1^2(m r) ,$$ where $m=2\pi z$. All many-body Ursell functions are also known.
Substituting the charge correlation function $$\label{6.2}
\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf 0}) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2) \rangle^{\rm T} =
- 2 e^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{2\pi} \right)^2
\left[ K_0^2(m r_2) + K_1^2(m r_2) \right]$$ into the relation (\[4.5\]) and integrating by parts leads to $$\label{6.3}
\int {\rm d}{\bf r}_2~v({\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2)
\langle \hat{\rho}({\bf 0}) \hat{\rho}({\bf r}_2) \rangle^{\rm T} =
e^2 \frac{m^2}{2\pi} K_0^2(m r_1) .$$ From (\[4.2\]), one finds that $$\label{6.4}
\beta \langle \hat{\phi}({\bf 0}) \hat{\phi}({\bf r}) \rangle^{\rm T}
= - \ln r + \frac{(m r)^2}{2} \left[ 2 K_1^2(m r) - K_0^2(m r)
- K_0(m r) K_2(m r) \right] .$$ This result has the correct large-distance asymptotic (\[4.9\]). In the zero-distance limit, it gives $$\label{6.5}
\beta \langle \hat{\phi}^2 \rangle^{\rm T} = 1 + C + \ln(\pi z) .$$
Stability region $0\le \beta e^2 < 2$
-------------------------------------
The system of pointlike $\pm e$ charged particles is stable against the collapse of positive-negative pairs of charges provided that the corresponding Boltzmann weight $\exp[\beta e^2 v({\bf r})] = r^{-\beta e^2}$ can be integrated at short 2D distances, i.e. when $\beta e^2<2$. The equilibrium statistical mechanics of the neutral TCP is usually studied in the grand canonical ensemble, characterized by the particle fugacities $z_+ = z_- = z$. The full thermodynamics of this system is known [@Samaj00; @Samaj03].
In the stability range of $\beta e^2<2$, the grand partition function $\Xi(z)$ of the 2D TCP can be turned via the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation (see, e.g., Ref. [@Minnhagen]) into $$\label{6.6}
\Xi(z) = \frac{\int {\cal D}\varphi \exp[-S(z)]}{\int {\cal D}\varphi
\exp[-S(0)]} ,$$ where $$\label{6.7}
S(z) = \int {\rm d}{\bf r} \left[ \frac{1}{16\pi} (\nabla\varphi)^2
- 2 z \cos( b\varphi ) \right]$$ is the Euclidean action of the $(1+1)$-dimensional sine-Gordon model. Here, $\varphi({\bf r})$ is a real scalar field and $\int {\cal D}\varphi$ denotes the functional integration over this field. The sine-Gordon coupling constant $b$ depends on the Coulomb coupling constant via $$\label{6.8}
b = \sqrt{\frac{\beta e^2}{4}} .$$ The fugacity $z$ is renormalized by the diverging self-energy term $\exp[\beta v({\bf 0})/2]$ which disappears from statistical relations under the conformal short-distance normalization of the exponential fields [@Samaj00; @Samaj03] $$\label{6.9}
\langle {\rm e}^{{\rm i}b\varphi({\bf r})} {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}b\varphi({\bf r}')}
\rangle_{\rm sG} \sim \vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}'\vert^{-4 b^2}
\qquad \mbox{as $\vert {\bf r}-{\bf r}' \vert \to 0$,}$$ where $\langle \cdots \rangle_{\rm sG}$ denotes the average with the sine-Gordon action (\[6.7\]). The species densities are expressible in the sine-Gordon format as follows $$\label{6.10}
n_{\pm} = z \langle {\rm e}^{\pm{\rm i}b\varphi} \rangle_{\rm sG} .$$ The charge neutrality of the system $n_+ = n_- = n/2$ is ensured by the obvious symmetry relation $\langle {\rm e}^{{\rm i}b\varphi}\rangle_{\rm sG} =
\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}b\varphi}\rangle_{\rm sG}$.
The excess chemical potential of the particle species forming the plasma is given by $$\label{6.11}
\exp(-\beta \mu_{\pm e}^{\rm ex}) = \frac{n_{\pm}}{z}
= \langle {\rm e}^{\pm{\rm i}b\varphi} \rangle_{\rm sG} .$$ It was shown in Ref. [@Samaj05] that the excess chemical potential of a guest charge $Ze$ immersed in the plasma is expressible in the sine-Gordon format as follows $$\label{6.12}
\exp(-\beta \mu_{Z e}^{\rm ex}) =
\langle {\rm e}^{{\rm i}Z b\varphi} \rangle_{\rm sG} .$$ When $Z=\pm 1$, one recovers the previous result (\[6.11\]) valid for the plasma constituents. Due to the symmetry relation $\langle {\rm e}^{{\rm i}a\varphi} \rangle_{\rm sG} =
\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}a\varphi} \rangle_{\rm sG}$ valid for any real-valued $a$, it holds that $\mu_{Z e}^{\rm ex} = \mu_{-Z e}^{\rm ex}$.
The (1+1)-dimensional sine-Gordon model is an integrable field theory [@Zamolodchikov79]. Due to a recent progress in the method of the Thermodynamic Bethe ansatz, a general formula for the expectation value of the exponential field $\langle {\rm e}^{{\rm i}a\phi}\rangle$ was derived by Lukyanov and Zamolodchikov [@Lukyanov]. In the notation of equation (\[6.12\]), $a = Z b$, their formula reads $$\label{6.13}
\langle {\rm e}^{{\rm i}Z b \varphi} \rangle_{\rm sG} =
\left[ \frac{\pi z \Gamma(1-b^2)}{\Gamma(b^2)} \right]^{(Z b)^2/(1-b^2)}
\exp\left[ I_b(Z) \right]$$ with $$\label{6.14}
I_b(Z) = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{{\rm d}t}{t} \left[
\frac{\sinh^2(2 Z b^2 t)}{2 \sinh(b^2 t) \sinh(t)
\cosh[(1-b^2)t]} - 2 Z^2 b^2 {\rm e}^{-2 t} \right] .$$ The interaction Boltzmann factor of the guest charge $Ze$ with an opposite plasma counterion at distance $r$, $r^{-\beta e^2\vert Z\vert}$, is integrable at small 2D distances $r$ if $\beta \vert Z\vert e^2<2$, i.e. $\vert Z\vert < 1/(2 b^2)$; this is indeed the condition for the integral (\[6.14\]) to be finite, so that the couple of Eqs. (\[6.13\]) and (\[6.14\]) passes the collapse test. Finally, using eqs. (\[6.13\]) and (\[6.14\]) in (\[6.12\]), one arrives at $$\label{6.15}
- \beta \mu_{Ze}^{\rm ex} = Z^2 \frac{b^2}{1-b^2}
\ln \left[ \frac{\pi z \Gamma(1-b^2)}{\Gamma(b^2)} \right] + I_b(Z) .$$ We have to keep in mind that $b^2=\beta e^2/4$.
Comparing the cumulant expansion (\[3.10\]) with the result (\[6.15\]), in which the integral $I_b(Z)$ (\[6.14\]) is expanded in powers of $Z$, one gets the explicit forms of the potential moments: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{\phi}^2 \rangle^{\rm T} & = & \frac{e^2}{8 b^2 (1-b^2)}
\ln \left[ \frac{\pi z \Gamma(1-b^2)}{\Gamma(b^2)} \right] \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{e^2}{4} \int_0^{\infty} \frac{{\rm d}t}{t}
\left[ \frac{t^2}{\sinh(b^2 t) \sinh(t) \cosh[(1-b^2)t]}
- \frac{1}{b^2} {\rm e}^{-2 t} \right] , \label{6.16} \\
\langle \hat{\phi}^{2l} \rangle^{\rm T} & = & \frac{e^{2l}}{4}
\int_0^{\infty} {\rm d}t
\frac{t^{2l-1}}{\sinh(b^2 t) \sinh(t) \cosh[(1-b^2)t]} ,
\quad l=2,3,\ldots . \phantom{aa} \label{6.17} \end{aligned}$$ The odd potential moments vanish for the symmetric TCP.
In the high-temperature limit $\beta e^2\to 0$ $(b^2\to 0)$, (\[6.15\]) taken with $z\sim n/2$ reduces to the previous one (\[4.13\]); one retrieves the second moment (\[4.11\]) and that all higher moments vanish, as it should be. From (\[6.17\]), in the limit $b^2\rightarrow 0$, one finds $$\label{6.18}
\beta \langle \hat{\phi}^{2l} \rangle^{\rm T} = e^{2(l-1)} 8
\frac{4^l-2}{4^{2l}} (2l-2)! \zeta(2l-1) , \qquad l=2,3,\ldots .$$ These expressions go beyond the Debye-Hückel limit of (\[6.15\]).
At the collapse point $\beta e^2=2$ $(b^2=1/2)$, the second-moment formula (\[6.16\]) reproduces the previous result (\[6.5\]) and the higher-order moments (\[6.17\]) take forms $$\label{6.19}
\langle \hat{\phi}^{2l} \rangle^{\rm T} = e^{2l}
\frac{2}{4^l} (2l-1)! \zeta(2l-1) , \qquad l=2,3,\ldots .$$
All potential moments are finite also in the collapse region, up to the Kosterlitz-Thouless critical point $\beta e^2=4$ $(b^2=1)$. We conjecture that, in the case of the hard-core regularization of the Coulomb potential, the obtained result correspond to the limit of a vanishing hard core.
We end up this section by a comment about the possibility of a relationship between the electrostatic potential $\hat{\phi}$ and the sine-Gordon field variable $\varphi$. This relationship was suggested in many articles, see, e.g., Ref. [@Dean]. The comparison of Eqs. (\[3.11\]) and (\[6.12\]) implies $$\label{6.20}
\langle \varphi^{2l} \rangle_{\rm sG} = (-1)^l (4\beta)^l
\langle \hat{\phi}^{2l} \rangle .$$ This means that, in view of one-point fluctuations, the fields $\hat{\phi}$ and $\varphi$ differ from one another only by an irrelevant scaling factor. On the other hand, the large-distance asymptotic of the potential-potential correlations (\[4.9\]) is fundamentally different from the one of $\langle \varphi({\bf 0}) \varphi({\bf r}) \rangle^{\rm T}$ The latter two-point correlation function has, like in every massive field theory, a short-range exponential decay as $r\to\infty$. We conclude that the electrostatic-potential interpretation of the sine-Gordon field is not correct.
Conclusion
==========
The general study of a mixture of $M$ species of mobile particles, which may be embedded in a uniform background, is simpler in two dimensions; the BGY hierarchy suffices for deriving the general sum rule (\[2.12\]) relating the second moments and the zeroth moments of the two-body correlations. Further work should be possible about this mixture.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
B. Jancovici has benefited of a stimulating conversation with L. Suttorp. L. Šamaj is grateful to LPT for its very kind invitation; the support by grant VEGA 2/6071/27 is acknowledged.
[99]{}
Šamaj, L.: J. Stat. Phys. [**128**]{}, 1415 (2007)
Suttorp, L.G., van Wonderen, A.J.: Physica A [**145**]{}, 533 (1987)
Martin, Ph.A.: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**60**]{}, 1075 (1988)
Gruber, Ch., Lebowitz, J.L., Martin, Ph.A.: J. Chem. Phys. [**75**]{}, 944 (1981)
Hauge, E.H., Hemmer, P.C.: Phys. Norv. [**5**]{}, 109 (1971), and references quoted there
Jancovici, B.: J. Physique-Lettres [**42**]{}, L-223 (1981)
See, e.g., Hill, T.L.: Statistical Mechanics. McGraw-Hill (1956)
Salzberg, A.M., Prager, S.: J. Chem. Phys. [**38**]{}, 2587 (1963)
Lieb, E.H., Lebowitz, J.L.,: Adv. in Math. [**9**]{}, 316 (1972)
Alastuey, A., Jancovici, B.: J. Stat. Phys. [**34**]{}, 557 (1984)
Debye, P., Hückel, E.: Phys. Z. [**24**]{}, 185 (1923)
Kennedy, T.: Comm. Math. Phys. [**92**]{}, 269 (1983)
Jancovici, B., Šamaj, L.: J. Stat. Phys. [**114**]{}, 1211 (2004)
Gradshteyn, I.S., Ryzhik, I.M.: Table of Integrals, Series and Products, 5th ed. Academic Press, London, (1994)
Lebowitz, J.L., Martin, Ph.A.: J. Stat. Phys. [**34**]{}, 287 (1984)
Alastuey, A., Jancovici, B.: J. Phys. (Paris) [**42**]{}, 1 (1981)
Jancovici, B.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**46**]{}, 386 (1981)
Jancovici, B.: Mol. Phys. [**52**]{}, 1251 (1984)
Cornu, F., Jancovici, B.: J. Stat. Phys. [**49**]{}, 33 (1987)
Cornu, F., Jancovici, B.: J. Chem. Phys. [**90**]{}, 2444 (1989)
Šamaj, L., Travěnec. I.: J. Stat. Phys. [**101**]{}, 713 (2000)
Šamaj, L.: J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**36**]{}, 5913 (2003)
Minnhagen, P.: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**59**]{}, 1001 (1987)
Šamaj, L.: J. Stat. Phys. [**120**]{}, 125 (2005)
Zamolodchikov, A., Zamolodchikov, Al.: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**120**]{}, 253 (1979)
Lukyanov, S., Zamolodchikov, Al.: Nucl. Phys. B [**493**]{}, 571 (1997)
Dean, D.S., Horgan, R.R.: Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 061106 (2003)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Polariton lasing is demonstrated on the zero dimensional states of single GaAs/GaAlAs micropillar cavities. Under non resonant excitation, the measured polariton ground state occupancy is found to be as large as $10^{4}$. Changing the spatial excitation conditions, competition between several polariton lasing modes is observed, ruling out Bose-Einstein condensation. When the polariton state occupancy increases, the emission blueshift is the signature of self-interaction within the half-light half-matter polariton lasing mode.'
author:
- Daniele Bajoni
- Pascale Senellart
- Esther Wertz
- Isabelle Sagnes
- Audrey Miard
- Aristide Lemaître
- Jacqueline Bloch
title: 'Polariton laser using single micropillar GaAs-GaAlAs semiconductor cavities'
---
Boson statistics can lead to massive occupation of a single quantum state and trigger final state stimulation. This stimulation is responsible for the bright coherent emission of light in a laser. Another fascinating property of massive bosons in thermal equilibrium is their ability to accumulate in the lowest energy state under a given critical temperature. First predicted in 1925,[@Einstein] the experimental observation of Bose Einstein condensation was achieved in the mid 1990s for ultra-cold atoms.[@Anderson1995; @Ketterle1995] Demonstrating such bosonic effects with matter waves in a solid state system is very interesting both from fundamental point of view but also for applications since it could provide a new source of coherent light. Cavity polaritons are an example of quasi-particles behaving as bosons at low density.[@Livrekavokin; @Keeling2007] They are the exciton-photon mixed quasi-particles arising from the strong coupling regime between quantum well (QW) excitons and a resonant optical cavity mode. Because of their very small effective mass ($10^{-8}$ times that of the hydrogen atom) cavity polaritons are expected to condensate at unusually high temperatures (up to room temperature in wide band gap microcavities).[@Malpuech2002] These last years, massive occupation of a polariton state has been observed in semiconductor two-dimensional (2D) cavities and attributed to Bose Einstein condensation[@Deng2002; @Kasprzak2006] or to polariton lasing.[@Christopoulos2007] More recently, polariton condensation has been claimed in a localized energy trap [@Snoke2007] where the trap dimensions are sufficiently large for the system to present a 2D continuum of polariton states. In these experiments, the clear distinction of a thermodynamic phase transition (Bose Einstein condensation) from a kinetic stimulated scattering (polariton lasing) is still debated.
In this letter, we demonstrate polariton lasing in micrometric sized GaAs/GaAlAs micropillar cavities. In such zero-dimensional (0D) cavities, polariton states are confined in all directions and present a well defined discretized energy spectrum.[@Gerard; @Panzarini] The absence of translation invariance lifts the wave-vector conservation selection-rules in polariton scatterings. In GaAs 2D microcavities, these selection rules are responsible for inefficient polariton-phonon or polariton-polariton scattering, preventing the build-up of a large occupancy in the lower energy states.[@Senellart2000; @Tartakovskii2000; @Butte2002; @bajoni] In this work, we show that polariton scattering is very efficient in micropillar cavities. Under non resonant excitation, a threshold corresponding to a measured occupation factor equal to unity is observed, followed by a massive occupation of the lowest energy polariton state. At higher excitation power, the progressive transition from the strong to the weak coupling regime is evidenced with the onset of conventional photon lasing.
Moving the excitation spot toward the micropillar edge, non-linear emission can be triggered on higher energy polariton states. Such behavior is characteristic of a polariton laser with competing stimulated scattering toward several polariton modes. It rules out Bose-Einstein condensation where only massive occupation of the ground state is expected. Finally the spectral blueshift of the polariton laser line is shown to be induced by the polariton self-interaction within the lasing mode. This experiment is the first demonstration of a solid state matter-wave laser on 0D states.
Our sample, grown by molecular beam epitaxy, consists in a $\lambda/2$ Ga$_{0.05}$Al$_{0.95}$As cavity surrounded by two Ga$_{0.05}$Al$_{0.95}$As/Ga$_{0.80}$Al$_{0.20}$As Bragg mirrors with 26 and 30 pairs in the top and bottom mirrors respectively. Three sets of four 7 nm GaAs QWs are inserted at the antinodes of the cavity mode electromagnetic field: one set is located at the center of the cavity layer and the two others at the first antinode in each mirror.[@Bloch1998] A wedge in the layer thickness allows continuous tuning of the cavity mode energy $E_{C}$ with respect to the QW exciton energy ($E_{X}$). The exciton-photon detuning is defined as $\delta = E_{C}-E_{X}$. 20 to 2 $\mu$m size square and circular micropillars were fabricated along the wafer using electron beam lithography and reactive ion etching (see inset of Fig. \[Fig1\](a)). Photoluminescence (PL) experiments are performed on single micropillars using a cw Ti:Saph laser focused onto a 3 $\mu$m diameter spot with a microscope objective. For excitation powers exceeding 1 mW, the laser beam is chopped using an acousto-optic modulator with 1% duty cycle at 10 kHz. The emission is collected through the same objective, spectrally dispersed and detected with a nitrogen cooled CCD camera. The sample is maintained at 10 K in a cold finger cryostat. The laser is tuned to the first reflectivity minimum on the high energy side of the mirror stop-band (around 740 nm), typically 80 meV above the exciton resonance.
In micrometer sized pillar cavities, photons are confined along all directions: vertically by the Bragg mirrors and laterally by the index of refraction contrast between air and semiconductor. As a result, micropillars exhibit discrete 0D photon modes.[@Gerard] In the strong coupling regime, polaritons come from the mixing between each of these 0D photon modes and the QW excitons.[@Panzarini] Fig. \[Fig1\](a) presents a PL spectrum measured on a single 4 $\mu m$ diameter circular micropillar. The emission energies measured on micropillars of identical diameter along the cavity wedge are summarized in fig.\[Fig1\](b). The emission spectrum in fig. \[Fig1\](a) presents several discrete emission lines on the low energy side of the exciton line centered around 1607 meV. The energy of these discrete lines strongly varies with the layer thickness: they are attributed to 0D photon modes. For large negative detuning, the 130 $\mu$eV linewidth of these optical modes corresponds to a quality factor of 12000. Each of these photon modes presents the anticrossing[@Bloch1997; @Gutbrod1998] with the exciton line, characteristic of the strong coupling regime. The 0D polariton energies can be fitted using a 15 meV Rabi splitting (as in the planar cavity). Note that contrary to 2D cavities, the uncoupled exciton line is observed because in-plane exciton emission is extracted through the pillar side. Since the exciton line is broadened by strain relaxation in the etching process, the upper polariton state could not be resolved. Further evidence of the strong coupling regime is obtained by observing the exciton-photon anticrossing on a single micropillar using temperature tuning.[@Fisher1995]
PL spectra taken for increasing pump powers $P$ on a 6 $\mu$m circular pillar are shown in fig. \[Fig2\]. A spectrum taken at very low power is shown in the inset: several discrete polariton modes emit on the low energy side of the exciton line. The polariton ground state corresponds to a $50\%$ exciton $50\%$ photon mixed state (measured detuning $\delta = 0$ meV). Two excitation regimes can be distinguished. For $P> 5 mW$ (fig.\[Fig2\](b)), the emission undergoes a pronounced blueshift and broadening. The density of electron-hole pairs per QW injected for $P=5 mW$ is estimated to be around $10^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$ per QW, reaching the exciton screening density. In this excitation range, the strong coupling regime is progressively screened[@Houdre95; @Kira97; @Pau97] and eventually the system enters the weak coupling regime, with emission of uncorrelated electron-hole pairs through the cavity modes. The strong coupling regime saturation is observed for excitation densities consistent with previous reports in 2D samples[@Houdre95] or in aluminium-oxide-aperture nanocavities[@Lee]. Above 40 mW, a threshold is observed due to the onset of conventional photon lasing on the 0D photon modes[@footnote].
Let us now concentrate on the strong coupling regime ($P<5$ mW, fig.\[Fig2\](a)). The emission behavior is marked by a sharp nonlinear increase of the ground state PL intensity. As summarized in Fig. \[Fig3\](a), when P varies from 0.3 mW up to 3 mW, the integrated intensity increases by four orders of magnitude. The occupancy N of the lowest energy polariton state can be experimentally estimated using: $N = I_{PL}*
\tau_{cav}/[\alpha^{2}*E]$, where $\tau_{cav}= 3\, ps$ is the cavity photon lifetime, $I_{PL}$ is the power emitted by the considered polariton mode, E its emission energy and $\alpha$ its exciton part[@Senellart2000]. Directly relating the emission intensity to an actual polariton population may not always be possible since emission at the polariton energy could also come from correlated electron-hole pairs, as reported for bare excitons[@Chatterjee]. Nevertheless this analysis is valid at low density and low temperature, the regime where polariton non-linearities are observed in the present work. As shown in Fig. \[Fig3\](a), the onset of the polaritonic non-linearity occurs when the measured polariton occupancy exceeds unity. Above threshold, the scattering of excitons toward the lowest energy polariton state is stimulated, leading to the formation of a macroscopically occupied polariton state. The polariton population of the lower energy state increases up to 10$^4$.
The polariton linewidth amounts to $0.2$ meV at low excitation power, and slightly broadens with the onset of polariton-polariton interaction. At threshold, associated to the build-up of the large polariton occupancy, a spectral narrowing, down to $\sim$ 0.15 meV, shows that the coherence time becomes longer than the radiative lifetime of single polaritons.
![(a) Integrated intensity and measured occupancy , (b) emission energy and (c) emission linewidth measured on the lowest energy emission line as a function of the excitation power; dashed areas highlight the excitation range for polariton lasing or photon lasing.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="7"}
Polariton stimulated scattering is obtained on micropillars with diameter down to 2 $\mu$m and for detunings down to $\delta =-$20 meV. Working at higher temperatures, polariton lasing occurs up to 45 K. Above 50 K or for very large negative detunings, only the second non-linearity associated to photon lasing is observed. Let us underline that in the unpatterned 2D sample, only conventional lasing was achieved[@bajoni]. Reducing the cavity dimensionality is the key step to achieve polariton quantum degeneracy under non-resonant excitation.
![(Color online) (a) Emission spectra measured on a single 6 $\mu$m diameter micropillar for several excitation powers with a laser spot well centered on the pillar surface, (b) measured integrated intensity of the three lowest energy polariton mode as a function of the excitation power in this centered excitation geometry. (c) and (d): same as (a) and (b) but with an edge excitation geometry as schematically indicated in the figure. (e) Spectral blueshift of the polariton lasing modes as a function of their occupancy. T = 10 K.[]{data-label="Fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="7"}
Fig. \[Fig4\] presents PL measurements on a 6 $\mu$m micropillar (with $\delta =-$0.3 meV for the lowest polariton mode) using two different excitation geometries. On the left part of Fig.\[Fig4\], the laser spot is centered on the micropillar surface. As described above, stimulated scattering occurs toward the lowest energy mode (named M1). The data of the right part are recorded with the excitation spot shifted toward the micropillar edge, as schematically indicated in the figure. Under this excitation geometry, stimulated scattering is observed toward the first excited polariton states (named M2). Further increasing the excitation power, competition between polariton modes also triggers stimulated scattering toward M1 and M3. This experiment demonstrates that the polaritonic non-linearity can not be interpreted in terms of a thermodynamic phase transition (analogous to Bose-Einstein condensation) because in this framework, the largest occupancy is always expected on the system ground-state. In the present experiment, the non-linearities are not governed by thermodynamics but by the kinetics of the scattering process toward the low energy polariton states. Such bosonic stimulation of polariton scattering has been named “polariton laser”[@Imamoglu96; @Shelykh2003] in analogy to the atom laser[@Wiseman]. Using this now well accepted name, one must keep in mind that the stimulation mechanism is very different from that in a conventional photon laser: it is not the emission of radiation that is amplified but a scattering mechanism, following the non-resonant excitation. As in a conventional photon laser, multi-mode polariton lasing can be triggered depending on the excitation condition. The electromagnetic field of the lowest energy mode (named HE$_{11}$, see ref.) presents an antinode at the micropillar center and decays at the edge. It is therefore favored when the center of the pillar is excited. On the contrary, the second polariton line gathering three degenerate modes within the mode linewidth (EH$_{01}$, HE$_{21}$ and HE$_{01}$), is favored under edge excitation since these modes present an antinode at the periphery. Thus the pump excitation geometry triggers stimulated scattering toward polariton modes with matching field spatial distribution.
Contrary to conventional photon lasers, the lasing mode of a polariton laser is macroscopically occupied with half-matter half-light bosons i.e. with interacting bosons. Exciton-exciton interaction and the resulting exciton blueshift has been extensively studied in the 80’s[@Peyghambarian; @Schmitt-Rink86] and recently revisited within the framework of excitonic polaritons[@Ciuti2000]. Polariton-polariton interaction originates from coulomb interaction between the fermionic constituents (electron and hole) of their exciton part. As the occupancy of the polariton states increases, self-interaction within the lasing mode induces a spectral blueshift of the emission[@Ciuti]. Fig. \[Fig4\](e) summarizes the spectral blueshift of M1 and M2 both under central and edge excitation conditions. The blueshifts are plotted as a function of the polariton occupancy, obtained by normalizing the emission intensity by the intensity at threshold. M3 is not reported because the contribution from HE$_{12}$, at higher energy than EH$_{11}$ and HE$_{41}$[@Panzarini] could not be correctly deconvoluted. The curves in fig.\[Fig4\](e) are strikingly identical regardless of the mode number or the excitation conditions. This indicates that the blueshift only depends on the number of polaritons within the considered state. For instance, when multimode lasing is achieved, each lasing mode presents its own blueshift, corresponding to its own occupancy. Thus the blueshift does not come from interaction with high energy excitons or electron-hole pairs, but mainly from the self-interaction energy within the considered mode. Notice that the present results evidence a blueshift logarithmically varying with the occupancy whereas theoretical calculations predicts a linear behavior[@Ciuti]. Further theoretical investigation is probably needed to quantitatively describe the observed self-interaction energy.
To conclude, polariton lasing is demonstrated on the discrete modes of a GaAs/GaAlAs micropillar cavity. A sharp threshold associated with a spectral narrowing shows the onset of stimulated scattering toward the lowest energy polariton state. The polariton state occupancy is measured to reach $10^{4}$. Changing the excitation spatial symmetry, multimode polariton lasing is triggered, demonstrating that the observed feature can not be described in terms of Bose Einstein condensation. Contrary to photon lasing obtained at higher excitation power, the polariton self-interaction within the macroscopically occupied state induces a continuous blueshift of the emission as the state occupancy builds up. These results, obtained in the well controlled GaAs semiconductor system, open the way toward an electrically pumped polariton laser[@APLBajoni] and will stimulate future experiments to investigate the emission quantum statistics of such a solid-state matter-wave laser.
We are grateful to D. Le Si Dang for fruitful discussions. This work was funded by the european project “Clermont 2“ (MRTN-CT-2003-503677), by ”C’nano Ile de France“ and ”Conseil Général de l’Essonne".
[99]{}
A. Einstein, Sitzungberichte, Pressische Akademie der Wissenshaften, **1** 3 (1925)
M. N. Anderson et al., Science **269**, 198 (1995)
K. B. Davis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 3969 (1995)
A. Kavokin and G. Malpuech, Cavity Polaritons (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2003).
J. Keeling et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 226403 (2004); M. H. Szymanska, J. Keeling, and P. B. Littlewood, ibid. **96**, 230602 (2006).
G. Malpuech et al., Applied. Phys. Lett. **81**, 412 (2002)
H. Deng et al., Science **298**, 199 (2002).
J. Kasprzak et al., Nature **443**, 409 (2006).
S. Christopoulos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 126405 (2007).
R. Balili et al., Science **307**, 1007(2007).
J. M. Gérard et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. **69** 449 (1996)
G. Panzarini and L.C. Andreani, *Phys. Rev. B* **60**, 16799 (1999).
P. Senellart et al., Phys. Rev. B **62**, R16263 (2000).
I. Tartakovskii et al., Phys. Rev. B **62**, R2283 (2000)
R. Butté et al., Phys. Rev. B **65**, 205310 (2002).
D. Bajoni et al., arXiv:0709.4372 (2007)
J. Bloch et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. **73**, 1694 (1998).
J. Bloch et al., *Superlatt. Microstruct.* **22**, 371 (1997).
T. Gutbrod et al., Phys. Rev. B **57** 9950 (1998)
T. A. Fisher et al., Phys. Rev. B **51** 2600 (1995)
R. Houdré et al., Phys. Rev. B **52**7810 (1995)
M. Kira et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 5170 (1997).
H. Cao et al., Phys. Rev. A **55**, 4632 (1997).
E.S. Lee et al., J. Appl. Phys. **89** 807 (2001)
Photon-lasing is observed 5 meV below the bare cavity modes deduced from low density measurements. This effect, pronounced in cavities containing many QWs, can be understood considering changes of the QW layer refractive index when screening the exciton.[@bajoni]
S. Chatterjee et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 067402 (2004)
A. Imamoglu and R. J. Ram, Phys. Lett. A, **214** 193 (1996); A. Imamoglu et al., Phys. Rev. A **53** 4250 (1996)
I. A. Shelykh et al., Phys. Rev. B **68** 085311 (2003);Fabrice P. Laussy et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **93** 016402 (2004)
H. M. Wiseman and M. J. Collett, Phys. Lett. A **202** 246 (1995); M. Holland et al., Phys. Rev. A **54** R1757 (1996)
N. Peyghambarian et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **53** 2433 (1984)
S. Schmitt-Rink, C. Ell and H. Haug, Phys. Rev. B **33** 1183 (1986)
C. Ciuti et al., Phys. Rev. B **62** R4825 (2000)
A. Verger, C. Ciuti, and I. Carusotto, Phys. Rev. B **73** 193306 (2006)
D. Bajoni et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. **90**, 121114 (2007)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study maximally multipartite entangled states in the context of Gaussian continuous variable quantum systems. By considering multimode Gaussian states with constrained energy, we show that perfect maximally multipartite entangled states, which exhibit the maximum amount of bipartite entanglement for all bipartitions, only exist for systems containing $n=2$ or 3 modes. We further numerically investigate the structure of these states and their frustration for $n\le 7$.'
author:
- Paolo Facchi
- Giuseppe Florio
- Cosmo Lupo
- Stefano Mancini
- Saverio Pascazio
title: Gaussian maximally multipartite entangled states
---
Introduction
============
Entanglement is nowadays recognized as a fundamental resource for quantum information processing (see e.g. [@vlatko]). It explicitly appeared long before the dawn of quantum information science and without any reference to discrete variables (qubits) [@Sch]. In fact, it first came to light in the context of continuous variables [@EPR]. Thus, its characterization must necessarily include the latter as well. Along this line, important milestones have appeared in terms of continuous variables and more specifically Gaussian states (see e.g. [@cvbooks] and reference therein).
Although bipartite entanglement can be conveniently characterized (e.g. in terms of purity or von Neumann entropy) [@entgen], the characterization of multipartite entanglement remains a challenging problem, together with the definition of a class of quantum states that exhibit high values of multipartite entanglement. Recently, the notion of maximally multipartite entangled state (MMES) was introduced in the qubit framework [@mmes]. These states have a large (in fact, maximum) value of average bipartite entanglement over all balanced bipartitions of a system of qubits [@mmes; @Scott]. They are solution of an optimization problem and minimize a suitably defined cost function, that can be viewed as a potential of multipartite entanglement. A MMES is called “perfect" if its average entanglement saturates the maximum bipartite entanglement for all bipartitions. Perfect MMESs exist for $n=2,3,5$ and 6 qubits, they do not exist for $n=4$, $n > 7$ [@lit; @mmes], while the case $n=7$ is still an open problem. In terms of potential applications in quantum information science, MMESs are the ideal resource for initializing a quantum internet [@Kimble] and could be useful in several multiparty quantum information protocols (like e.g. controlled teleportation [@Karl] or quantum secret sharing [@Buz]).
The concept of MMES was extended to the framework of continuous variable (and Gaussian) systems in [@adesso]. There a Gaussian MMES is a state with a maximal rank for any bipartition of the $n$ party system in the limit of infinite squeezing [@adesso]. Notice that such a state allows perfect quantum teleportation among its $n$ parties. Here, with the aim of characterizing Gaussian MMESs, we adopt a different viewpoint, by introducing a constraint on the maximal mean energy allowed per user (which, eventually, will be let to go to infinity). Hence, we look for states that present the maximal amount of bipartite entanglement compatible with the given constraint. We will show that, following this definition, perfect MMESs exist in the continuous variable Gaussian setting only for $n=2,3$. For $n \ge 4$ a simple argument shows that perfect MMESs do not exist, hence manifesting the phenomenon of *entanglement frustration* [@frust] (see also [@frust2]). Then, for $4 \le n \le 7$ we study the distribution of entanglement among the bipartitions. Finally, we find examples of MMESs and provide numerical evidence that bipartite entanglement can be optimally distributed for $n=5,6$.
Basic definitions {#basicdef}
=================
A system composed of $n$ identical (but distinguishable) subsystems is described by a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_S$, with $\mathcal{H}_S := \bigotimes_{i\in S} \mathfrak{h}_i$ and $S=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$, which is the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of its elements $\mathfrak{h}_i\simeq \mathfrak{h}$. Examples range from qubits, where $\mathfrak{h}=\mathbb{C}^2$, to continuous variables systems, where $\mathfrak{h}=L^2(\mathbb{R})$. We will denote a bipartition of system $S$ by the pair $(A,\bar{A})$, where $A\subset S$, $\bar{A}= S \setminus A$ and $1\leq n_A \leq
n_{\bar{A}}$, with $n_A=|A|$, the cardinality of party $A$ (of course, $n_A+n_{\bar{A}}=n$). At the level of Hilbert spaces we get $$\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\bar{A}}.$$ A crucial question in quantum information is about the amount of entanglement between party $A$ and party $\bar{A}$. When the total system is in a pure state $|\psi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}$, which is the only case we will consider henceforth, the answer is simple, and can be given, for example, in terms of the purity $$\label{eq:piAdef}
\pi_A = {{\mathrm{tr}}}(\rho_A^2)$$ of the reduced density matrix of party $A$, $$\rho_A := {{\mathrm{tr}}}_{\mathcal{H}_{\bar{A}}} (|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|) /
\|\psi\|^2.$$ Indeed, this quantity can be taken as a measure of the entanglement of the bipartition $(A,\bar{A})$. Its range is $$\label{eq:piArange}
\pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A} \leq \pi_A \leq 1,$$ where $$\pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A}= (\dim \mathcal{H}_A)^{-1}=(\dim
\mathfrak{h})^{-n_A},$$ with the stipulation that $1/\infty = 0$.
The upper bound $1$ is attained by unentangled, factorized states $|\psi\rangle=|\phi\rangle_A\otimes |\chi\rangle_{\bar{A}}$. On the other hand, when $\dim \mathfrak{h}<\infty$, the lower bound, which depends only on the number of elements $n_A$ composing party $A$, is attained by maximally bipartite entangled states, whose reduced density matrix is a completely mixed state $$\rho_A=\pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A} \openone_{\mathcal{H}_A}.$$
Note, however, that for continuous variables, $\dim
\mathfrak{h}=\infty$, the lower bound $\pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A}=0$ is not attained by any state. Therefore, strictly speaking, in this situation there do not exist maximally bipartite entangled states, but only states that approximate them. This inconvenience can be overcome by introducing physical constraints related to the limited amount of resources that one has in real life. This reduces the set of possible states and induces one to reformulate the question in the form: what are the physical minimizers of (\[eq:piAdef\]), namely the states that minimize (\[eq:piAdef\]) and belong to the set $\mathcal{C}$ of physically constrained states? In sensible situations, e.g. when one considers states with bounded energy and bounded number of particles, the purity lower bound $$\pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A, \mathcal{C}} = \inf\{\pi_A,
|\psi\rangle\in\mathcal{C} \}\geq \pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A}$$ is no longer zero and is attained by a class of minimizers, namely the *maximally bipartite entangled states*. If this is the case, we can also consider multipartite entanglement and ask whether there exist states in $\mathcal{C}$ that are maximally entangled for every bipartition $(A,\bar{A})$, and therefore satisfy the extremal property $$\pi_A = \pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A, \mathcal{C}}
\label{eq:perfectMMESdef}$$ for every subsystem $A\subset S$ with $n_A=|A| \leq n/2$. In analogy with the discrete variable situation, where $\dim
\mathfrak{h}<\infty$ and $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{H}$, we will call a state that satisfies (\[eq:perfectMMESdef\]) a *perfect MMES* (subject to the constraint $\mathcal{C}$).
Since the requirement (\[eq:perfectMMESdef\]) is very strong, the answer to the quest can be negative for $n>2$ (when $n=2$ it is trivially satisfied) and the set of perfect MMES can be empty. We remind that for a system of $n$ qubits, i.e. when $\dim
\mathfrak{h}=2$, perfect MMESs exist for $n=2,3,5,6$, do not exist for $n=4$, $n > 7$ [@lit; @mmes], while the case $n=7$ is still open. This is a symptom of frustration [@frust]. We emphasize that this frustration is a consequence of the conflicting requirements that entanglement be maximal for all possible bipartitions of the system.
In the best of all possible worlds one can still seek for the (nonempty) class of states that better approximate perfect MMESs, that is states with minimal average purity. We therefore consider the *potential of multipartite entanglement* [@mmes] $$\label{eq:pimedef} \pi_{\mathrm{ME}} = \mathbb{E}(\pi_A) :=
\left(\begin{array}{c}n
\\{[n/2]}\end{array}\!\!\right)^{-1}\sum_{|A|=[n/2]}\pi_A$$ where the sum runs over all balanced bipartition, with $|A| = n_A =
[n/2]$, where $[\,\cdot\,]$ denotes the integer part. (It is immediate to see that a necessary and sufficient condition for a state to be a perfect MMES is to be maximally entangled with respect to balanced bipartitions, i.e. those with $n_A=[n/2]$.) By definition a MMES is a state that belongs to $\mathcal{C}$ and minimizes the potential of multipartite entanglement. Obviously, when $\pi_{\mathrm{ME},\mathrm{min}}^\mathcal{C} :=
\min_{\mathcal{C}} \pi_{\mathrm{ME}}= \pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{[n/2],
\mathcal{C}}$ there is no frustration and the MMESs are perfect. In order to quantify the amount of the frustration (for states belonging to the set $\mathcal{C}$) we will take the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{merit1}
\chi_{\mathrm{min}}^\mathcal{C} =
\pi_{\mathrm{ME},\mathrm{min}}^\mathcal{C}/
\pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{[n/2],\mathcal{C}}.\end{aligned}$$ Eventually we will consider the limit $\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathcal{H}$.
Basic Tools for Gaussian states
===============================
Let us consider a collection of $n$ identical bosonic oscillators with (dimensionless) canonical variables $\{ q_k, p_k \}_{k=1,\dots
n}$. We assume that the oscillators have unit frequency and set $\hbar=1$. A quantum state of the $n$ oscillators can be described by a density operator $\rho_{(n)}$ on the $n$-mode Hilbert space, or equivalently by the Wigner function on the $n$-mode phase space $$\label{Wigner}
W_{(n)}(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{p}) = \int d^n\mathbf{y} \langle
\mathbf{q} - \mathbf{y} | \rho_{(n)} | \mathbf{q} + \mathbf{y}
\rangle e^{2 i \pi \mathbf{y}\cdot\mathbf{p}},$$ where $\mathbf{q} := (q_1, \dots q_n) $, $\mathbf{p} := (p_1, \dots
p_n) $, $\mathbf{y} := (y_1, \dots y_n) \in\mathbb{R}^n$, and we have denoted by $$| \mathbf{q} \pm \mathbf{y} \rangle := \otimes_{k=1}^n | q_k \pm y_k
\rangle$$ the generalized eigenstates of the ‘position’ operators $\hat q_k $. By definition, Gaussian states are those described by a Gaussian Wigner function. Introducing the phase-space coordinate vector $\mathbf{X} = (X_1, \dots X_{2n}) := (q_1, p_1, \dots q_n, p_n)$, a Gaussian state has a Wigner function of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
W_{(n)}(\mathbf{X}) &=& \frac{1}{(2\pi)^n\sqrt{\det(\mathbb{V})}}\nonumber\\
&\times&\exp{\left[-\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{X}-\mathbf{X}_0)
\mathbb{V}^{-1}(\mathbf{X}-\mathbf{X}_0)^\mathsf{T}\right]},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{X}_0 = \langle \mathbf{X} \rangle$, with $ \langle
f(\mathbf{X}) \rangle := \int f(\mathbf{X}) W_{(n)}(\mathbf{X})
d^{2n}\mathbf{X}$, is the vector of first moments, and $\mathbb{V}$ is the $2n\times 2n$ covariance matrix (CM), whose elements are $$\mathbb{V}_{lm} = \langle ( X_l - \langle X_l \rangle )( X_m -
\langle X_m \rangle ) \rangle.$$
We will also consider an equivalent representation defined by a different ordering of the canonical variables $\mathbf{\tilde
X}=(q_1, q_2, \dots q_n, p_1, p_2 \dots p_n)$. In this representation the CM is denoted $\mathbb{\tilde V}$ and has elements $$\label{repr_2}
\mathbb{\tilde V}_{lm} = \langle ( \tilde X_l - \langle \tilde X_l
\rangle )( \tilde X_m - \langle \tilde X_m \rangle ) \rangle.$$
In order to study the properties of entanglement for Gaussian states we will consider the purity $$\pi(\rho_{(n)}):={{\mathrm{tr}}}(\rho_{(n)}^2).$$ From Eq. (\[Wigner\]), it is straightforward to compute this quantity in terms of the Wigner function: $$\label{eq:puritywigner}
\pi(\rho_{(n)})= (2\pi)^n\int \left[W_{(n)}(\mathbf{X})\right]^2
d^{2n}\mathbf{X}.$$ In particular, the purity of Gaussian states is a function of the determinant of the CM. From Eqs. (\[eq:puritywigner\]) it follows that $$\label{purity}
\pi(\rho_{(n)}) = \frac{1}{2^n\sqrt{\det (\mathbb{V})}}$$ with the bound $\pi(\rho_{(n)}) \le 1$. Notice that from (\[purity\]) a Gaussian state with positive CM is pure if and only if $$\label{pur_cond}
\det \mathbb{V} = \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2n}.$$
As anticipated in Sec. \[basicdef\], in order to obtain sensible results, we will impose impose a suitable energy constraint. Here we do not allow more than $N$ mean excitations for each bosonic mode, i.e.$$\label{energy}
\frac{\langle q_k^2 + p_k^2 \rangle}{2} \le N + \frac{1}{2}, \qquad
\mbox{for} \quad k=1, \dots n.$$ This constraint introduces a cutoff in the Hilbert space of each quantum oscillator.
A particular example of Gaussian state is the thermal state $\rho_{(n)}^{\mathrm{th}}$ with $N$ thermal excitations per mode described by a Gaussian Wigner function with vanishing first moments and CM $$\label{V_thermal}
\mathbb{V}^{\mathrm{th}} = (N+1/2)\mathbb{I}_{2n}.$$ Obviously, $\rho_{(n)}^{\mathrm{th}}$ satisfies the constraint (\[energy\]). We now show the following
\[min\_thermal\] Among all Gaussian states, the thermal state is the unique state that minimizes purity under the constraint (\[energy\]). The corresponding minimal purity is $$\label{min_purity}
\pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n,N}=\pi(\rho^{\mathrm{th}}_{(n)}) =
\frac{1}{2^n(N+1/2)^n}.$$
**Proof:** We prove that the thermal state is the unique minimizer of the purity among the Gaussian states satisfying the inequality $$\label{energy_relax}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{\langle q_k^2 + p_k^2 \rangle}{2} \le
N + \frac{1}{2},$$ which constrains the average mean energy per mode. This is indeed sufficient to prove the proposition since all the states satisfying (\[energy\]) also satisfy (\[energy\_relax\]).
The inequality (\[energy\_relax\]) can be written in terms of the vector of first moments and the trace of the CM as follows $$\label{energy_relax_m}
\frac{{{\mathrm{tr}}}(\mathbb{V})+|\langle\mathbf{X}\rangle|^2}{2n} \le N +
\frac{1}{2}.$$
Now we notice from Eq. (\[purity\]) that the Gaussian state minimizing the purity is the one whose CM has maximal determinant under the constraint. The determinant and the trace of a CM are functions of its eigenvalues $\{ v_j \}_{j=1,\dots 2n}$. We hence consider the problem of finding $\mathbb{V}$ such that $\det{(\mathbb{V})}=\prod_{j} v_j$ is maximal under the constraint ${{\mathrm{tr}}}{(\mathbb{V})}=\sum_j v_j \le 2n(N+1/2)-|\langle \mathbf{X}
\rangle|^2$. The unique solution is the scalar matrix $[N+1/2 -
|\langle \mathbf{X} \rangle|^2/(2n)]\mathbb{I}_{2n}$. For a given value of $\langle \mathbf{X} \rangle$ the maximal value of the determinant is hence $[N+1/2 - |\langle \mathbf{X}
\rangle|^2/(2n)]^{2n}$. It follows that the unique Gaussian state minimizing the purity under the energy constraint (\[energy\_relax\]) — and hence the constraint (\[energy\]) — is the one with $\langle \mathbf{X} \rangle = 0$ and CM as in Eq. (\[V\_thermal\]), i.e. the thermal state. $\mathbf{QED}$
Gaussian MMES
=============
In the following, we will focus our attention on the case of [*pure*]{} Gaussian states characterized by Eq. (\[pur\_cond\]) and subjected to the energy constraint (\[energy\]). As in Sec. \[basicdef\], we consider a collection of $n$-modes and a bipartition into two disjoint subsets $A$ and $\bar{A}$, containing $n_A$ and $n_{\bar{A}}=n-n_A$ modes, respectively, with $n_A \le
n_{\bar{A}}$. In order to quantify the bipartite entanglement between the two subsets of oscillators, we compute the purity $\pi_A$ of the reduced state of subsystem $A$. The modes of subset $A$ and $\bar{A}$ have phase-space coordinates $\mathbf{X}_A$ and $\mathbf{X}_{\bar{A}}$, respectively. The Wigner function describing the reduced state of party $A$ is obtained by integrating the Wigner function of the whole system over the variables belonging to $\bar{A}$, i.e.$$W_{(n_A)}(\mathbf{X}_A) = \int W_{(n)}(\mathbf{X})\; d^{2
n_{\bar{A}}} \mathbf{X}_{\bar{A}}.$$ It follows that the reduced state of a Gaussian state with first moment $\langle \mathbf{X} \rangle$ and CM $\mathbb{V}$ is Gaussian [with first moment $\langle \mathbf{X}_A \rangle$ and]{} CM $\mathbb{V}_{A}$. The CM of the reduced state is the square sub-matrix of $\mathbb{V}$ identified by the indices belonging to subsystem $A$.
States that are maximally entangled with respect to the given bipartition are those admitting a reduced state for subsystem $A$ with minimum value for the purity. From Proposition \[min\_thermal\] the reduced system has to be in a thermal state of $n_A$ oscillators. Taking into account the energy constraint (\[energy\]) we get $$\mathcal{C} = \left\{|\psi\rangle \in \mathcal{H},\; |\psi\rangle
\text{ Gaussian},\; \frac{\langle q_k^2 + p_k^2 \rangle}{2} \le N +
\frac{1}{2} \right\} , \label{eq:physconstr}$$ and $$\label{eq:purityconstr} \pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A,\mathcal{C}}\leq
\pi_A \leq 1$$ with $\pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A,\mathcal{C}}=\pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A,N}$ given by (\[min\_purity\]).
We will generalize this property to multipartite entanglement by requiring minimal possible purity for *each* subsystem $A$ of the modes — assuming that the state of the total system is pure — thus defining a *Gaussian maximally multipartite entangled state*. In particular, we will define a [*perfect*]{} Gaussian MMES as a pure Gaussian state of $n$ oscillators that is maximally entangled with respect to all balanced bipartitions and satisfies the energy constraint (\[eq:physconstr\]). It follows from this definition that the reduced state is thermal for all possible bipartitions $(A,\bar{A})$.
In order to formalize the above definition of MMES for Gaussian states with constrained energy we start from (\[eq:pimedef\]) and define a (normalized) potential of multipartite entanglement: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{merit}
\chi := \pi_{\mathrm{ME}}/ \pi_{\mathrm{min}}^{n_A,N} =
(N+1/2)^{n_A} \mathbb{E}\left[\det(\mathbb{V}_A)^{-1/2}\right] ,\end{aligned}$$ where $n_A = [n/2]$, $\mathbb{V}_A$ is the square sub-matrix defined by the corresponding indexes. The minimum of this quantity $\chi_{\mathrm{min}}^\mathcal{C}$ (where $\mathcal{C} \simeq N$ is the constraint) is a measure of frustration, according to Eq.(\[merit1\]). A Gaussian MMES will be a minimizer of the potential (\[merit\]). The potential in (\[merit\]) is the normalized purity of the reduced state, averaged over all balanced bipartitions. Notice that $\chi \ge 1$, and perfect Gaussian MMESs satisfy $\chi = 1$.
We recall from the above discussion that the requirement of the minimization of purity for a given bipartition could be in contrast with that for another bipartition. Therefore perfect MMESs do not necessarily exist. Actually, we get the following
Perfect Gaussian MMESs only exist for $n<4$.
**Proof.** First we present examples of Gaussian MMESs for $n=2,3$, then we show that Gaussian MMESs do not exist for $n \ge
4$.
A two-mode Gaussian state is described by the vector of first moments $\langle\mathbf{X}\rangle=\langle (q_1, p_1, q_2, p_2)
\rangle$ and by the $4 \times 4$ CM $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{V} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \mathbb{V}_{1,1} & \mathbb{V}_{1,2} \\
\mathbb{V}_{1,2}^\mathsf{T} & \mathbb{V}_{2,2}
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Imposing that the one-mode reduced states are thermal implies $\langle\mathbf{X}\rangle=(0, 0, 0, 0)$ and $\mathbb{V}_{1,1}=\mathbb{V}_{2,2}=(N+1/2)\mathbb{I}_2$. It remains to specify the submatrix $\mathbb{V}_{1,2}$ in order to obtain a well defined CM $\mathbb{V}$ satisfying the purity condition (\[pur\_cond\]). A solution is given by the CM $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{V} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\cosh{r} & 0 & \sinh{r} & 0 \\
0 & \cosh{r} & 0 & -\sinh{r} \\
\sinh{r} & 0 & \cosh{r} & 0 \\
0 & -\sinh{r} & 0 & \cosh{r}
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ describing a two-mode squeezed state, the so-called twin-beam state [@cvbooks], for $$\cosh{r} = 2N+1$$ (squeezing parameter $r/2$).
Let us now consider the case $n=3$. A three-mode Gaussian MMES has all the three single-mode reduced systems in a thermal state. Hence the vector of first moments vanishes, and the CM has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{V} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
(N+1/2)\mathbb{I}_2 & \mathbb{V}_{1,2} & \mathbb{V}_{1,3} \\
\mathbb{V}_{1,2}^\mathsf{T} & (N+1/2)\mathbb{I}_2 & \mathbb{V}_{2,3} \\
\mathbb{V}_{1,3}^\mathsf{T} & \mathbb{V}_{2,3}^\mathsf{T} &
(N+1/2)\mathbb{I}_2 \end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ It remains to determine the sub-matrices $\mathbb{V}_{1,2}$, $\mathbb{V}_{1,3}$, $\mathbb{V}_{2,3}$ in order to obtain a well defined CM obeying the purity constrain (\[pur\_cond\]). A solution is given by an instance of the tripartite Gaussian GHZ states [@GHZ] characterized by the condition $\mathbb{V}_{1,2}=\mathbb{V}_{1,3}=\mathbb{V}_{2,3}=\mathrm{diag}(v_+,v_-)$ with $$v_\pm = \frac{N(N+1)}{4N+2}\left[ 1 \pm \sqrt{ 1 +
\frac{(4N+2)^2}{2N(N+1)} } \right].$$
The cases $n=2,3$ are the only ones in which perfect Gaussian MMESs exist. The non existence of perfect Gaussian MMESs for $n \ge 4$ is easily seen by inspecting the $n$-mode CM. Indeed, the generic submatrix of $n_A \le n/2$ modes is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{V}_A = \left(\begin{array}{lll}
\mathbb{V}_{i_1,i_1}& \ldots & \mathbb{V}_{i_1,i_{n_A}} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\mathbb{V}_{i_1,i_{n_A}}^\mathsf{T} & \ldots & \mathbb{V}_{i_{n_A},i_{n_A}}
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{V}_A$ is a $2n_A\times 2n_A$ matrix and $A=\{i_1,\dots,i_{n_A}\}$. For $n \ge 4$, the definition of perfect Gaussian MMES implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{V}_{i,j}&=&0 \quad \mbox{for}\,\, i,j\in A\,\,\mbox{and}\,\, i\ne j,\\
\mathbb{V}_{i,i}&=&(N+1/2)\mathbb{I}_{2} \quad \mbox{for}\,\, i\in A.\end{aligned}$$ This condition must hold for all bipartitions $(A,\bar{A})$ and, therefore, all off-diagonal sub-matrices are zero. As a consequence, the CM of the Gaussian state is diagonal of the form $(N+1/2)\mathbb{I}_{2n}$. Such a CM describes a thermal state with $N$ thermal excitation per mode, in contradiction with the requirement that the global state of the $n$ oscillators is pure. $\mathbf{QED}$
Numerical search of MMES
========================
We have seen that perfect MMESs only exist for $n < 4$. For $n \ge
4$ we now numerically search for $n$-mode pure states minimizing the cost function (\[merit\]), under the energy constraint (\[energy\]). Minimizing the cost function (\[merit\]) corresponds to minimizing the average purity of the reduced states. The value $\chi=1$ corresponds to a perfect MMES. For $n\ge 4$ this is possible only for $N=0$, where the problem becomes trivial since the only state compatible with the energy constraint is the vacuum, which is a separable state.
For numerical investigations we use a convenient parametrization of $n$-mode pure Gaussian states. First of all in the following we will assume, without loss of generality, $\langle \mathbf{X} \rangle =
\langle \mathbf{\tilde X} \rangle = 0$. It remains to parameterize the set of $n$-mode covariance matrices. Working in the representation (\[repr\_2\]), it is possible to show that the CM of a $n$-mode pure Gaussian state can be written as [@deGo] $$\mathbb{\tilde V} = \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{R} \mathbb{T}^2
\mathbb{R}^\mathsf{T},$$ where $\mathbb{T}$ is a diagonal matrix of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \mathbb{K} & 0 \\
0 & \mathbb{K}^{-1} \end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $\mathbb{K}$ a non singular diagonal matrix, while $\mathbb{R}$ is both symplectic and orthogonal. Therefore it has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{R} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \mathbb{X} & \mathbb{Y} \\
-\mathbb{Y} & \mathbb{X} \end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $\mathbb{U}=\mathbb{X}+i\mathbb{Y}$ is unitary.
Figure \[chi\_N\] shows minimal value $\chi_{\mathrm{min}}^\mathcal{C}$ of the potential (\[merit\]) under the constraint (\[energy\]), for $4\le n\le 7$, as a function of the mean number of excitations per mode $N$. This minimal value yields a measure of the [*frustration*]{} present in the system, which does not allow the existence of perfect MMESs. The larger the minimal value of $\chi$, the larger the frustration. The numerical analysis indicates that the minimum of the potential of multipartite entanglement is a nondecreasing concave function of $N$; moreover, a plateau is reached for sufficiently high values of $N$. This saturation value increases with $n$, but oscillates between even and odd $n$.
![Minimal value of the (dimensionless) cost function $\chi$ versus the (dimensionless) energy constraint parameter $N$, for several values of $n$.[]{data-label="chi_N"}](chi){width="50.00000%"}
Since it is not possible to find perfect MMESs, it is important to quantify the distribution of entanglement. A good distribution of entanglement should be rather insensitive to a change of bipartition. A fairly distributed multipartite entanglement should therefore be characterized by a distribution (over balanced bipartition) with a small standard deviation [@FFP]. We therefore consider the standard deviation of the purity of the reduced states over balanced bipartitions $$\label{variance}
\Delta\chi := \sqrt{\left(N+1/2\right)^{2n_A}
\mathbb{E}\left[\det(\mathbb{V}_A)^{-1}\right] - \chi^2},$$ with $n_A=[n/2]$. We will call a MMES with $\Delta\chi=0$ a *uniformly optimal MMES*, because it has an optimal distribution of entanglement: entanglement (and frustration) is fairly distributed over all bipartitions that attain the minimal value of purity allowed by frustration. Of course, a perfect MMES is uniformly optimal.
Figure \[Dchi\_N\] displays the peculiar behavior of the standard deviation of the purity: such standard deviation has a different behavior as a function of $N$ for different values of $n$. For $n=5$ and $6$, MMESs are not perfect. Nonetheless, interestingly enough, they have an optimal distribution of entanglement: $\Delta\chi=0$ (for $n=5,6$). By contrast, a non optimal entanglement distribution has been found for MMES with $n=4$ and $7$. This reminds, [*mutatis mutandis*]{}, of what happens in qubit systems, where frustration appears for $n=4$ and $n \ge 7$ [@mmes; @Scott; @lit]. The numerical analysis shows a $\Delta\chi$ of the non uniformly optimal states which is a concave nondecreasing function of the energy parameter $N$. We notice also in this case the presence of a saturation effect for large values of $N$. These findings are summarized in Table \[tab\_qGmmes\].
![Standard deviation $\Delta\chi$ (dimensionless) of the normalized purity versus the (dimensionless) energy constraint parameter $N$, for $n=4$ and $7$. For $n=5$ and $6$ the MMESs have optimally distributed entanglement, hence vanishing standard deviation.[]{data-label="Dchi_N"}](Dchi){width="50.00000%"}
$n$ qubit perfect MMES Gaussian perfect MMES
---------- -------------------- -------------------------------
2,3 yes yes
4 no no
5,6 yes no, but uniformly optimal$^*$
7 $\;\,$no$^*$ no
$\geq 8$ no no
: Comparison between qubit and Gaussian maximally multipartite entangled states.[]{data-label="tab_qGmmes"}
$^*$numerical evidence
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, we have characterized Gaussian states that display a maximal amount of multipartite entanglement compatible with a given constraint on the mean energy. We have shown that perfect Gaussian MMESs (that saturate the maximum mean energy) only exist for $n=2$ and $3$, while the phenomenon of entanglement frustration appears already for $n \ge 4$. Curiously, we found clear numerical evidence that although perfect Gaussian MMESs do not exist for $n=5$ and $6$, for these particular values of $n$, bipartite entanglement can be optimally distributed, in the sense that the standard deviation of purity over balanced bipartitions (\[variance\]) can be made to vanish. We numerically found that, by contrast, such standard deviation *cannot* be made to vanish (and bipartite entanglement is therefore not optimally distributed) for $n=4$ and $7$. This peculiar situation is reminiscent of that encountered with qubit MMES, where perfect MMESs exist for $n=5$ and $6$ (qubits), but do not exist for $n=4$ and (probably [@mmes]) $n=7$. This suggests once more that $n=2,3,5$ and $6$ are “special" integers. We endeavored to summarize these conclusions in Table \[tab\_qGmmes\]. Experience with integers does not induce us to expect that these amusing peculiarities only occur for $n \leq 6$ (for instance, we numerically found that uniformly optimal MMESs — with vanishing $\Delta\chi$ — exist for $n=9$). Additional research is needed in order to investigate the large $n$ behavior and clarify the underlying structure of entanglement frustration. We emphasize again that this frustration is a consequence of the conflicting requirements that entanglement be maximal for all possible bipartitions of the system. The same phenomenon is also worth studying under different constraints, like, for instance, the (weaker) energy constraint (\[energy\_relax\]).
From a more applicative perspective, we emphasize that due to recent progress in the optical generation of Gaussian entangled states (up to $9$ modes [@Su]) the above features are also liable to experimental check. These results, combined with those obtained in [@adesso], and the ensuing proposed characterization of entanglement would help in optimizing multiparty quantum information protocols with continuous variables.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The work of PF, GF and SP is partly supported by the EU through the Integrated Project EuroSQIP. The work of CL and SM is supported by EU through the FET-Open Project HIP (FP7-ICT-221899). The authors thank an anonymous referee for an important remark.
[99]{}
V. Vedral, *Introduction to Quantum Information Science*, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007).
E. Schrödinger, Naturwissenschaften **23**, 807 (1935).
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. **47**, 777 (1935).
S. L. Braunstein and A. K. Pati, *Quantum Information with Continuous Variables*, Springer, Berlin (2003); N. J. Cerf, G. Leuchs, E. S. Polzik, *Quantum Information with Continuous Variables of Atoms and Light*, Imperial College Press, London (2007).
W. K. Wootters, Quantum Inf. Comp. **1**, 27 (2001); L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. **80**, 517 (2008); R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 865 (2009); G. Adesso, A. Serafini and F. Illuminati, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. **12**, 189 (2005); B.-G. Englert and K. Wódkiewicz, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 054303 (2002).
P. Facchi, G. Florio, G. Parisi and S. Pascazio, Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 060304(R) (2008).
A. J. Scott, Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 052330 (2004);
A. Higuchi and A. Sudbery, Phys. Lett. A [**273**]{}, 213 (2000); I. D. K. Brown, S. Stepney, A. Sudbery and S. L. Braunstein, J. Phys. A [**38**]{}, 1119 (2005), S. Brierley and A. Higuchi, J. Phys. A [**40**]{}, 8455 (2007).
H. J. Kimble, Nature **453**, 1023 (2008).
A. Karlsson and M. Bourennane, Phys. Rev. A **58**, 4394 (1998).
M. Hillery, V. Buzek and A. Berthiaume, Phys. Rev. A **59**, 1829 (1999).
J. Zhang, G. Adesso, C. Xie and K. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 070501 (2009).
P. Facchi, G. Florio, U. Marzolino, G. Parisi and S. Pascazio J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **42**, 055304 (2009).
M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Int. J. of Quant. Inf. **1**, 465 (2003); M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 087903 (2004); C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A **69**, 052316 (2004).
R. Simon, N. Mukunda, and B. Dutta, Phys. Rev. A [**49**]{}, 1567 (1994).
S. L. Braunstein, P. van Loock, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{}, 513 (2005).
M. de Gosson, *Symplectic Geometry and Quantum Mechanics*, Birkhauser, Berlin (2006).
P. Facchi, G. Florio and S. Pascazio, Phys. Rev. A **74**, 042331 (2006).
X. Su, A. Tan, X. Jia, J. Zhang, C. Xie and K. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 070502 (2007); M. Yukawa, R. Ukai, P. van Loock and A. Furusawa, Phys. Rev. A **78**, 012301 (2008); T. Aoki, G. Takahashi, T. Kajiya, J. Yoshikawa, S. Braunstein, P. van Loock and A. Furusawa, arXiv:0811.3734.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The double orthogonal projection of the 4-space onto two mutually perpendicular 3-spaces is a method of visualization of four-dimensional objects in a three-dimensional space. We present an interactive animation of the stereographic projection of a hyperspherical hexahedron on a 3-sphere embedded in the 4-space. Described are synthetic constructions of stereographic images of a point, hyperspherical tetrahedron, and 2-sphere on a 3-sphere from their double orthogonal projections. Consequently, the double-orthogonal projection of a freehand curve on a 3-sphere is created inversely from its stereographic image. Furthermore, we show an application to a synthetic construction of a spherical inversion and visualizations of double orthogonal projections and stereographic images of Hopf tori on a 3-sphere generated from Clelia curves on a 2-sphere.'
author:
- |
Michal Zamboj\
Charles University, Faculty of Education\
M. D. Rettigové 4, 116 39 Prague 1.
bibliography:
- '127-paper-bibliography-Zamboj.bib'
title: 'Interactive 4-D Visualization of Stereographic Images From the Double Orthogonal Projection.'
---
Keywords: Four-dimensional visualization, orthogonal projection, stereographic projection, Hopf fibration, Clelia curve, spherical inversion, descriptive geometry.
Introduction
============
The double orthogonal projection is a four-dimensional generalization of Monge’s projection. In Monge’s projection, an object in the 3-space is orthogonally projected into two mutually perpendicular planes (horizontal and vertical, i.e. top and front view). One of these planes is chosen to be the drawing (or picture) plane and the second is rotated about their intersecting line to the drawing plane. Therefore, each point in the 3-space has two conjugated images in the drawing plane. In the double orthogonal projection, an object is in the 4-space, and we project it orthogonally into two mutually perpendicular 3-spaces. Let $x,y,z$, and $w$ be the orthogonal system of coordinate axes of the 4-space, and $\Xi(x,y,z)$ and $\Omega(x,y,w)$ be the 3-spaces of projection. If $\Omega$ is chosen to be the modeling 3-space (instead of the drawing plane), then $\Xi$ is rotated about their common plane $\pi(x,y)$ such that $z$ and $w$ have opposite orientations (usually $w$ up and $z$ down). Analogically, each point in the 4-space has two conjugated images in the modeling 3-space. Elementary constructions and principles of the double orthogonal projection were described in [@Zamboj2018a], sections, and lighting of polytopes in [@Zamboj2018b], intersections of lines, planes, and 3-spaces with a 3-sphere in [@Zamboj2019b], and regular quadric sections as intersections of 4-dimensional cones with 3-spaces in [@Zamboj2019a]. Similarly to Monge’s projection, in which an observer can reach any point of the drawing plane, in the four-dimensional case an observer can reach any point of the modeling 3-space. For this purpose, our constructions are supplemented by online interactive models [@Zamboj2020icggGGB] created in *GeoGebra 5*.
A projection between an $n$-sphere embedded in an $(n+1)$-space from its point $N$ and an $n$-dimensional hyperplane supplemented with a point at infinity $\{\infty\}$, not passing through $N$ is called stereographic projection. Due to its angle-preserving property, it is a convenient tool to visualize spheres. The 3-dimensional case of a stereographic projection of a 2-sphere from the North pole $N$ to a tangent plane at the South pole and its Monge’s projection is depicted in Figure \[fig:sp3d\]. For a brief overview see [@Snyder1987], pp. 154–163, and for more general view with the construction of a spherical inversion used in Section \[sec:sphinv\] see [@Odehnal2020], pp. 368–378.
![A stereographic projection of the southern hemisphere from the North pole $N$ to the tangent plane at the South pole (i.e. the horizontal plane of projection), and its Monge’s projection. Images of a quadrilateral with its sides along parallels and meridians are highlighted.\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/mfctqfcs`[]{data-label="fig:sp3d"}](127-Figure1a_Zamboj "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}![A stereographic projection of the southern hemisphere from the North pole $N$ to the tangent plane at the South pole (i.e. the horizontal plane of projection), and its Monge’s projection. Images of a quadrilateral with its sides along parallels and meridians are highlighted.\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/mfctqfcs`[]{data-label="fig:sp3d"}](127-Figure1b_Zamboj "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
A stereographic projection of a 3-sphere onto a 3-space was used to create 3-D printed models and study properties of four-dimensional polytopes in [@Schleimer2012] and later on in [@Hart2014] to visualize symmetries of the quaternionic group on a 3-D printed models of monkeys in a hypercube (limbs, head, and tail of the monkey represent faces of cubical cells). Well designed online applets with stereographic projections of a hypercube are at [@Sirius14000] and including other polytopes, sections, and tori in a 3-sphere at [@Cervone]. A stereographic projection of a 3-sphere is often used to visualize objects usually studied in topology. The topology of a 3-sphere is studied in [@Kocak1987]. Several animations and four-dimensional stereographic projection are described in [@Banchoff1996], Chapters 6 and 8. The same author in [@Banchoff1988] used computer graphics to visualize stereographic images of Pinkall’s tori corresponding in the Hopf fibration to simple closed curves on a 2-sphere (see also [@Pinkall1985] and [@3dxm]). An interactive visualization of a stereographic projection of a Clifford torus on a 3-sphere is at [@Balmens2012]. Videos and animations of the Hopf fibration and its stereographic projection are at [@Johnson2011; @Dimensions; @Chinyere2012]. Commented videos with interactive environment discussing quaternions and stereographic projection are at [@Eater]. A stereographic and double-stereographic projection of an arbitrary object in the 4-space was described in [@Ohori2017]. As an example of a recent application, a stereographic projection to a 3-sphere is used in [@Hosseinbor2015] to analyze multiple disconnected anatomical structures mathematically represented as a composition of compact finite three-dimensional surfaces.
![The system of concentric spheres, which are stereographic images of parallel sections of the half of the 3-sphere split by the 3-space parallel to $\Xi$ from the point $N$ with the maximal $w$-coordinate to the tangent 3-space $\Xi$ at the antipodal point $S$, and its double orthogonal projection. On the right side are conjugated images and stereographic image of a hyperspherical hexahedron, as an analogy to a spherical quadrilateral.\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/sz7ykk54`[]{data-label="fig:sp4d"}](127-Figure2a_Zamboj "fig:"){height="7cm"}![The system of concentric spheres, which are stereographic images of parallel sections of the half of the 3-sphere split by the 3-space parallel to $\Xi$ from the point $N$ with the maximal $w$-coordinate to the tangent 3-space $\Xi$ at the antipodal point $S$, and its double orthogonal projection. On the right side are conjugated images and stereographic image of a hyperspherical hexahedron, as an analogy to a spherical quadrilateral.\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/sz7ykk54`[]{data-label="fig:sp4d"}](127-Figure2b_Zamboj "fig:"){height="7cm"}
The previous references were based on the analytic representation of points in the fourth dimension. With the use of the double orthogonal projections, we can construct images of four-dimensional objects synthetically and use the modeling 3-space to be also the projecting 3-space of a stereographic projection. A construction of a hyperspherical tetrahedron in a special position and its images in a stereographic and the double orthogonal projection is in [@Zamboj2020a]. A synthetic construction and animation of Hopf fibers in the double orthogonal projection and their stereographic projection are discussed in [@Zamboj2020b]. In this paper, we will extend these results in several aspects.
Let us describe the visualization of a 3-sphere and stereographic images in the double orthogonal projection in Figure \[fig:sp4d\] (left) in an analogy to the three-dimensional case in Figure \[fig:sp3d\] (right). In Monge’s projection, the conjugated images of a are disks, in the double orthogonal projection, the conjugated images of a 3-sphere are balls. In 3-D, sections of a with planes parallel to the horizontal plane of projection (parallels) are circles, and their images are segments in the vertical plane and circles in the horizontal plane. The stereographic projection from the North pole $N$ to the tangent plane at the South pole $S$ projects these parallels to the system of concentric circles in the drawing plane. In 4-D, sections of a 3-sphere with 3-spaces parallel to the 3-space of projection $\Xi$ are 2-spheres, their $\Omega$-images are disks and $\Xi$-images are 2-spheres. The stereographic projection from the point $N$ with the maximal $w$-coordinate to the tangent 3-space $\Xi$ at the antipodal point $S$ projects the parallel 2-spheres to the system of concentric 2-spheres in the modeling 3-space. In both cases, the point $N$ is projected stereographically into the point at infinity $\{\infty\}$, and hence images of circles through $N$ become lines. In Figure \[fig:sp4d\] (right) (see also animated model) is a hyperspherical hexahedron along hyperspherical coordinates.
A synthetic construction of a stereographic projection in the double orthogonal projection
==========================================================================================
![(left) Construction of the stereographic image $A_s$ of the point $A$ on the 3-sphere given by its $\Omega$-image $A_4$. (right) Construction of the conjugated images $A_3$ and $A_4$ of a point $A$ from its stereographic image $A_s$.\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/xdypddf9`[]{data-label="fig:sp4dpoint"}](127-Figure3a_Zamboj "fig:"){height="7cm"}![(left) Construction of the stereographic image $A_s$ of the point $A$ on the 3-sphere given by its $\Omega$-image $A_4$. (right) Construction of the conjugated images $A_3$ and $A_4$ of a point $A$ from its stereographic image $A_s$.\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/xdypddf9`[]{data-label="fig:sp4dpoint"}](127-Figure3b_Zamboj "fig:"){height="7cm"}
The stereographic image of a point on a 3-sphere is the intersection of the projecting ray with the plane of projection (Figure \[fig:sp4dpoint\], left). Let us have conjugated images of a 3-sphere with a center $Z$ in the double orthogonal projection and the $\Omega$-image $A_4$ of a point $A$ on the 3-sphere. The $\Xi$-image $A_3$ lies on the perpendicular to $\pi$ through $A_4$, i.e. ordinal line of the point $A$. Furthermore, the section of the 3-space through $A$ parallel to the 3-space $\Omega$ with a 3-sphere is a 2-sphere. Its $\Omega$-image is a 2-sphere with the center $Z_4$ through $A_4$, and its $\Xi$-image is a disk with the same radius in a plane parallel to $\pi$. Let $N$ be the abovementioned center of the sterographic projection to the 3-space $\Xi$. The stereographic image $A_s$ of the point $A$ on the 3-sphere lies on the line $N_3A_3$ and also on the perpendicular to $\pi$ through the intersection $A_0$ of $\pi$ and the line $N_4A_4$. Oppositely, the inverse construction of the conjugated images $A_3$ and $A_4$ from the stereographic image $A_s$ is in Figure \[fig:sp4dpoint\] (right). In this case, we need to find the intersection $A$ of the projecting ray $NA_s$ with the 3-sphere. For such construction, we can use a third orthogonal projection into the plane perpendicular to $\Xi$ through the projecting ray, and rotate it into the modeling 3-space (see [@Zamboj2019b] for more details). In the third view, the image of the 3-sphere is a circle with the center $(Z)$, and its intersection with the rotated line $(N)A_s$ is the rotated point $(A)$. Then, the point $A_3$ is constructed with the reverse rotation.
![(left) The double orthogonal projection and stereographic image of a hyperspherical tetrahedron $ABCD$. (right) The same situation with the circumscribed 2-sphere around $ABCD$.\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/xdypddf9`[]{data-label="fig:sp4dtetrahedron"}](127-Figure4a_Zamboj "fig:"){height="7cm"}![(left) The double orthogonal projection and stereographic image of a hyperspherical tetrahedron $ABCD$. (right) The same situation with the circumscribed 2-sphere around $ABCD$.\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/xdypddf9`[]{data-label="fig:sp4dtetrahedron"}](127-Figure4b_Zamboj "fig:"){height="7cm"}
In Figure \[fig:sp4dtetrahedron\] (left), the same method is used to construct the stereographic images $A_s, B_s, C_s, D_s$ of the vertices of a hyperspherical tetrahedron $ABCD$ (generalization of a spherical triangle). The edges of the tetrahedron $ABCD$ are circular arcs and faces are spherical triangles.[^1] These properties are preserved due to the conformity of stereographic projection. To construct the stereographic images of the circular edges, we can conveniently use stereographic images of the antipodal points. For example, the edge $A_sB_s$ lie on the circle $A_sB_sA'_s$, where $A'_s$ is the stereographic image of the point $A'$ antipodal to $A$, and so its conjugated images $A'_3$ and $A'_4$ are the mirror images of $A_3$ and $A_4$ about $Z_3$ and $Z_4$, respectively. The conjugated images of the edges are constructed point-by-point from their stereographic images and create elliptical arcs in a general position. Note that we could construct them, however, more laboriously, as the intersections of the 3-sphere and planes.
Further on, a 2-sphere circumscribed around a tetrahedron $ABCD$ is visualized in Figure \[fig:sp4dtetrahedron\] (right). While in the stereographic projection it is simply a 2-sphere in the true shape, the conjugated images in the double orthogonal projection are ellipsoids. They can be constructed as the intersections of a 3-sphere with the 3-space defined by the noncospatial points $A,B,C$, and $D$ (see [@Zamboj2019b] for details), or, as highlighted in the $\Omega$-image, as the intersections of the conical hypersurface with the vertex $N$ with a 3-sphere.
![My drawing was not a picture of a hat. It was a picture of a boa constrictor digesting an elephant on a 3-sphere in the double orthogonal projection (slightly modified from [@Exupery1943]).\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/mjpeaud4`[]{data-label="fig:freehand"}](127-Figure5_Zamboj){height="7cm"}
The interactive environment, in combination with the construction of a stereographic projection from a 3-space onto a 3-sphere (Figure \[fig:sp4dpoint\], right), brings a possibility of freehand drawing on a 3-sphere. With the use of the trace tool in GeoGebra (or similar point-by-point construction in other software), we move the point in the stereographic projection, and its dependent conjugated images draw their traces. This way, we can draw a stereographic image (its $\Xi$-image) of a curve, or any other picture, in the modeling 3-space, and simultaneously its double orthogonal projection. A four-dimensional curve on a 3-sphere drawn by hand on a 2-sphere in a stereographic projection is in Figure \[fig:freehand\].
Spherical inversion {#sec:sphinv}
-------------------
A spherical inversion may be obtained as a composition of two stereographic projections (Figure \[fig:sphinv\]). For this purpose, we choose the projecting 3-space $\Sigma$ of the stereographic projection through the center $Z$ of the 3-sphere and parallel to $\Xi$. A point $A$ in the 3-space $\Sigma\cup\{\infty\}$ is stereographically projected in the projection $p_N$ from the center $N$ to the point $A^\circ$ on the 3-sphere. The second stereographic projection $p_S$ from the center $S$ projects the point $A^\circ$ to the point $A'$ in the 3-space . Since $\Sigma$ is parallel to $\Xi$, all the $\Xi$-images of objects in the 3-space $\Sigma$ are in the true shape. The section $\gamma$ of a 3-sphere and the 3-space $\Sigma$ is a 2-sphere overlapping with the $\Xi$-image of the 3-sphere with the center $Z_3$ in the modeling 3-space. The composition of $p_N$ and $p_S$ is the spherical inversion, and $p_S(p_N(A))=A'$. Especially, all the points on $\gamma$ are fixed. Moreover, $p_S(p_N(\infty))=p_S(N)=Z$, and $p_S(p_N(Z))=p_S(S)=\infty$.
![Spherical inversion of a point $A$ in the orthogonal projection to the projecting plane of the line $\overline{NA}$.[]{data-label="fig:circinv"}](127-Figure7_Zamboj){height="7cm"}
Note, that for each point $A\neq Z,\{\infty\}$ in $\Sigma$, we could choose a projecting plane of the line $AZ$ perpendicular to $\Xi$ which cuts the 2-sphere $\gamma$ in a circle $c$, and the final composition would be a circle inversion. The situation is depicted in Monge’s projection in Figure \[fig:circinv\], in which the circle inversion is in the orthogonal projection into the horizontal plane. Triangles $A_2Z_2N_2$ and $S_2Z_2A'_2$ are in their true shape in the front view, and they are apparently similar. Therefore, $$\frac{|A_2Z_2|}{|Z_2N_2|}=\frac{|S_2Z_2|}{|Z_2A'_2|},$$ and so $$\label{eq:st}
|A_2Z_2||A'_2Z_2|=|Z_2N_2||Z_2S_2|=r^2,$$ where $r$ is the radius of $c,\gamma$, and also the 3-sphere. From the given construction, it also holds that $|A_2Z_2|=|A_1Z_1|=|AZ|$ and $|A'_2Z_2|=|A'Z|$, and we have $$|AZ||A'Z|=r^2.$$ The last formula leads to the standard definition of the spherical inversion about the 2-sphere $\gamma$ with the center $Z$ and radius $r$.
Figure \[fig:sphinv\] also shows a tetrahedron $ABCD$ with a circumscribed sphere and their inversion. The conformity of stereographic projections is inherited in their composition to the spherical inversion. The lines not passing through the center of the inversion become circles. Consequently, the edges of the image tetrahedron $A'B'C'D'$ are circular arcs with preserved mutual angles. The image of the sphere circumscribed to $ABCD$ is a sphere circumscribed to $A'B'C'D'$.
Hopf tori of Clelia curves
--------------------------
![(Up) Conjugated images of the Hopf tori generated by the Clelia curves for $s=0.5$ (Left), $s=1$ Viviani curve (Center), $s=2$ (Right). Highlighted is a point (blue) on the Clelia curve (black), conjugated images of its fiber (red) and conjugated images of the Hopf torus (green). (Down) Stereographic image of a fiber (purple) and Hopf torus (gray).\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/sbf4xadp`[]{data-label="fig:clelia"}](127-Figure8a1_Zamboj "fig:"){width="31.00000%"} ![(Up) Conjugated images of the Hopf tori generated by the Clelia curves for $s=0.5$ (Left), $s=1$ Viviani curve (Center), $s=2$ (Right). Highlighted is a point (blue) on the Clelia curve (black), conjugated images of its fiber (red) and conjugated images of the Hopf torus (green). (Down) Stereographic image of a fiber (purple) and Hopf torus (gray).\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/sbf4xadp`[]{data-label="fig:clelia"}](127-Figure8b1_Zamboj "fig:"){width="31.00000%"} ![(Up) Conjugated images of the Hopf tori generated by the Clelia curves for $s=0.5$ (Left), $s=1$ Viviani curve (Center), $s=2$ (Right). Highlighted is a point (blue) on the Clelia curve (black), conjugated images of its fiber (red) and conjugated images of the Hopf torus (green). (Down) Stereographic image of a fiber (purple) and Hopf torus (gray).\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/sbf4xadp`[]{data-label="fig:clelia"}](127-Figure8c1_Zamboj "fig:"){width="31.00000%"}\
![(Up) Conjugated images of the Hopf tori generated by the Clelia curves for $s=0.5$ (Left), $s=1$ Viviani curve (Center), $s=2$ (Right). Highlighted is a point (blue) on the Clelia curve (black), conjugated images of its fiber (red) and conjugated images of the Hopf torus (green). (Down) Stereographic image of a fiber (purple) and Hopf torus (gray).\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/sbf4xadp`[]{data-label="fig:clelia"}](127-Figure8a2_Zamboj "fig:"){width="31.00000%"} ![(Up) Conjugated images of the Hopf tori generated by the Clelia curves for $s=0.5$ (Left), $s=1$ Viviani curve (Center), $s=2$ (Right). Highlighted is a point (blue) on the Clelia curve (black), conjugated images of its fiber (red) and conjugated images of the Hopf torus (green). (Down) Stereographic image of a fiber (purple) and Hopf torus (gray).\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/sbf4xadp`[]{data-label="fig:clelia"}](127-Figure8b2_Zamboj "fig:"){width="31.00000%"} ![(Up) Conjugated images of the Hopf tori generated by the Clelia curves for $s=0.5$ (Left), $s=1$ Viviani curve (Center), $s=2$ (Right). Highlighted is a point (blue) on the Clelia curve (black), conjugated images of its fiber (red) and conjugated images of the Hopf torus (green). (Down) Stereographic image of a fiber (purple) and Hopf torus (gray).\
Interactive model available at `https://www.geogebra.org/m/sbf4xadp`[]{data-label="fig:clelia"}](127-Figure8c2_Zamboj "fig:"){width="31.00000%"}
The Hopf fibration is a mapping between a 3-sphere and a 2-sphere. In particular, it sends a point $$\displaystyle P(x_P,y_P,z_P,w_P)\in\mathbb{R}^4$$ on a 3-sphere to the point $$\displaystyle P'(2(x_Pz_P+y_Pw_P),2(-x_Pw_P+y_Pz_P),x_P^2-y_P^2-z_P^2-w_P^2)\in\mathbb{R}^3$$ on a 2-sphere. Oppositely, a point on a 2-sphere in spherical coordinates $$P'(\sin\psi_P \cos\varphi_P, \sin\psi_P\sin\varphi_P,\cos\psi_P)$$ for $\psi_P\in\langle0,\pi\rangle, \varphi_P\in\langle0,2\pi)$ corresponds to a set of points $$c_P(\cos\frac{\psi_P}{2}\cos(\varphi_P+\beta),\cos\frac{\psi_P}{2}\sin(\varphi_P+\beta),\sin\frac{\psi_P}{2}\cos\beta,\sin\frac{\psi_P}{2}\sin\beta)$$ for $\beta\in \langle0,2\pi)$, which forms a great circle (fiber) on a 3-sphere. If $P'$ lies on a closed curve on the 2-sphere, its corresponding Hopf fibers form a Hopf torus on the 3-sphere. For the visualization of Hopf tori, it is convenient to use the stereographic projection that preserves circles. This way we can construct and study tori on the 3-sphere in the 4-space given by a curve on the 2-sphere in the 3-space, and vice-versa.
For the sake of visualization in the double orthogonal projection, we perform several adjustments. First, we swap the reference axes $y$ and $z$, and hence the 3-spaces of projection will be $\Xi(x,y,z)$ (upper) and $\Omega(x,z,w)$ (lower) with the common plane $\pi(x,z)$.[^2] To avoid overlapping of the conjugated images, we translate the center of the abovementioned unit 3-sphere from the origin to the point $(0,1,0,1)$. The preimage 3-sphere and the image 2-sphere are not strictly related in the definition of the Hopf fibration, and topologists often describe them as separated objects. However, in our interpretation, the 2-sphere is chosen to be the equatorial section of the 3-sphere with the 3-space parallel to $\Omega(x,z,w)$, so its $\Xi$-image is in the true shape. Consequently, points of the 3-sphere are stereographically projected from the center $(0,2,0,1)$ to the 3-space $\Omega(x,z,w)$. A synthetic construction of the Hopf fiber of any point on the 2-sphere and a Hopf torus of a circle on a 2-sphere and their stereographic images in this setting are described in [@Zamboj2020b].
We extend these results and highlight interactive possibilities for the so-called Clelia curves given parametrically on the (translated) 2-sphere in the form $$k(\psi)=(\sin(s\psi)\cos\psi, \sin(s\psi)\sin\psi+1,\cos(s\psi)),$$ where $s\in\mathbb{R}$ defines the specific curve, for $\psi\in I\subset\mathbb{R}$ (see [@Goemans2016] for details and further generalizations). Conjugated images and stereographic projections of the Hopf tori corresponding to the Clelia curves for $s=\frac{1}{2}, 1,$ and $2$ are visualized in Figure \[fig:clelia\]. In the interactive model, the user can choose the parameter $s$ of the curve and change the corresponding Hopf torus, and also move with a point $P$ on $k(\psi)$ and its corresponding fiber on the 3-sphere by manipulating the parameter $\psi$. An example of a simple straightforward observation is, that a point, in which the curve on the 2-sphere intersects itself, becomes a circle (or line) in which the torus on the 3-sphere intersects itself.
Conclusion
==========
The combination of the double orthogonal projection and stereographic projection is an accessible tool for the investigation of a 3-sphere in the 3-space. The simplicity of the synthetic construction of the stereographic image of a point and the use of interactive 3-D modeling software imply that we can actually draw sketches and shapes on the 3-sphere embedded in the 4-space. We have also shown a construction of the well-known relationship between the stereographic projection and the spherical inversion. Our results were applied to the construction of Hopf tori on a 3-sphere generated by Clelia curves on a 2-sphere. The visualizations were presented on interactive 3-D models, which are easily extendible for further theoretical and practical applications in various software.
[^1]: The faces are not depicted due to insufficient possibilities of the surface parametrization in GeoGebra, but the reader can turn on the visibility of the corresponding spheres in the stereographic projection in the online model.
[^2]: This choice reflects the possibility of a definition of the Hopf fibration in the complex number plane, and so the common plane $\pi(x,z)$ corresponds to the real parts of coordinates $(x+\i y, z+\i w)$ of points.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Graph Convolutional Neural Networks (GCNNs) extend classical CNNs to graph data domain, such as brain networks, social networks and 3D point clouds. It is critical to identify an appropriate graph for the subsequent graph convolution. Existing methods manually construct or learn one fixed graph for all the layers of a GCNN. In order to adapt to the underlying structure of node features in different layers, we propose dynamic learning of graphs and node features jointly in GCNNs. In particular, we cast the graph optimization problem as distance metric learning to capture pairwise similarities of features in each layer. We deploy the Mahalanobis distance metric and further decompose the metric matrix into a low-dimensional matrix, which converts graph learning to the optimization of a low-dimensional matrix for efficient implementation. Extensive experiments on point clouds and citation network datasets demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method in terms of both accuracies and robustness.'
author:
- |
Jiaxiang Tang, Wei Hu, Xiang Gao, Zongming Guo\
Institute of Computer Science and Technology, Peking University, China\
{hawkey1999, forhuwei, gyshgx868, guozongming}@pku.edu.cn
nocite: '[@*]'
title: Joint Graph and Feature Learning In Graph Convolutional Neural Networks
---
=1
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Graph Convolutional Neural Networks (GCNNs) have been receiving increasing attention as a powerful tool for irregularly structured data on graphs, such as citation networks, social networks and 3D point clouds. The construction of an appropriate graph topology plays a critical role in GCNNs for efficient feature learning. In settings where the graph is inaccurate or even not readily available, it is necessary to infer or learn a graph topology from data before it is used for guiding graph convolution in GCNNs.
Most of the previous studies construct underlying graphs from data empirically, such as $k$-Nearest-Neighbor ($k$-NN) graphs [@wang2019dgcnn; @te2018rgcnn], which may lead to sub-optimal solutions. Few methods exploit *graph learning* for optimized representation [@Jiang2018GraphLN; @li2018adaptive; @shi2018non; @li2019spatio], which learns a fixed and shared graph for all instances, or an individual graph for each instance, or a combination of shared and individual graphs. However, only *one fixed* graph is learned and applied to all layers of the entire network, which may not well capture the underlying structure of node features in different layers dynamically.
Extending on these previous studies, we propose a Joint Learning Graph Convolutional Network (JLGCN), which exploits *dynamic* learning of graphs and node features *jointly* in GCNNs. In particular, we optimize an underlying graph kernel from data features via distance metric learning that characterizes pairwise similarities of data. We deploy the *Mahalanobis distance* [@mahalanobis1936], which takes into account data correlations for intrinsic representation. Given a K-dimensional feature vector $\mathbf{f}_i$ per node $i$, $\mathbf{f}_i \in \mathbb{R}^K$, the Mahalanobis distance between the features $\mathbf{f}_i$ and $\mathbf{f}_j$ of nodes $i$ and $j$ is defined as: $d_{\mathbf{M}}(\mathbf{f}_i,\mathbf{f}_j)=\sqrt{(\mathbf{f}_i - \mathbf{f}_j)^{\top} \mathbf{M} (\mathbf{f}_i - \mathbf{f}_j)}$, where $\mathbf{M} \in \mathbb{R}^{K \times K}$ is the Mahalanobis distance metric matrix which reflects feature correlations. Hence, we convert the problem of graph learning to the optimization of $\mathbf{M}$. As $\mathbf{M}$ is positive semi-definite (PSD), it is often nontrivial to solve efficiently. Instead, we decompose it as $\mathbf{M} = \mathbf{R} \mathbf{R}^{\top}$ and learn $\mathbf{R}$ for ease of optimization, where $\mathbf{R} \in \mathbb{R}^{K \times S}$ has a lower dimension $S<<K$ to reduce number of parameters for efficient implementation. Given features $\mathbf{f}$, we seek to minimize the Graph Laplacian Regularizer (GLR) [@shuman2013emerging] $\mathbf{f}^{\top}\mathbf{L}(\mathbf{R})\mathbf{f}$ by optimizing $\mathbf{R}$, which measures the smoothness of features $\mathbf{f}$ with respect to the graph Laplacian $\mathbf{L}$[^1]. This essentially enforces the graph encoded in $\mathbf{L}(\mathbf{R})$ to capture pairwise similarities of $\mathbf{f}$. Hence, we formulate the joint learning of graphs $\mathbf{L}(\mathbf{R})$ and node features $\mathbf{f}$ as an optimization problem, which minimizes a weighted sum of the GLR and cross-entropy. We set this objective as the loss function of the proposed JLGCN to guide network model optimization, which employs a localized first-order approximation of spectral graph convolution as in [@Kipf2016SemiSupervisedCW]. Further, the learned graph at the previous layer is added to that of the current layer for multi-level feature learning. The proposed JLGCN can be integrated into any GCNN architecture for applications such as node classification and graph classification. To validate the effectiveness of the proposed JLGCN, we apply it to semi-supervised learning for citation networks and 3D point cloud learning problems. Extensive experimental results demonstrate the superiority and robustness of JLGCN compared with state-of-the-art methods on four datasets even with a small model size.
Our contributions can be summarized as follows:
- We propose joint learning of underlying graphs and node features at each layer of a GCNN, which captures pairwise similarities of node features dynamically.
- We cast the graph learning problem as distance metric learning with the Mahalanobis distance deployed. We further decompose the distance metric into a low-dimensional matrix for efficient implementation, which is optimized from both the GLR and cross entropy along with node features.
- Extensive experiments on semi-supervised learning and point cloud classification demonstrate the superiority and robustness of our method.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Graph Convolution Neural Networks
---------------------------------
As a generalization of CNNs to irregular graph domain, GCNNs can be categorized into two main classes: spectral methods and spatial methods.
### Spectral methods
This class of methods define graph convolution based on the spectral representation of graphs. [@bruna2013spectral] defines the convolution in graph Fourier transform domain by eigen-decomposition of the graph Laplacian, but requires intense computations. [@defferrard2016convolutional] addresses this problem by leveraging Chebyshev polynomials to approximate spectral filters and achieves localized filtering. GCN [@Kipf2016SemiSupervisedCW] further simplifies the previous work by employing only first-order approximation of the filters. Our proposed joint learning of graphs and node features is based on GCN, which has spectral interpretation and scales linearly with the number of edges.
### Spatial methods
Instead of spectral representation, spatial methods define graph convolution directly on each node and its neighbors for feature propagation. Mixture model network [@monti2017geometric] provides a unified generalization of CNN architectures on graphs. Graph attention network (GAT) in [@velivckovic2017graph] employs self-attention mechanism to solve the node classification problem on citation networks. DGCNN [@wang2019dgcnn] proposes edge convolution to aggregate local features, which is applied to point cloud learning problem.
Graph Learning in GCNNs
-----------------------
Graph Learning in GCNNs can be categorized into three classes based on the graph domain to address: 1) fixed-domain graph learning, in which the underlying graph is fixed; 2) varying-domain graph learning, where graphs vary across data instances; and 3) hybrid graph learning, which combines the former two classes.
### Fixed-domain Graph Learning
This class of graph learning assumes there is a shared graph structure underlying all instances with fixed vertices. In applications such as semi-supervised node classification of citation networks, there is only *one fixed* graph to be learned and shared by all the instances to classify. GLCN [@Jiang2018GraphLN] learns a non-negative function that represents the pairwise relationship between two vertices using attention mechanism via a single-layer neural network, and optimizes it by minimizing GLR in the loss function. Instead, our method models pairwise similarity more explicitly by adopting Mahalanobis distance, and we learn different graphs at different layers.
### Varying-domain Graph Learning
Instances corresponding to varying domains may require different graphs with possibly arbitrary number of vertices. Graph learning for such data applications learns adaptive graphs tailored for different individuals. Spatio-temporal graph routing (STGR) is proposed [@li2019spatio] to learn one spatial graph and one temporal graph for each skeleton instance. Adaptive graph convolution network (AGCN) is proposed [@li2018adaptive] to construct a unique residual Laplacian matrix by learning Mahalanobis distance metric for each instance. Different from the task-driven AGCN where the Mahalanobis distance metric $\mathbf{M}$ is learned by minimizing the cross-entropy only, we optimize $\mathbf{M}$ via both the GLR and cross-entropy. Also, we assume $\mathbf{M}$ is low rank and set $S << K$ to reduce number of parameters while AGCN adopts $S = K$;
### Hybrid Graph Learning
For special applications like skeleton-based action recognition, both fixed-domain and varying-domain graph learning can be applied according to the way of graph construction. NLGCN [@shi2018non] builds three graphs for each instance: the pre-defined physical skeleton graph, a shared graph for all instances, and an individual graph learned from each instance’s own feature in a non-local [@wang2018non] manner.
Background in Spectral Graph Theory {#sec:graph}
===================================
Graph and Graph Laplacian
-------------------------
An undirected graph $\mathcal{G}=\{\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E},\mathbf{A}\}$ is composed of a vertex set $\mathcal{V}$ of cardinality $\left|\mathcal{V}\right|=N$, an edge set $\mathcal{E}$ connecting vertices, and a weighted adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$. $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ is a real and symmetric matrix, where $a_{i,j} \geq 0$ is the weight assigned to the edge $(i,j)$ connecting vertices $i$ and $j$. Edge weights often measure the similarity between connected vertices.
The graph Laplacian matrix is defined from the adjacency matrix. Among different variants of Laplacian matrices, the *combinatorial graph Laplacian* is defined as $\mathbf{L}:=\mathbf{D}-\mathbf{A}$, where $\mathbf{D}$ is the *degree matrix*—a diagonal matrix where $d_{i,i}=\sum_{j=1}^N a_{i,j}$.
Graph Laplacian Regularizer
---------------------------
Graph signal refers to data that resides on the nodes of a graph, such as temperatures on a sensor network. A graph signal $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^N$ defined on a graph $\mathcal{G}$ is *smooth* with respect to $\mathcal{G}$ [@spielman2007spectral] if $$\mathbf{x}^{\top} \mathbf{L} \mathbf{x} =\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} w_{i,j}(x_i - x_j)^2 < \epsilon,
\label{eq:prior}$$ where $\epsilon$ is a small positive scalar. To satisfy Eq. , connected node pair $x_i$ and $x_j$ must be similar for a large edge weight $w_{i,j}$; for a small $w_{i,j}$, $x_i$ and $x_j$ can differ significantly. Hence, Eq. forces $\mathbf{x}$ to adapt to the topology of $\mathcal{G}$, and is commonly called the *graph Laplacian Regularizer* (GLR) [@shuman2013emerging; @pang2017graph].
Joint Learning of Graphs and Features {#sec:method}
=====================================
In this section, we first propose the problem formulations of graph learning and node feature learning respectively assuming one of the other is known, and then combine them to the formulation of jointly learning.
Problem Formulation of Graph Learning
-------------------------------------
As a graph essentially captures *pairwise similarities* within data $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^N$, we cast the problem of graph learning as *distance metric learning*, *i.e.*, learning a distance function for each data pair $\{x_i,x_j\}$ for similarity calculation. Specifically, given K-dimensional feature vectors $\mathbf{f}^i_l \in \mathbb{R}^K$ and $\mathbf{f}^j_l \in \mathbb{R}^K$ of node $i$ and $j$ at the $l$-th layer respectively, we employ the commonly used Gaussian kernel to define an edge weight $a_{i,j}$ as $$a_{i,j}=\exp\left\{-d^2(\mathbf{f}^i_l,\mathbf{f}^j_l)\right\},$$ where $d(\mathbf{f}^i_l,\mathbf{f}^j_l)$ is a distance metric between $\mathbf{f}^i_l$ and $\mathbf{f}^j_l$. The Gaussian kernel enforces edge weights to be in range $[0,1]$, thus ensuring the resulting combinatorial graph Laplacian to be PSD [@cheung2018graph].
While there exist various definitions of distance metrics, such as Euclidean distance and bilateral filtering distance [@tomasi1998bilateral], we deploy the *Mahalanobis distance*, which is defined as $$d_{\mathbf{M}_l}(\mathbf{f}^i_l,\mathbf{f}^j_l) = \sqrt{(\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)^{\top} \mathbf{M}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)},
\label{eq:m_distance}$$ where $\mathbf{M}_l \in \mathbb{R}^{K \times K}$ is a PSD matrix, and $l$ is the index of layers. The Mahalanobis distance captures correlations among features via $\mathbf{M}_l$, which is widely adopted in the machine learning literature [@li2018adaptive; @luo2019robust].
Each edge weight is then computed as $$a_{i,j} = \exp\left\{-(\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)^{\top} \mathbf{M}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)\right\},
\label{eq:gaussian_kernel}$$ from which we can calculate the corresponding adjacency matrix and graph Laplacian.
As the graph Laplacian can be computed from edge weights by definition, we convert the graph learning problem to an optimization problem over $\mathbf{M}_l$. We optimize $\mathbf{M}_l$ by minimizing Graph Laplacian Regularizer in Eq. , which enforces the graph to capture the underlying structure of features. Let $s_{i,j} = (x_i-x_j)^2$, we have the following problem formulation for graph learning over all the layers of the network, with the objective as the sum of GLR over all the layers: $$\begin{split}
&\begin{split}
\min_{\mathbf{M}_l}
& \sum_l \sum_{\{i,j\}}\exp\left\{-(\mathbf{f}^i_l-\mathbf{f}^j_l)^{\top} \mathbf{M}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l-\mathbf{f}^j_l) \right\} \, s_{i,j}
\end{split} \\
& \text{s.t.} \quad \,\mathbf{M}_l \succeq 0, \, \forall l.
\label{eq:optimization}
\end{split}$$
Since $\mathbf{M}_l$ is PSD and symmetric, Eq. is computationally expensive to solve in general. Instead, we decompose $\mathbf{M}_l$ into $$\mathbf{M}_l = \mathbf{R}_l \mathbf{R}^{\top}_l,
\label{eq:learnable_r}$$ where $\mathbf{R}_l \in \mathbb{R}^{K \times S}$, and $S \le K$ is a hyper-parameter to control the complexity of computing distance between high-dimensional features. When $K$ is large and $S << K$, the number of parameters for $\mathbf{M}_l$ is significantly reduced while assuming $\mathbf{M}_l$ is low rank, which is a common assumption in distance metric learning [@liu15aaai; @luo2019robust].
Then the Mahalanobis distance in Eq. becomes $$\begin{split}
d_{\mathbf{M}_l}(\mathbf{f}^i_l,\mathbf{f}^j_l)
&= \sqrt{(\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)^{\top} \mathbf{R}_l \mathbf{R}^{\top}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)} \\
&= \sqrt{(\mathbf{R}^{\top}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l))^{\top}\mathbf{R}^{\top}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)}\\
&= \|\mathbf{R}^{\top}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)\|_2,
\end{split}
\label{eq:m_distance_decompose}$$ which is essentially a linear transformation of the Euclidean distance by $\mathbf{R}_l$. When $\mathbf{R}_l$ is an identity matrix, $d_{\mathbf{M}_l}(\mathbf{f}^i_l,\mathbf{f}^j_l)$ defaults to the Euclidean distance.
Hence, each edge weight can be computed as $$a_{i,j} = \exp\left\{-\|\mathbf{R}^{\top}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)\|_2^2 \right\}.
\label{eq:weight_R}$$ Accordingly, the optimization problem in Eq. converts to $$\min_{\{\mathbf{R}_l\}}
\sum_l \sum_{\{i,j\}}\exp\left\{-\|\mathbf{R}^{\top}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)\|_2^2 \right\} \, s_{i,j},
\label{eq:opt_graph_R}$$ which allows to remove the PSD constraint of $\mathbf{M}_l$ and is thus more efficient to solve. The optimal adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}_l^*$ at the $l$-th layer is then computed from the optimized $\mathbf{R}_l$ via Eq. .
Problem Formulation of Node Feature Learning
--------------------------------------------
Assuming the availability of the learned optimal graph encoded in $\mathbf{A}_l^*$ and the optimal graph $\mathbf{A}_{l-1}$ in the previous layer, we learn node features based on a modified graph spectral convolution in GCN [@Kipf2016SemiSupervisedCW] for its simplicity and effectiveness. Given features of all nodes $\mathbf{F}_{l-1}$ from the $(l-1)$-th layer, the graph convolution at the $l$-th layer computes the output feature $\mathbf{F}_{l}$ as: $$\mathbf{F}_{l} = \mathbf{A}_l\mathbf{F}_{l-1} \mathbf{W}_l
\label{eq:gcn}$$ where $\mathbf{W}_l$ is a trainable parameter, and $\mathbf{A}_l$ is the re-normalized adjacency matrix calculated as $$\mathbf{A}_l=\mathbf{\Lambda}^{-\frac{1}{2}} (\mathbf{A}_{l-1}+\mathbf{A}_l^*) \mathbf{\Lambda}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$ $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ is the normalization diagonal matrix. We essentially replace the re-normalization matrix $\mathbf{I}_N$ in the original GCN layer with our learned optimal graph $\mathbf{A}_l^*$. When $l=1$, $\mathbf{A}_0=\mathbf{0}$ is a zero matrix. In special cases where a ground truth graph is provided such as in semi-supervised node classification, $\mathbf{A}_0$ is the ground truth graph. The ground truth graph may be inaccurate or could be improved further. For instance, in a citation network, an unweighted graph is often available to describe the citation relationship among papers. We can further learn a weighted graph to learn hidden connections and characterize how well correlated connected papers are, which enhances the model capacity.
The objective of node feature learning is to minimize the cross entropy between predicted labels and ground truth labels, which is task-driven. We predict the label of each node by applying the softmax function to the output feature at the final $L$-the layer: $$\mathbf{\hat Y} = \text{softmax}(\mathbf{F}_L).$$ As $\mathbf{F}_L$ is learned from Eq. , $\mathbf{\hat Y}$ is a function of the set of parameters $\{\mathbf{W}_l, \mathbf{R}_l\}$ at each layer. By optimizing the cross-entropy loss, we have the following problem formulation of node feature learning: $$\min_{\{\mathbf{W}_l,\mathbf{R}_l\}}
-\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{c=1}^C \mathbf{Y}_{ic} \log(\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{ic}(\mathbf{W}_l, \mathbf{R}_l)),
\label{eq:opt_node}$$ where $N$ is the number of input instances, $C$ is the number of classes, and $\mathbf{Y}$ denotes the ground truth label matrix.
Problem Formulation of Joint Learning
-------------------------------------
Integrating Eq. and Eq. , we pose the joint learning of underlying graphs and node features as minimizing both GLR and the cross entropy. The final problem formulation is $$\begin{split}
\min_{\{\mathbf{W}_l, \mathbf{R}_l\}}
& -\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{c=1}^C \mathbf{Y}_{ic} \log(\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{ic}(\mathbf{W}_l, \mathbf{R}_l)) \\
& + \lambda \sum_l \sum_{\{i,j\}}\exp\left\{-\|\mathbf{R}^{\top}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)\|_2^2 \right\} \, s_{i,j},
\end{split}
\label{eq:opt_R}$$ where $\lambda > 0$ is a hyper-parameter for the trade-off between the cross entropy and the GLR term.
Proposed Network Structure {#sec:network}
==========================
Having discussed the problem formulation of joint learning, we elaborate on the proposed network architecture to realize dynamic learning of graphs and node features, with focus on the JLGCN Layer.
JLGCN Layer
-----------
![Demonstration of a JLGCN layer. A graph is first learned from node features, and then employed to propagate node features via graph convolution.[]{data-label="fig:layer"}](figures/layer.pdf){width="2.6in"}
As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:layer\], the JLGCN layer is composed of two modules: the graph learning module and node feature learning module. The graph learning module learns a graph encoded by an $N \times N$ dense adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$ from input node features. $\mathbf{A}$ is then employed by the node feature learning module to propagate node features via our proposed graph convolution in Eq. . Both modules are jointly optimized according to the objective in Eq. , *i.e.*, the loss function is defined as $$\begin{split}
E=& -\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{c=1}^C \mathbf{Y}_{ic} \log(\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{ic}(\{\mathbf{W}_l, \mathbf{R}_l\})) \\
& + \lambda \sum_l \sum_{\{i,j\}}\exp\left\{-\|\mathbf{R}^{\top}_l (\mathbf{f}^i_l - \mathbf{f}^j_l)\|_2^2 \right\} \, s_{i,j},
\end{split}
\label{eq:loss}$$ The algorithmic details are provided in Alg. \[alg:layer\].
**Input:** features $\mathbf{F}_{l-1}$ and adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}_{l-1}$ from the previous layer\
**Output:** features $\mathbf{F}_l$ and learned adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}_l$\
**Initialize:** trainable parameters $\mathbf{R}_l, \mathbf{W}_l$
**Forward Pass:** Compute distance metric $d_\mathbf{M}$ by Eq. Update $\mathbf{A}_l $ by Eq. Update $\mathbf{F}_l $ by Eq. **Backward Pass:** Update $\mathbf{R}_l$ and $\mathbf{W}_l$ via backward propagation with the loss function defined in Eq. .
{width="6in"}
JLGCN Network
-------------
In principle, our JLGCN layer can be integrated into any GCNN architecture for both node classification and graph classification tasks. Fig. \[fig:network\] demonstrates the architecture of the JLGCN network. Node features are extracted by alternatively learning an optimal graph based on features and propagating features based on the learned graph, which are then fed into the classification module for label prediction.
### Node classification configuration
We stack multiple JLGCN layers and deploy leaky ReLU activation [@xu2015empirical]. Dropout is applied to the last layer’s input to reduce over-fitting. Features from the last layer is then employed for prediction of labels at each node.
### Graph classification configuration
We stack multiple JLGCN layers followed by batch normalization [@ioffe2015batch] and leaky ReLU activation. Graph max pooling is applied to features from the last layer, which are then fed into a fully connected network for the classification of the entire graph.
Further, we perform feature concatenation at each layer $l$ with $\mathbf{f}_{l-1}$ from the previous layer for multi-level feature learning to enhance the model capacity. This leads to $$\mathbf{f}_{l} = (\mathbf{f}_{l-1} || \mathbf{A}_l \mathbf{f}_{l-1}) \mathbf{W}_l,
\label{eq:gcn_concat}$$ where $||$ is the concatenation operator in feature dimension. This essentially assigns more weighting to each node’s own feature when no ground truth graph is available and accelerates the convergence.
Experimental Results {#sec:results}
====================
In order to evaluate the performance of JLGCN, we apply it to the problems of semi-supervised node classification and point cloud classification, which are discussed in order as follows.
Semi-supervised node classification
-----------------------------------
### Datasets
We test our method on three citation network datasets, *i.e.*, Citeseer, Cora and Pubmed [@sen2008collective]. The statistics of the datasets are summarized in Tab. \[tab:citation\_datasets\].
**Dataset** **Nodes** **Edges** **Classes** **Features** **Label Ratio**
------------- ----------- ----------- ------------- -------------- -----------------
Citeseer 3,327 4,732 6 3,703 0.036
Cora 2,708 5,429 7 1,433 0.052
Pubmed 19,717 44,338 3 500 0.003
: Summary of citation network datasets.[]{data-label="tab:citation_datasets"}
### Experimental settings
We follow the experimental setup of previous work [@yang2016revisiting; @Kipf2016SemiSupervisedCW; @velivckovic2017graph], and use the same data partition as in [@yang2016revisiting]. The features are $L2$-normalized before fed into the network. Since our method builds a dense adjacency matrix among all nodes, we sub-sample 10,000 nodes for Pubmed dataset to evaluate our model due to memory limitation. We set the number of JLGCN layers in our network to 2, and the number of hidden units in each layer to 16. For the dimension of the Mahalanobis distance metric matrix $\mathbf{R}\in \mathbb{R}^{K\times S}$, we set $S$ to 16 for both layers and initialize it randomly if not specified. We apply dropout with $p=0.5$ for both layer’s input, and use leaky ReLU activation with negative slope $\alpha=0.2$ between two layers. We train our JLGCN for a maximum of 500 epochs using ADAM algorithm [@kingma2014adam] with a learning rate of 0.1 and weight decay of 0.0005. The learning rate is decayed by 0.5 every 100 epochs. The hyper parameter $\lambda$ for GLR is set to 0.0001. We report the average classification accuracy of 10 runs with different random seeds.
### Baselines
We compare our JLGCN against the baseline of GCN [@Kipf2016SemiSupervisedCW] and Planetoid [@yang2016revisiting], and also against some other graph neural network based semi-supervised learning methods, including Graph Attention Network (GAT) [@velivckovic2017graph] and Graph Markov Neural Network (GMNN) [@qu2019gmnn]. These methods use the same dataset partition as in our method for fair comparison with available codes.
### Results
Tab. \[tab:results\_citation\] shows the comparison results on three citation network datasets. The best results are marked in bold. Overall, we note that 1) JLGCN outperforms the GCN baseline on all datasets significantly by only adding a graph learning module to each layer. This clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of jointly learning graphs and node features. Compared to the unweighted ground truth graph used in GCN, our learned graphs (as shown in Fig. \[fig:visual\_cora\]) enhance the semi-supervised learning results. 2) JLGCN also outperforms all the other recent work on the original Citeseer and Cora datasets and our sub-sampled Pubmed dataset. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of JLGCN in conducting semi-supervised classification tasks on graph data.
[p[1.4in]{}p[0.4in]{}p[0.4in]{}p[0.4in]{}]{} **Algorithm** & **Citeseer** & **Cora** & **Pubmed\***\
-----------------------
Planetoid
[@yang2016revisiting]
-----------------------
: Results of semi-supervised node classification. \[\*\] means we sub-sample 10,000 nodes to perform the experiments.[]{data-label="tab:results_citation"}
& 64.7 & 75.7 & 77.2\
-----------------------------
GCN
[@Kipf2016SemiSupervisedCW]
-----------------------------
: Results of semi-supervised node classification. \[\*\] means we sub-sample 10,000 nodes to perform the experiments.[]{data-label="tab:results_citation"}
& 70.3 & 81.5 & 78.4\
-------------------------
GAT
[@velivckovic2017graph]
-------------------------
: Results of semi-supervised node classification. \[\*\] means we sub-sample 10,000 nodes to perform the experiments.[]{data-label="tab:results_citation"}
& 72.5 & 83.0 & 78.8\
---------------
GMNN
[@qu2019gmnn]
---------------
: Results of semi-supervised node classification. \[\*\] means we sub-sample 10,000 nodes to perform the experiments.[]{data-label="tab:results_citation"}
& 73.1 & 83.7 & 79.4\
JLGCN & **73.7** & **83.9** & **79.7**\
### Robustness test
We design two experiments to test the robustness of our model: 1) we lower the label ratio by employing less training data. We adopt five missing ratios {0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9} of training nodes to train and evaluate; 2) we test the robustness of our model to incomplete ground truth graph, *i.e.*, we randomly drop out edges in the ground truth graph, with edge missing ratios set as {0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9, 1.0}. When the edge missing ratio is 1.0, an empty ground truth graph is fed into the network. Since randomly initialized graph is hard to converge, we set $S=K$ for the transformation matrix $\mathbf{R}$ and initialize it as an identity matrix in this case. Fig. \[fig:robust\_citation\] shows our model significantly outperforms GCN and GAT, especially when the edge missing ratio is high. This validates the superiority of our learned graph structure in terms of robustness.
### Ablation study
We first examine the effectiveness of the graph learning module on Cora dataset. Specifically, we compare with 1) GCN, where the ground truth graph is employed; 2) GCN + Euclidean, where we replace the proposed graph learning with manual graph construction using Euclidean distance metric to compute edge weights; 3) JLGCN without dynamic updating of graphs, *i.e.*, we only learn one graph from the input data feature. As reported in Tab. \[tab:ablation\], our method leads to the best result when we adopt the Mahalanobis distance metric and learn different graphs at different layers jointly with node features from data.
Secondly, we evaluate the performance of JLGCN with different $\lambda$—the weighting parameter of GLR in the loss function—with respect to different edge missing ratios. As listed in Tab. \[tab:ablation\], we see that JLGCN achieves the highest accuracy when $\lambda$ is set to 0.0001. Also, GLR helps improve the performance especially when the ground truth graph is incomplete or even unavailable.
### Visualization of the learned graph
We also visualize the learned graph at each layer in Fig. \[fig:visual\_cora\], and compare them with the ground truth graph. The value of the matrix is log-transformed to make it more interpretable. Note that the learned graph is both dense and weighted, which not only adds self-connection to the unweighted ground truth graph as the original GCN does, but also extracts additional hidden connections between similar nodes. Also, the learned graph at the second layer puts higher weighting to self-connection compared to the first layer, showing that different layers correspond to varying graphs as we assumed.
Point cloud classification
--------------------------
Furthermore, we test our model on point cloud classification to validate the effectiveness of our model when no ground truth graph is available.
### Datasets
We test on ModelNet40 dataset for point cloud classification. ModelNet40 includes 12,311 CAD models from 40 man-made categories, which are split into 9,843 for training and 2,468 for testing. As in previous work [@qi2017pointnet; @qi2017pointnet++; @wang2019dgcnn], we uniformly sample 1024 points on mesh faces according to face area and normalize them into a unit sphere, where only coordinates of points are employed as input features.
### Experimental settings
We stack 3 JLGCN layers to extract point cloud features as well as learn the underlying graph without any ground truth graph. The hidden units for each layer is {64, 128, 1024}. After extracting point cloud features, we deploys a permutation-invariant graph max-pooling to generate a global context feature for the entire point cloud, and employs a fully connected network with hidden units of {512, 256, 40} to classify the point cloud. The negative slope of leaky ReLU activation is set to 0.2 and dropout with $p=0.5$ is used in the fully connected classification network. We train the network with a learning rate of 0.001 for 400 epochs and decay it by 0.5 every 40 epochs using ADAM. The batch size is set to 32, weight decay to 0.0001 and $\lambda$ to 0.01.
### Baselines
We also provide a GCN based model as the baseline, which empirically constructs a $k$-NN graph as the underlying graph. $k$ is set to 20 in the classification task based on the density of point clouds. We mainly compare our JLGCN model against the baseline GCN, and also compare against other state-of-the-art methods, including methods tailored for point cloud learning such as PointNet [@qi2017pointnet], PointNet++ [@qi2017pointnet++], PointGCN [@zhang2018graph], RGCNN [@te2018rgcnn], and DGCNN [@wang2019dgcnn].
### Results
Tab. \[tab:results\_modelnet\] presents results for ModelNet40 classification. Our method improves the baseline by about 2% with only 3MB of parameters added, demonstrating the learned graph is superior to the empirical $k$-NN graph. Also, our method achieves comparable results compared to state-of-the-art methods for point loud learning, while our model is simpler and contains much smaller amount of parameters. Note that, our method achieves the best performance among all spectral graph convolution based methods.
[p[0.3in]{}p[0.9in]{}p[0.4in]{}p[0.4in]{}p[0.4in]{}]{} **Category** & **Algorithm** & & &\
-----------
Pointwise
MLP
-----------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
&
-------------------
PointNet
[@qi2017pointnet]
-------------------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
& 40 & 86.0 & 89.2\
-----------
Pointwise
MLP
-----------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
&
---------------------
PointNet++
[@qi2017pointnet++]
---------------------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
& 12 & - & 90.7\
----------
Spectral
GCNN
----------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
&
-------------------
PointGCN
[@zhang2018graph]
-------------------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
& 41 & 86.1 & 89.5\
----------
Spectral
GCNN
----------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
&
----------------
RGCNN
[@te2018rgcnn]
----------------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
& 22 & 87.3 & 90.5\
---------
Spatial
GCNN
---------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
&
------------------
DGCNN
[@wang2019dgcnn]
------------------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
& 21 & **90.2** & **92.9**\
----------
Spectral
GCNN
----------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
& GCN (baseline) & **10** & 84.2 & 88.7\
----------
Spectral
GCNN
----------
: Results of point cloud classification on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:results_modelnet"}
& JLGCN & 13 & 87.2 & 90.8\
### Robustness test
Further, we test the robustness of our model when the point cloud is of low density. We randomly drop out points with missing ratios {0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9}. As shown in Fig. \[fig:robust\_pc\], our model outperforms the GCN baseline significantly, and keeps high accuracy even when the point cloud density is quite low.
![Robustness test with different missing ratios of point clouds.[]{data-label="fig:robust_pc"}](figures/robust_pc.pdf){width="3in"}
Conclusion {#sec:conclude}
==========
We propose joint learning of graphs and node features in Graph Convolutional Neural Networks, which dynamically learns graphs adaptive to the structure of node features in different layers. In particular, we optimize an underlying graph kernel via distance metric learning with the Mahalanobis distance employed. The metric matrix is decomposed into a low-dimensional matrix and optimized based on Graph Laplacian Regularizer. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority and robustness of our method in semi-supervised learning and point cloud learning problems.
[10]{}
Yue Wang, Yongbin Sun, Ziwei Liu, Sanjay E. Sarma, Michael M. Bronstein, and Justin M. Solomon. Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds. , 2019.
Gusi Te, Wei Hu, Amin Zheng, and Zongming Guo. Rgcnn: Regularized graph cnn for point cloud segmentation. In [*2018 ACM Multimedia Conference on Multimedia Conference*]{}, pages 746–754. ACM, 2018.
Bo Jiang, Ziyan Zhang, Doudou Lin, Jin Tang, and Bin Luo. Semi-supervised learning with graph learning-convolutional networks. In [*IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)*]{}, pages 11313–11320, 2019.
Ruoyu Li, Sheng Wang, Feiyun Zhu, and Junzhou Huang. Adaptive graph convolutional neural networks. In [*Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*]{}, 2018.
Lei Shi, Yifan Zhang, Jian Cheng, and Hanqing Lu. Non-local graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. , 2018.
Bin Li, Xi Li, Zhongfei Zhang, and Fei Wu. Spatio-temporal graph routing for skeleton-based action recognition. In [*Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)*]{}, 2019.
P. C. Mahalanobis. On the generalized distance in statistics. , 2(1):49–55, 1936.
David I Shuman, Sunil K Narang, Pascal Frossard, Antonio Ortega, and Pierre Vandergheynst. The emerging field of signal processing on graphs: Extending high-dimensional data analysis to networks and other irregular domains. , 30(3):83–98, 2013.
Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. , abs/1609.02907, 2016.
Joan Bruna, Wojciech Zaremba, Arthur Szlam, and Yann LeCun. Spectral networks and locally connected networks on graphs. , 2013.
Micha[ë]{}l Defferrard, Xavier Bresson, and Pierre Vandergheynst. Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering. In [*Advances in neural information processing systems*]{}, pages 3844–3852, 2016.
Federico Monti, Davide Boscaini, Jonathan Masci, Emanuele Rodola, Jan Svoboda, and Michael M Bronstein. Geometric deep learning on graphs and manifolds using mixture model cnns. In [*Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*]{}, pages 5115–5124, 2017.
Petar Veli[č]{}kovi[ć]{}, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. , 2017.
Xiaolong Wang, Ross Girshick, Abhinav Gupta, and Kaiming He. Non-local neural networks. In [*Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*]{}, pages 7794–7803, 2018.
Daniel A Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng. Spectral partitioning works: Planar graphs and finite element meshes. , 421(2-3):284–305, 2007.
Jiahao Pang and Gene Cheung. Graph laplacian regularization for image denoising: Analysis in the continuous domain. , 26(4):1770–1785, 2017.
Gene Cheung, Enrico Magli, Yuichi Tanaka, and Michael K Ng. Graph spectral image processing. , 106(5):907–930, 2018.
Carlo Tomasi and Roberto Manduchi. Bilateral filtering for gray and color images. In [*Iccv*]{}, volume 98, page 2, 1998.
Lei Luo, Jie Xu, Cheng Deng, and Heng Huang. Robust metric learning on grassmann manifolds with generalization guarantees. In [*Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*]{}, volume 33, pages 4480–4487, 2019.
Wei Liu, Cun Mu, Rongrong Ji, Shiqian Ma, John R Smith, and Shih-Fu Chang. Low-rank similarity metric learning in high dimensions. In [*Twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence*]{}, 2015.
Bing Xu, Naiyan Wang, Tianqi Chen, and Mu Li. Empirical evaluation of rectified activations in convolutional network. , 2015.
Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. , 2015.
Prithviraj Sen, Galileo Namata, Mustafa Bilgic, Lise Getoor, Brian Galligher, and Tina Eliassi-Rad. Collective classification in network data. , 29(3):93–93, 2008.
Zhilin Yang, William W Cohen, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Revisiting semi-supervised learning with graph embeddings. , 2016.
Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. , 2014.
Meng Qu, Yoshua Bengio, and Jian Tang. Gmnn: Graph markov neural networks. , 2019.
Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In [*Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*]{}, pages 652–660, 2017.
Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. In [*Advances in neural information processing systems*]{}, pages 5099–5108, 2017.
Yingxue Zhang and Michael Rabbat. A graph-cnn for 3d point cloud classification. In [*2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*]{}, pages 6279–6283. IEEE, 2018.
[^1]: In spectral graph theory, a graph Laplacian matrix is an algebraic representation of connectivities and node degrees of the corresponding graph, which will be defined formally later.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the impact of radiation pressure on spatial dust distribution inside regions using one-dimensional radiation hydrodynamic simulations, which include absorption and re-emission of photons by dust. In order to investigate grain size effects as well, we introduce two additional fluid components describing large and small dust grains in the simulations. Relative velocity between dust and gas strongly depends on the drag force. We include collisional drag force and coulomb drag force. We find that, in a compact region, a dust cavity region is formed by radiation pressure. Resulting dust cavity sizes ($\sim 0.2$ pc) agree with observational estimates reasonably well. Since dust inside an region is strongly charged, relative velocity between dust and gas is mainly determined by the coulomb drag force. Strength of the coulomb drag force is about 2-order of magnitude larger than that of the collisional drag force. In addition, in a cloud of mass $10^5$ $M_{\sun}$, we find that the radiation pressure changes the grain size distribution inside regions. Since large (0.1 ) dust grains are accelerated more efficiently than small (0.01 ) grains, the large to small grain mass ratio becomes smaller by an order of magnitude compared with the initial one. Resulting dust size distributions depend on the luminosity of the radiation source. The large and small grain segregation becomes weaker when we assume stronger radiation source, since dust grain charges become larger under stronger radiation and hence coulomb drag force becomes stronger.'
author:
- |
Shohei Ishiki,$^{1}$[^1] Takashi Okamoto,$^{1}$ and Akio K. Inoue$^{2}$\
$^{1}$Department of Cosmoscience, Hokkaido University, N10 W8, Kitaku, Sapporo, 060-0810, Japan\
$^{2}$Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Faculty of Design Technology,\
Osaka Sangyo University, 3-1-1 Nakagaito, Daito, Osaka 574-8530, Japan\
bibliography:
- 'ishiki\_2\_clean.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'The effect of radiation pressure on spatial distribution of dust inside H$_\mathrm{II}$ regions'
---
\[firsPHage\]
radiative transfer – methods: numerical – ISM: clouds – regions
Introduction
============
Radiation from young massive stars plays a crucial role in star forming regions, and its effect on spatial dust distribution inside regions is also non-negligible. [@ODell1965] firstly observed dust inside the region and many other observations found dust in regions [@ODell1966; @Kawajiri1968; @Harper1971]. [@ODell1965] observationally estimated the distribution of dust inside regions, concluding that gas-to-dust mass ratio decreases as a function of distance from the centre of the nebulae. [@Nakano1983] and [@Chini1987] observationally suggested the existence of dust cavity regions. There have been some theoretical attempts to reveal dust distribution inside regions [@Mathews1967; @Gail1979a; @Gail1979b]. [@Gail1979b] suggested that a dust cavity can be created by radiation pressure.
Radiation pressure may also produce spatial variations in the grain size distribution inside regions as suggested by recent observational data of IR bubbles. From the Galactic Legacy Ingrared Mid-Plane Survey Extraordinaire [GLIMPSE; @Benjamin2003], [@Churchwell2006] found that about 25% of IR bubbles are associated with known regions and they claimed that the IR bubbles are primarily formed around hot young stars. [@Deharveng2010] then pointed out that 86% of IR bubbles are associated with ionzed gas. Since [@Churchwell2006] missed the large (> 10 arcmin) and small (< 2 arcmin) bubbles, [@Simpson2012] presented a new catalogure of 5106 IR bubbles. [@Paladini2012] found that the peak of 250 continuum emission appears further from radiation source than that of 8 continuum emission. Since they assumed that 250 continuum emission traces the big grains (BGs) and 8 continuum emission traces the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), they argued that the dust size distribution depends on the distance from a radiation source.
[@Inoue2002] argued the presence of the central dust depleted region — dust cavity — in compact/ultra-compact regions in the Galaxy by comparing the observed infrared-to-radio flux ratios with a simple spherical radiation transfer model. The dust cavity radius is estimated to be 30% of the Stromgren radius on average, which is too large to be explained by dust sublimation. The formation mechanism of the cavity is still an open question, while the radiation pressure and/or the stellar wind from the excitation stars have been suggested as responsible mechanisms. We will examine whether the radiation pressure can produce the cavity in this paper. By considering the effect of radiation pressure on dust and assuming steady regions, [@Draine2011] theoretically explained the dust cavity size that [@Inoue2002] estimated from observational data.
[@Akimkin2015; @Akimkin2017] estimated dust size distribution by solving motion of dust and gas respectively, and they concluded that radiation pressure preferentially removes large dust from regions. Their simulations have, however, assumed a single OB star as a radiation source. As mentioned by [@Akimkin2015], grain electric potential is the main factor that affects the dust size distribution. If we assume a stronger radiation source, such as a star cluster, dust would been more strongly charged and their conclusions might change.
In this paper, we investigate the effect of radiation pressure on spatial dust distribution inside compact regions and compare it with the observational estimates [@Inoue2002]. In addition, we perform multi-dust-size simulations and study the effect of the luminosity of the radiation source on dust size distribution inside regions.
The structure of this paper is as follows: In Section \[sec:Methods\], we describe our simulations. In Section \[sec:setup\], we describe our simulation setup. In Section \[sec:Results\], we present simulation results. In Section \[sec:Discussion\], we discuss the results and present our conclusions.
Methods {#sec:Methods}
=======
We place a radiation source at the centre of a spherically symmetric gas distribution. The species we include in our simulations are , , , , , electrons, and dust. We assume the dust-to-gas mass ratio to be $6.7 \times 10^{-3}$ corresponding to a half of the abundance of elements heavier than He (so-called ’metal’) in the Sun [@asplund09]. We neglect gas-phase metal elements in this paper. We solve the radiation hydrodynamic equations at each timestep as follows:
1. Hydrodynamic equations
2. Radiative transfer and other related processes
1. Static radiative transfer equations
2. Chemical reactions
3. Radiative heating and cooling
4. Grain electric potential
The methods we use for radiation transfer, chemical reactions, radiative heating, cooling and time stepping are the same as @Ishiki2017 [hereafter paper I].
Dust model
----------
We include absorption and thermal emission of photons by dust grains in our simulations. To convert the dust mass density to the grain number density, we assume a graphite grain whose material density is 2.26gcm$^{-3}$ [@Draine1979]. We employ the cross-sections of dust in @1984ApJ...285...89D and @1993ApJ...402..441L[^2]. Dust sizes we assume are 0.1 or 0.01 . Dust temperature is determined by the radiative equilibrium, and thus the dust temperature is independent from gas temperature. We assume that the dust sublimation temperature is $1500$ K; however, dust never be heated to this temperature in our simulations. We do not include photon scattering by dust grains for simplicity.
Grain electric potential
------------------------
In our simulations, we solve hydrodynamics including the coulomb drag force which depends on grain electric potential. In order to determine the grain electric potential, we consider following processes: primary photoelectric emission, auger electron emission, secondary electron emission, and electron and ion collisions [@Weingartner2001; @Weingartner2006]. The effect of auger electron emission and secondary electron emission is, however, almost negligible in our simulations, because high energy photons ($> 10^2$ eV) responsible for the two processes are negligible in the radiation sources considered in this paper. Since the time scale of dust charging processes is so small ($\lesssim$1 yr), we integrate the equation of grain electric potential implicitly.
Dust drag force
---------------
In our simulations, we calculate the effect of drag force $F_\mathrm{drag}$ on a dust of charge $Z_\mathrm{d}$ and radius $a_\mathrm{d}$ [@Draine1979] as follows: $$F_\mathrm{drag} = 2 \pi a_\mathrm{d}^2 k T_\mathrm{g} \left[ \sum_\mathrm{i} n_\mathrm{i} \left( G_0 (s_\mathrm{i}) + z_\mathrm{i}^2 \phi^2 \mathrm{ln} (\Lambda / z_\mathrm{i}) G_2 (s_\mathrm{i}) \right) \right] , \nonumber$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
s_\mathrm{i} \equiv \sqrt{m_\mathrm{i} v^2 / (2kT_\mathrm{g})}, \nonumber \\
G_0 (s_\mathrm{i}) \approx 8s_\mathrm{i} / (3 \sqrt{\pi} ) \sqrt{1+9\pi s_\mathrm{i}^2/64}, \nonumber \\
G_2 (s_\mathrm{i}) \approx s_\mathrm{i} / (3 \sqrt{\pi}/4 + s_\mathrm{i}^3), \nonumber \\
\phi \equiv Z_\mathrm{d} e^2 / ( a_\mathrm{d} k T_\mathrm{g} ), \nonumber \\
\Lambda \equiv 3/ (2 a_\mathrm{d} e | \phi |) \sqrt{k T_\mathrm{g}/ \pi n_\mathrm{e}}, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $k$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T_\mathrm{g}$ is the temperature of gas, $n_\mathrm{i}$ is the number density of $i$th gas species, $n_\mathrm{e}$ is the number density of electron, $z_\mathrm{i}$ is the charge of $i$th gas species ($i=$ , , , , ), and $m_\mathrm{i}$ is the mass of $i$th species.
Hydrodynamics
-------------
### dust and gas dynamics {#subsubsec:d1}
In this section we describe the procedure to solve the set of hydrodynamic equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_\mathrm{g} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g} &=& 0 \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_\mathrm{d} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \rho_\mathrm{d} v_\mathrm{d} &=& 0 \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g}^2 &=& \rho_\mathrm{g} a_\mathrm{gra} + f_\mathrm{rad,g} - \frac{\partial}{\partial x} P_\mathrm{g} \nonumber \\
& & + K_\mathrm{d} (v_\mathrm{d} - v_\mathrm{g}) \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_\mathrm{d} v_\mathrm{d} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \rho_\mathrm{d} v_\mathrm{d}^2 &=& \rho_\mathrm{d} a_\mathrm{gra} + f_\mathrm{rad,d} \nonumber \\
& & + K_\mathrm{d} (v_\mathrm{g} - v_\mathrm{d}) \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left( \frac{1}{2} \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g}^2 + \frac{1}{2} \rho_\mathrm{d} v_\mathrm{d}^2 + e_\mathrm{g} \right) &+& \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left[ \left( \frac{1}{2} \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g}^2 + h_\mathrm{g} \right) v_\mathrm{g} + \frac{1}{2} \rho_\mathrm{d} v_\mathrm{d}^3 \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \left( \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g} + \rho_\mathrm{d} v_\mathrm{d} \right) a_\mathrm{gra} \nonumber \\
& & + f_\mathrm{rad,g} v_\mathrm{g} + f_\mathrm{rad,d} v_\mathrm{d} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_\mathrm{g}$ is the mass density of gas, $\rho_\mathrm{d}$ is the mass density of dust, $v_\mathrm{g}$ is the velocity of gas, $v_\mathrm{d}$ is the velocity of dust, $a_\mathrm{gra}$ is the gravitational acceleration, $f_\mathrm{rad,g}$ is the radiation pressure gradient force on gas, $f_\mathrm{rad,d}$ is the radiation pressure gradient force on dust, $P_\mathrm{g}$ is the gas pressure, $e_\mathrm{g}$ is the internal energy of gas, $h_\mathrm{g}$ is the enthalpy of gas, and $K_\mathrm{d}$ is the drag coefficient between gas and dust defined as follows: $$K_\mathrm{d} \equiv \frac{n_\mathrm{d} F_\mathrm{drag}}{|\bm{v}_\mathrm{d} - \bm{v}_\mathrm{g}|}, \nonumber$$ where $n_\mathrm{d}$ is the number density of dust grains.
In order to solve the dust drag force stably, we use following algorithm for the momentum equations: $$\begin{split}
\begin{bmatrix}
p_\mathrm{d}^{*} \left( = \rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} v_\mathrm{d}^* \right) \\
p_g^{*}\left( = \rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} v_\mathrm{g}^* \right)
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
p_\mathrm{d}^t \\
p_g^t
\end{bmatrix}
+ \begin{bmatrix}
F_\mathrm{p, d}(\rho_\mathrm{d}^t,v_\mathrm{d}^t) \\
F_\mathrm{p, g}(\rho_g^t,v_\mathrm{g}^t,e_g^t)
\end{bmatrix}
\Delta t,\label{cdv1}
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
\begin{bmatrix}
p_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \\
p_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \\
\rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{ p_\mathrm{d}^*+p_\mathrm{g}^* }{ \rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} + \rho_g^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} } \\
&+
\begin{bmatrix}
\rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \\
\rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}
\end{bmatrix}
\left[ a_\mathrm{gra} + \frac{f_\mathrm{d} + f_g }{\rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} + \rho_g^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} }\right] \Delta t \label{cdv2} \\
&+
\begin{bmatrix}
-1 \\
1
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{\rho_g^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \rho_d^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}}{\rho_g^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} + \rho_d^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}} \left( v_\mathrm{g}^* - v_\mathrm{d}^* \right) \mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\Delta t}{t_d}} \\
&+
\begin{bmatrix}
-1 \\
1
\end{bmatrix}
t_d \frac{\rho_d^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} f_g - \rho_g^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} f_d}{\rho_g + \rho_d} ( 1 - \mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\Delta t}{t_d}} ),
\end{split}$$ where $\Delta t$ is the time step, $\rho_\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{t}$ is the mass density of $i$th species at time $t$, $p_\mathrm{i}^\mathrm{t}$ is the momentum of $i$th species at time $t$, $e_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t}$ is the internal energy of gas at time $t$, $F_\mathrm{X,i}$ is the advection of the physical quantity $X$ of the $i$th species, $f_\mathrm{d}$ is the force on dust ($f_\mathrm{d}=f_\mathrm{rad,d}$), $f_\mathrm{g}$ is the force on gas ($f_\mathrm{g}=f_\mathrm{rad,g}-\partial P_\mathrm{g}/ \partial x$), and the inverse of the drag stopping time, $t_\mathrm{d}$, is $$t_\mathrm{d}^{-1} = K_\mathrm{d} \frac{\rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} + \rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} }{\rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} }. \label{td}$$ Equation (\[cdv2\]) that determines the relative velocity between dust and gas is the exact solution of the following equations: $$\begin{split}
\rho_\mathrm{g} \frac{d}{dt} v_\mathrm{g} &= f_\mathrm{rad,g} - \frac{\partial}{\partial x}P_\mathrm{g} + \rho_\mathrm{g} a_\mathrm{gra} + K_\mathrm{d} (v_\mathrm{d} - v_\mathrm{g}), \label{dve} \\
\rho_\mathrm{d} \frac{d}{dt} v_\mathrm{d} &= f_\mathrm{rad,d} + \rho_\mathrm{d} a_\mathrm{gra} + K_\mathrm{d} (v_\mathrm{g} - v_\mathrm{d}).
\end{split}$$
Momentum advection and other hydrodynamic equations are solved by using [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AUSM$+$</span>]{} [@1996JCoPh.129..364L]. We solve the hydrodynamics in the second order accuracy in space and time. In order to prevent cell density from becoming zero or a negative value, we set the minimum number density, $n_\mathrm{H} \simeq 10^{-13}$ cm$^{-3}$. We have confirmed that our results are not sensitive to the choice of the threshold density as long as the threshold density is sufficiently low.
In order to investigate whether our method is reliable, we perform shock tube tests in Appendix \[sec:stt\]. ln Appendix \[sec:2dust\], we describe how we deal with the dust grains with two sizes.
Simulation setup {#sec:setup}
================
\[0.85\]
--------- -------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------- ------------- ------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------- ------ ---------
Cloud $r_\mathrm{cloud}$ ${n}_\mathrm{{\mathrm{H}}}$ ${n}_\mathrm{{\mathrm{He}}}$ ${n}_\mathrm{{\mathrm{d,Large}}}$ ${n}_\mathrm{{\mathrm{d,Small}}}$ Distribution Source $\dot{N}_\mathrm{ion}$ ${T_\mathrm{\mathrm{g}}}$ ${T_\mathrm{d}}$ ${M}_\mathrm{{\mathrm{star}}}$ Dust Gravity
(pc) (cm$^{-3}$) (cm$^{-3}$) ($10^{-10}$ cm$^{-3}$) ($10^{-7}$ cm$^{-3}$) ($10^{49}$ s$^{-1}$) (K) (K) ($10^3~M_\mathrm{{\sun}}$)
Cloud 1 1.2 4$\times$10$^5$ 3.4$\times$10$^4$ 6.4$\times$10$^{3}$ 0 C BB (50100K) 6.2 100 10 0.08 1 off
Cloud 2 17 791 67 9.6 3.0 BE BB (38500K) 0.72 1082 10 0.05 2 on
Cloud 3 17 791 67 9.6 3.0 BE SSP 5.8 1082 10 2 2 on
Cloud 4 17 791 67 9.6 3.0 BE SSP 58 1082 10 20 2 on
--------- -------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------- ------------- ------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------- ------ ---------
\[Tab1\]
In the first simulation, in order to investigate whether our simulation derives a consistent result with the observational estimate for compact/ultra-compact regions [@Inoue2002], we model a constant density cloud of hydrogen number density $4\times10^5$ cm$^{-3}$ and radius 1.2 pc. As a radiation source, we place a single star (i.e. black body) at the centre of the sphere. Since we are interested in the formation of a dust cavity, we neglect the gravity which does not affect the relative velocity between dust grains and gas (see equation (\[cdv2\])). We assume a single dust grain size in this simulation.
In the second set of simulations, in order to investigate the effect of radiation pressure on the dust grain size distribution inside a large gas cloud, we model a cloud as a Bonner-Ebert sphere of mass $10^5$ $M_{\sun}$ and radius 17 pc. As the radiation source, we consider a single star (black body, BB) or a star cluster (a simple stellar population, SSP) and we change the luminosity of the radiation source to investigate the dependence of the dust size distribution on the luminosity of the radiation source. We compute its luminosity and spectral-energy distribution as a function of time by using a population synthesis code, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PÉGASE.2</span>]{} , assuming the Salpeter initial mass function [@salpeter] and the solar metallicity. We set the mass range of the initial mass function to be 0.1 to 120 $M_{\sun}$.
Materials at radius, $r$, feel the radial gravitational acceleration, $$a_\mathrm{gra}(r) = - G \frac{M_\mathrm{star} r}{(r^2 + r_\mathrm{soft}^2)^{3/2}}- G \frac{M (<r) }{r^2 } \nonumber$$ where M(<r) represents the total mass of gas inside $r$ and $M_\mathrm{star}$ is the mass of the central radiation source, which is 50 $M_{\sun}$ for the single star case and $2\times10^3$ or $2\times10^4$ $M_{\sun}$ for the two star cluster cases. Since the gravity from the radiation source has a non-negligible effect on simulation results and causes numerical instability in the case of SSP, we need to introduce softening length, $r_{\mathrm{soft}}$. We set it to 0.5 pc for the SSP. Since the gravity from a single star is negligible effect on simulation results, we set 0 pc for the single star.
Following the dust size distribution of [@MRN], so-called MRN distribution, we assume two dust size in these simulations. We assume the initial number ratio of large to small dust as $$n_{\mathrm{d, Large}} : n_\mathrm{d, Small} = 1 : 10^{2.5}, \nonumber$$ where $n_{\mathrm{d, Large}}$ and $n_\mathrm{d, Small}$ are the number density of dust grains of 0.1 and 0.01 in size, respectively.
The details of initial conditions are listed in Table \[Tab1\]. We use linearly spaced 128 meshes in radial direction, 128 meshes in angular direction, and 256 meshes in frequency direction in all simulations to solve radiation hydrodynamics.
Results {#sec:Results}
=======
Dust cavity radius
------------------
{width="8.0cm"}
-------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------
$\overline{n}_\mathrm{e}$ $\dot{N}_\mathrm{ion}$ ${r}_\mathrm{\ion{H}{ii}}$ ${r}_\mathrm{d}$ ${y}_\mathrm{d}$
(cm$^{-3}$) (10$^{49}$s$^{-1}$) (pc) (pc) $\equiv r_\mathrm{d}/R_\mathrm{St}$
this work ($t=0.42$ Myr) 1247 6.2 0.73 0.21 0.20
[@Inoue2002] 1200 $\pm$ 400 6.8 $\pm$ 3.9 0.72 $\pm$ 0.098 0.28 $\pm$ 0.13 0.30 $\pm$ 0.12
-------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------
\[Tab2\]
We present density, gas temperature, dust-to-gas mass ratio, grain electric potential ($V_\mathrm{d} \equiv e Z_d/a_\mathrm{d}$), and relative velocity between dust and gas as functions of radius in Fig \[d1g\]. In the top panels, the hydrogen number density is indicated by the red solid line. The number density of is indicated by the blue dash-dotted line. The initial state of the simulation is shown by the black dotted line.
The average electron number density within an region, $\overline{n}_\mathrm{e}$, the region radius, $r_\mathrm{\ion{H}{ii}}$, the dust cavity radius, $r_\mathrm{d}$, and the ratio between the radius of the dust cavity to the Strömgren radius, $y_\mathrm{d}$, obtained by our simulation ($t=0.42$ Myr) and the observational estimate are shown in Table \[Tab2\]. We find that our simulation results are in broad agreement with the observational estimate. The dust cavities, hence, could be created by radiation pressure. The parameter $y_\mathrm{d}$ obtained by the simulation is somewhat smaller than the observational estimate. However, we could find a better agreement if we tuned the initial condition such as the gas density. In addition, the agreement would be better if we included the effect of stellar winds, which was neglected in this paper.
Since dust inside the region is strongly charged, relative velocity between dust and gas is determined by coulomb drag force. Magnitude of the coulomb drag force is about 2-order of magnitude larger than that of the collisional drag force. The relative velocity, thus, becomes largest when the dust charge is neutral. Grain electric potential gradually decreases with radius and then suddenly drops to negative value. Near the ionization front, the number of ionized photons decreases and hence collisional charging becomes important. This is the reason behind the sudden decrease of the grain electric potential. In the neutral region, there is no photon which is able to ionize the gas and hence there is few electrons that collide with dust grains. On the other hand, there are photons that photoelectrically charge dust grains. Therefore, the grain electric potential becomes positive again at just outside of the region. Then, the UV photons are consumed and the electron collisional charging becomes dominant again in the neutral region.
Spatial distribution of large dust grains and small dust grains
---------------------------------------------------------------
{width="16.5cm"}
We present densities, gas temperature, dust-to-gas mass ratios for large and small grains, large-dust-to-small-dust mass ratios ($\rho_\mathrm{d, Large}/\rho_\mathrm{d, Small}$), the grain electric potential, and relative velocity between dust and gas as functions of radius in Fig \[d2g\]. In order to compare the simulation results on the dust size distribution with each other, we present the results at the time when the shock front reaches to $\sim$15 pc. In order to study the dependence of the dust size distribution on time and the luminosity of the radiation source, we also present the simulation result of Cloud 2 at $t=$1.1 My: the same irradiation time as Cloud 4. In the top panels, the hydrogen number density is indicated by the red solid lines and that of is indicated by the blue dot-dashed lines. Initial states of the simulations are shown by black dotted lines. In the fifth row, the charges of dust grains with size 0.1 and 0.01 are indicated by the red solid and blue dot-dashed lines, respectively. The black dotted lines show the initial profiles (i.e. 0 V). In the bottom panels, the relative velocity between dust grains with size 0.1 and gas and between dust grains with size 0.01 and gas are indicated by the red solid and blue dot-dashed lines, respectively. Note that the radiation source becomes stronger from Cloud 2 to Cloud 4.
We find that radiation pressure affects the dust distribution within an region depending on the grain size. In Fig \[d2g\], we divide them into the following four regions:
1. From the central part, radiation pressure removes both large and small dust grains and creates a dust cavity (the yellow shaded region).
2. Within an region, $\rho_\mathrm{d, Large}/\rho_\mathrm{d, Small}$ has a peak. Between the region ‘a’ and this peak, there is a region where $\rho_\mathrm{d, Large}/\rho_\mathrm{d, Small}$ takes the local minimum value (the cyan shaded region), for example, at $r\sim 4$ pc in Cloud 2 at $t=2.9$ Myr.
3. The region that contains the peak mentioned above is shaded by magenta.
4. The $\rho_\mathrm{d, Large}/\rho_\mathrm{d, Small}$ is also reduced just behind the ionization front (the gray shaded region), for example, at $r\sim 6$ pc in Cloud 2 at $t=2.9$ Myr.
We find that the dust cavity radius becomes larger as the radiation source becomes brighter (the regions ‘a’). The reasons are as follows. grain electric potential of the dust grains with the same size within $r=2$ pc is almost the same among all simulations and the number density of the gas becomes smaller for stronger radiation source. Since the dust drag force strongly depends on the grain electric potential, the number density of gas, and radiation pressure on dust, relative velocity between dust and gas becomes larger for the brighter source.
In the region ‘b’ and ‘d’, the ratio $\rho_\mathrm{d, Large}/\rho_\mathrm{d, Small}$ is decreased from the initial condition when the radiation source is a single OB star (Cloud 2). Except in the ionization front (vertical brown dashed lines) which is contained in the region ‘d’, radiation pressure preferentially removes large dust grains from these regions. The photoelectric yield of the large dust grains is smaller than that of the small dust grains, and hence grain electric potential of the large dust grains becomes smaller than that of the small dust grains. Coulomb drag between large dust grains and gas therefore becomes weaker than that between small dust grains and gas. On the other hand, since Cloud 4 has the strongest radiation source and hence it makes grain electric potentials largest among the simulations, the dust size segregation in the regions ‘b’ and ‘d’ is less prominent. Even when we compare Cloud 2 and 4 at the same irradiation time, $t=$1.1 Myr, the dust size distributions inside regions are different. Luminosity of the radiation source must be the main cause of the dust size segregation.
The ratio $\rho_\mathrm{d, Large}/\rho_\mathrm{d, Small}$ in all simulations has a peak in the regions ‘c’. Since dust grains have large negative charge in the regions ‘c’ and ‘d’, the coulomb drag force between dust and gas is strong and hence dust and gas are tightly coupled each other. Large dust grains are, therefore, removed from the regions ‘a’ and ‘b’ and gathered in the regions ‘c’.
At the ionization front and the shock front (vertical green dot-dot-dashed lines), the relative velocity, $v_\mathrm{d} -
v_\mathrm{g}$ has downward peaks. In theses fronts, gas pressure force exceeds radiation pressure force. Since the dust drag time depends on the dust grain size, the dust-gas relative velocity also depends on the grain size. As a result, $\rho_\mathrm{d, Large}/\rho_\mathrm{d, Small}$ is slightly reduced in these fronts.
Discussion and Conclusions {#sec:Discussion}
==========================
We have investigated radiation feedback in dusty clouds by one-dimensional multi-fluid hydrodynamic simulations. In order to study spatial dust distribution inside regions, we solve gas and dust motion self-consistently. We also investigate dust size distribution within regions by considering dust grains with two different sizes.
We find that radiation pressure creates dust cavity regions. We confirm that the size of the dust cavity region is broadly agree with the observational estimate [@Inoue2002].
We also find that radiation pressure preferentially removes large dust from regions in the case of a single OB star. This result is almost the same as in [@Akimkin2015]. The dust size distribution is, however, less affected when the radiation source is a star cluster, in other word, a more luminous case. Resulting dust size distributions largely depend on the luminosity of the radiation source.
We assume dust is graphite. There are, however, other forms of dust such as silicate. Since the photoelectric yield and the absorption coefficient depend on a dust model, spatial dust distribution of dust grains may become different when we use a different dust model. For example, since silicate has a larger work function and a smaller absorption coefficient than graphite, the cavity size in the silicate case may become larger than that in the graphite case (see @Akimkin2015 [@Akimkin2017] for details).
In our simulations, we neglect the effect of sputtering that changes the dust grain size. We estimate this according to [@Nozawa2006], and confirm that sputtering effect is negligible in our simulations. However, if we consider the smaller dust grains, we may have to include the sputtering.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful to Takashi Kozasa, Takashi Hosokawa, and Shu-ichiro Inutsuka for helpful discussion. SI acknowledges Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow (17J04872) and TO acknowledge the financial support of MEXT KAKENHI Grant (16H01085). Numerical simulations were partly carried out with Cray XC30 in CfCA at NAOJ.
Shock tube tests {#sec:stt}
================
In order to investigate whether our method is reliable, we perform shock tube tests. Since the effect of the dust becomes almost negligible in shock tube tests if we assume dust-to-gas mass ratio as 6.7$\times$10$^{-3}$ (the value we assume in our simulations) and hence we will not be able to investigate whether the numerical code is reliable or not, we assume dust-to-gas mass ratio as 1 in the shock tube tests. The initial condition of the shock tube problem is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_\mathrm{g} &= \rho_\mathrm{d} =
\begin{cases}
1,\, &(x<0.5),\nonumber \\
0.125,\, &(x>0.5), \nonumber
\end{cases} \\
P_\mathrm{g} &=
\begin{cases}
1,\, &(x<0.5),\nonumber \\
0.1,\, &(x>0.5), \nonumber
\end{cases} \\
\gamma &= 1.67, & \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is heat capacity ratio. Since the analytic solutions are known for $K_\mathrm{d}=0$ and $\infty$, we perform test calculations for $K_\mathrm{d}=0$ and $K_\mathrm{d}=10^{10}$ ($\Delta t_\mathrm{sim} \gg (\rho_\mathrm{g} \rho_\mathrm{d})/(\rho_\mathrm{d}+\rho_\mathrm{g}) K_\mathrm{d}^{-1}\equiv t_\mathrm{d}$), where $\Delta t_\mathrm{sim}$ is the time scale of the shock tube problem and $t_\mathrm{d}$ is the drag stopping time. We use linearly spaced 400 meshes between $x=0$ and $1$. Time steps we use for these simulations are $\Delta t =2.5\times10^{-4}$ for $K_\mathrm{d}=0$ and $\Delta t=4.2\times10^{-4}$ for $K_\mathrm{d}=10^{10}$. The results are shown in Fig \[test\]. We confirm that the numerical results agree with the analytic solutions.
{width="13.5cm"}
dust grains with two sizes and gas dynamics {#sec:2dust}
===========================================
In order to investigate the spatial variation of the grain size distribution inside regions, we solve following hydrodynamics equations, where we consider dust grains with two sizes (dust-1 and dust-2): $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_\mathrm{g} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g} &=& 0 \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_\mathrm{d1} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \rho_\mathrm{d1} v_\mathrm{d1} &=& 0 \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_\mathrm{d2} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \rho_\mathrm{d2} v_\mathrm{d2} &=& 0 \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g}^2 &=& \rho_\mathrm{g} a_\mathrm{gra} + f_\mathrm{rad,g} - \frac{\partial}{\partial x} P_\mathrm{g} \nonumber \\
& & + K_\mathrm{d1} (v_\mathrm{d1} - v_\mathrm{g}) + K_\mathrm{d2} (v_\mathrm{d1} - v_\mathrm{g}) \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_\mathrm{d1} v_\mathrm{d1} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \rho_\mathrm{d1} v_\mathrm{d1}^2 &=& \rho_\mathrm{d1} a_\mathrm{gra} + f_\mathrm{rad,d1} \nonumber \\
& & + K_\mathrm{d1} (v_\mathrm{g} - v_\mathrm{d1}) \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_\mathrm{d2} v_\mathrm{d2} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \rho_\mathrm{d2} v_\mathrm{d2}^2 &=& \rho_\mathrm{d2} a_\mathrm{gra} + f_\mathrm{rad,d2} \nonumber \\
& & + K_\mathrm{d2} (v_\mathrm{g} - v_\mathrm{d2}) \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left( \frac{1}{2} \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g}^2 + e_\mathrm{g} \right) &+& \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left( \frac{1}{2} \rho_\mathrm{d1} v_\mathrm{d1}^2 + \frac{1}{2} \rho_\mathrm{d2} v_\mathrm{d2}^2 \right) \nonumber \\
+ \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left( \frac{1}{2} \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g}^2 + h_\mathrm{g} \right) v_\mathrm{g} &+& \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left( \frac{1}{2} \rho_\mathrm{d1} v_\mathrm{d1}^3 + \frac{1}{2} \rho_\mathrm{d2} v_\mathrm{d2}^3 \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \left( \rho_\mathrm{g} v_\mathrm{g} + \rho_\mathrm{d1} v_\mathrm{d1} + \rho_\mathrm{d2} v_\mathrm{d2} \right) a_\mathrm{gra} \nonumber \\
& & + f_\mathrm{rad,g} v_\mathrm{g} + f_\mathrm{rad,d1} v_\mathrm{d1}+ f_\mathrm{rad,d2} v_\mathrm{d2} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_\mathrm{d1}$ is the mass density of dust-1, $\rho_\mathrm{d2}$ is the mass density of dust-2, $v_\mathrm{d1}$ is the velocity of dust-1, $v_\mathrm{d2}$ is the velocity of dust-2, $f_\mathrm{rad,d1}$ is the radiation pressure gradient force on dust-1, $f_\mathrm{rad,d2}$ is the radiation pressure gradient force on dust-2, $K_\mathrm{d1}$ is the drag coefficient between gas and dust-1, and $K_\mathrm{d2}$ is the drag coefficient between gas and dust-2.
In order to solve dust drag force stably, we use following algorithm for the equation of momentum: $$\begin{split}
\begin{bmatrix}
p_\mathrm{d1}^{*} \left( = \rho_\mathrm{d1}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} v_\mathrm{d1}^* \right) \\
p_g^{*}\left( = \rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} v_\mathrm{g}^* \right) \\
p_\mathrm{d2}^{*} \left( = \rho_\mathrm{d2}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} v_\mathrm{d2}^* \right) \\
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
p_\mathrm{d1}^t \\
p_g^t \\
p_\mathrm{d2}^t
\end{bmatrix}
+ \begin{bmatrix}
F_\mathrm{p, d1}(\rho_\mathrm{d1}^t,v_\mathrm{d1}^t) \\
F_\mathrm{p, g}(\rho_g^t,v_\mathrm{g}^t,e_g^t) \\
F_\mathrm{p, d2}(\rho_\mathrm{d2}^t,v_\mathrm{d2}^t) \\
\end{bmatrix}
\Delta t,\label{cdv3}
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
&
\begin{bmatrix}
p_\mathrm{d1}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \\
p_g^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \\
p_\mathrm{d2}^\mathrm{t + \Delta t}
\end{bmatrix} \\
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\rho_\mathrm{d1}^{t+\Delta t} \\
\rho_\mathrm{g}^{t+\Delta t} \\
\rho_\mathrm{d2}^{t+\Delta t}
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{ p_\mathrm{d1}^{*} + p_\mathrm{g}^{*} + p_\mathrm{d2}^{*} }{ \rho_\mathrm{d1}^{t+\Delta t} + \rho_g^{t+\Delta t} + \rho_\mathrm{d2}^{t+\Delta t} } \\
&+
\begin{bmatrix}
\rho_\mathrm{d1}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \\
\rho_g^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \\
\rho_\mathrm{d2}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}
\end{bmatrix}
\left[ a_\mathrm{gra} + \frac{f_\mathrm{d1} + f_g + f_\mathrm{d2}}{\rho_\mathrm{d1}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} + \rho_g^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} + \rho_\mathrm{d2}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} }\right] \Delta t \\
&+
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{b}{a+x} \\
1 \\
\frac{c}{d+x}
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{\rho_g \mathrm{e}^{x\Delta t}}{x(x-y)} \left[ b(d+x) v_\mathrm{d1}^* + (a+x)(d+x)v_g^* + c(a+x)v_\mathrm{d2}^* \right] \\
&+
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{b}{a+y} \\
1 \\
\frac{c}{d+y}
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{\rho_g \mathrm{e}^{y\Delta t}}{y(y-x)} \left[ b(d+y) v_\mathrm{d1}^* + (a+y)(d+y)v_g^* + c(a+y)v_\mathrm{d2}^* \right] \\
&+
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{b}{a+x} \\
1 \\
\frac{c}{d+x}
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{x\Delta t}-1}{x^2(x-y)} \left[ a(d+x) f_\mathrm{d1} + (a+x)(d+x)f_g + d(a+x)f_\mathrm{d2} \right] \\
&+
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{b}{a+y} \\
1 \\
\frac{c}{d+y}
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{y\Delta t}-1}{y^2(y-x)} \left[ a(d+y) f_\mathrm{d1} + (a+y)(d+y)f_g + d(a+y)f_\mathrm{d2} \right],
\label{cdv4}
\end{split}$$ where $f_\mathrm{d1}$ is the force on dust-1 ($f_\mathrm{d1}=f_\mathrm{rad,d1}$), $f_\mathrm{d2}$ is the force on dust-2 ($f_\mathrm{d2}=f_\mathrm{rad,d2}$), $$\begin{split}
a &= \frac{K_\mathrm{d1}}{\rho_\mathrm{d1}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}}, \nonumber \\
b &= \frac{K_\mathrm{d1}}{\rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}}, \nonumber \\
c &= \frac{K_\mathrm{d2}}{\rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}}, \nonumber \\
d &= \frac{K_\mathrm{d2}}{\rho_\mathrm{d2}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}}, \nonumber \\
x &= -\frac{1}{2} \left[ (a+b+c+d) + \sqrt{(a+b+c+d)^2 - 4(ad+ac+bd)} \right], \nonumber \\
\end{split}$$ and $$y = \frac{ (ad+ac+bd) }{ x }. \nonumber$$ As in section \[subsubsec:d1\], in order to determine the relative velocity between gas and dust, we use equation (\[cdv4\]) which is the exact solution of the following equations: $$\begin{split}
\rho_\mathrm{d2} \frac{d}{dt} v_\mathrm{d2} &= f_\mathrm{rad,d2} + \rho_\mathrm{d2} a_\mathrm{gra} + K_\mathrm{d2} (v_\mathrm{g} - v_\mathrm{d2}), \\
\rho_\mathrm{g} \frac{d}{dt} v_\mathrm{g} &= f_\mathrm{rad,g} - \frac{\partial}{\partial x}P_\mathrm{g} + \rho_\mathrm{g} a_\mathrm{gra} \\
&+ K_\mathrm{d1} (v_\mathrm{d1} - v_\mathrm{g})+ K_\mathrm{d2} (v_\mathrm{d2} - v_\mathrm{g}), \label{dve2} \\
\rho_\mathrm{d1} \frac{d}{dt} v_\mathrm{d1} &= f_\mathrm{rad,d1} + \rho_\mathrm{d1} a_\mathrm{gra} + K_\mathrm{d1} (v_\mathrm{g} - v_\mathrm{d1}).
\end{split}$$ In order to solve momentum equations, we therefore first solve the momentum advection (\[cdv3\]), and then we solve the exact solution of the equation (\[dve2\]) by equation (\[cdv4\]).
In the case for $|x| \Delta t \ll 1$ or $|y| \Delta t \ll 1$, we use Taylar expansion, $\mathrm{e}^{x\Delta t} \approx 1 + x\Delta t$ or $\mathrm{e}^{y\Delta t} \approx 1 + y\Delta t$, and prevent the numerical error in calculating $(\mathrm{e}^{x\Delta t}-1)/x$ from becoming too large.
The terminal velocity approximation
===================================
We here show that the terminal velocity approximation may give an unphysical result when the simulation time step $\Delta t$ is shorter than the drag stopping time $t_\mathrm{d}$. In order to derive dust velocity and gas velocity, we have used the equation (\[cdv2\]). On the other hand, [@Akimkin2017] used the terminal velocity approximation. When we employ the terminal velocity approximation, the equation (\[cdv2\]) is transforms into the following form: $$\begin{split}
\begin{bmatrix}
p_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \\
p_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \\
\rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{ p_\mathrm{d}^*+p_\mathrm{g}^* }{ \rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} + \rho_g^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} }
+
\begin{bmatrix}
\rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \\
\rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}
\end{bmatrix}
a_\mathrm{gra} \Delta t \\
&+
\begin{bmatrix}
(\rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \Delta t + \rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} t_\mathrm{d})f_\mathrm{d} \\
(\rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} \Delta t + \rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} t_\mathrm{d})f_\mathrm{g}
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{\rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} + \rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}}
\\
& +
\begin{bmatrix}
\rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} f_\mathrm{g} \\
\rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} f_\mathrm{d}
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{(\Delta t - t_\mathrm{d})}{\rho_\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t} + \rho_\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{t+\Delta t}} .
\end{split} \label{cdv2ap}$$ The advantage of the equation (\[cdv2\]) is that it is accurate even for $\Delta t < t_\mathrm{d}$. In contrast, the equation (\[cdv2ap\]) becomes inaccurate for $\Delta t \ll t_\mathrm{d}$, since the relation of $\Delta t$ and $t_\mathrm{d}$ should be $\Delta t \gg t_\mathrm{d}$ in order the terminal velocity approximation to be valid. For example, the direction of $f_\mathrm{d}$ on gas and that of $f_\mathrm{g}$ on dust in the equation (\[cdv2ap\]) becomes opposit for $\Delta t < t_\mathrm{d}$.
We perform simulations by using equation (\[cdv2ap\]) in stead of equation (\[cdv2\]) and compare the simulation results. Simulation results do not largely change for Cloud 2, 3, and 4. The numerical simulation of Cloud 1, however, is crashed, since the timestep becomes $\Delta t \ll t_\mathrm{d}$ at some steps.
-------- ------------------ ---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------- ------------------ ---------------
${n}_\mathrm{H}$ ${n}_\mathrm{\ion{H}{ii}}$ ${T}_\mathrm{g}$ ${a}_\mathrm{dust}$ ${V}_\mathrm{d}$ $\Delta v$
(cm$^{-3}$) (cm$^{-3}$) (K) () (V) (km s$^{-1}$)
IGM 10$^{-5}$ 10$^{-5}$ 10$^4$ 0.1 20 0
region 10 10 10$^4$ 0.1 5 0
region 10$^2$ 0 10$^2$ 0.1 0 0
-------- ------------------ ---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------- ------------------ ---------------
: Numerical setup for the IGM, the region, and the region. The number densities of hydrogen and ionized hydrogen are represented by ${n}_\mathrm{H}$ and $n_\mathrm{\ion{H}{ii}}$. The temperature of gas is represented by $T_\mathrm{g}$. The radius of a grain is represented by $a_\mathrm{dust}$. The grain electric potential of dust grains is represented by $V_\mathrm{d}$. The relative velocity between a dust grain and gas is represented by $\Delta v$.
\[TabC2\]
![ The green, red, and blue hatched regions represent the condition of $t_\mathrm{CFL} > t_\mathrm{d}$ for the IGM, the region, and the region, respectively. []{data-label="timestep_ch"}](timestep_ch2.pdf){width="8cm"}
The relation between $\Delta t$ and $t_\mathrm{d}$ becomes $\Delta t < t_\mathrm{d}$ when the drag stopping time $t_\mathrm{d}$ is larger than the chemical timestep $\Delta t_\mathrm{chem}$ or the timestep $\Delta t_\mathrm{CFL}$ defined by Clourant-Friedrichs-Lewy condition. The chemical timestep is defined in equation (7) in paper I.
In Fig \[timestep\_ch\], we present the condition for $t_\mathrm{CFL}(\equiv \alpha \Delta x/v) > t_\mathrm{d}$ in the case of the intergalactic medium (IGM), the region, and the region, where $\alpha$ is constant (we assume $\alpha=0.1$), $\Delta x$ is the mesh size, and $v$ is velocity. The details of numerical setup for the IGM, the region, and the region are listed in Tab \[TabC2\]. The green, red, and blue hatched regions represent the condition for $t_\mathrm{CFL} > t_\mathrm{d}$ for the IGM, the region, and the region, respectively. If the relation between $t_\mathrm{CFL}$ and $t_\mathrm{d}$ becomes $t_\mathrm{CFL} \ll t_\mathrm{d}$, the simulation may become unstable.
0
Some extra material
===================
If you want to present additional material which would interrupt the flow of the main paper, it can be placed in an Appendix which appears after the list of references.
\[lasPHage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: http://www.astro.princeton.edu/\~draine/dust/dust.diel.html
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In a previous paper the *real* evolution of the system of ODEs $$\begin{gathered}
\ddot{z}_{n} + z_{n}=\sum\limits_{m = 1,\; m \ne n}^{N} g_{nm}{(z_{n} - z_{m})}
^{- 3},\\
z_{n} \equiv z_{n}(t), \qquad \dot {z}_{n} \equiv \frac{d z_{n}(t)}{dt},
\qquad n = 1,\ldots,N\end{gathered}$$ is discussed in $C_{N} $, namely the $N$ dependent variables $z_{n} $, as well as the $N( {N - 1} )$ (arbitrary!) “coupling constants” $g_{nm} $, are considered to be *complex* numbers, while the independent variable $t$ (“time”) is *real*. In that context it was proven that there exists, in the phase space of the initial data $z_{n}
(0)$, $\dot {z}_{n} (0)$, an open domain having *infinite* measure, such that *all* trajectories emerging from it are *completely periodic* with period $2\pi $, $z_{n} (t + 2\pi)
= z_{n} (t)$. In this paper we investigate, both by analytical techniques and via the display of numerical simulations, the remaining solutions, and in particular we show that there exist many — emerging out of sets of initial data having nonvanishing measures in the phase space of such data — that are also *completely periodic* but with periods which are *integer multiples* of $2\pi $. We also elucidate the mechanism that yields *nonperiodic* solutions, including those characterized by a “chaotic” behavior, namely those associated, in the context of the initial-value problem, with a *sensitive dependence* on the initial data.
---
\[calogero-firstpage\]
Introduction
============
In a previous paper \[1\] one of us (FC) analyzed, in the *complex* domain, the dynamical system characterized by the Newtonian equations of motion $$\begin{gathered}
\ddot{z}_{n} + z_{n}=\sum_{m = 1,\; m \ne n}^{N} g_{nm}{(z_{n} -
z_{m})}
^{- 3} , \nonumber\\
z_{n} \equiv z_{n}(t) ,\qquad \dot {z}_{n} \equiv \frac{d z_{n}(t)}{dt},\qquad n
= 1,\ldots,N\label{eq1}\end{gathered}$$ which obtain in the standard manner from the Hamiltonian
$$\label{eq2}
H( \underline {z} ,\underline {p}) = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{n =
1}^{N} \left( p_{n}^{2} + z_{n}^{2}\right) +
\frac{1}{4}\sum\limits_{n,m = 1,\; n \ne m}^{N} {} g_{nm} (z_{n} -
z_{m})^{- 2},$$
provided (as we hereafter assume — even though the main result of \[1\] holds without this restriction) $$\label{eq3}
g_{nm} = g_{mn}.$$
Here and below $N$ is an arbitrary positive integer ($N \ge 2$), the indices $n$, $m$ run from $1$ to $N$ unless otherwise indicated, underlined quantities are $N$-vectors, say $\underline {z} \equiv (z_{1} ,\ldots,z_{N})$, and all quantities (namely, the $N$ “canonical coordinates” $z_{n} $, the $N$ “canonical momenta” $p_{n} $, the $N( N - 1)/2$ “coupling constants” $g_{nm} $) are *complex*, while the independent variable $t$ (“time”) is instead *real*. Of course the $N$ complex equations of motion (\[eq1\]) can be reformulated \[1\] as $2N$ real — and as well Hamiltonian \[2\] — equations of motion, by introducing the real and imaginary parts of the coordinates $z_{n} $, $z_{n} \equiv
x_{n} + i y_{n} $, or their amplitudes and phases, $z_{n} \equiv \rho _{n}
\exp(i\theta_{n})$:
$$\begin{gathered}
\ddot{x}_{n}+x_{n} = \sum \limits_{m=1 , \; m \ne n}^{N}
r_{nm}^{-6}
\left[a_{nm}x_{nm}\left(x_{nm}^{2}-3y_{nm}^{2}\right)-b_{nm}y_{nm}
\left(y_{nm}^{2}-3x_{nm}^{2}\right) \right] \nonumber\\
\phantom{\ddot{x}_{n}+x_{n}}{}= \sum \limits_{m=1 , \; m \ne
n}^{N} r_{nm}^{-3}
|g_{nm}| \cos(\gamma_{nm}-3\theta_{nm}), \label{eq3bis}\\
\ddot{y}_{n}+y_{n} = \sum \limits_{m=1, \; m \ne n}^{N}
r_{nm}^{-6} \left[a_{nm}y_{nm}\left(y_{nm}^{2}-3x_{nm}^{2}\right)
-b_{nm}y_{nm}\left(x_{nm}^{2}-3y_{nm}^{2}\right) \right] \nonumber\\
\phantom{\ddot{y}_{n}+y_{n}}{}= \sum \limits_{m=1 , \; m \ne
n}^{N} r_{nm}^{-3} |g_{nm}| \sin(\gamma_{nm}-3\theta_{nm}),
\label{eq3ter}\end{gathered}$$
where of course $$\begin{gathered}
z_{n} = x_{n}+i y_{n}, \nonumber\\
z_{nm} \equiv z_{n}-z_{m} = x_{n}-x_{m}+i (y_{n}-y_{m}) \equiv
x_{nm} + i y_{nm} = r_{nm} \exp (i \theta_{nm}) , \nonumber\\
g_{nm} = a_{nm} + i b_{nm} = |g_{nm}| \exp (i \gamma_{nm}).\label{eq3quater}\end{gathered}$$
We shall return to the motivations for this choice to investigate the system (\[eq1\]) in the complex domain at the end of this Section 1.
If all the coupling constants coincide, $g_{nm} = g$, the Hamiltonian system (\[eq1\]) is a well-known *completely integrable* many-body model (see for instance \[2\] and the references quoted there), and *all* its nonsingular solutions are *completely periodic* with period $2\pi $, or possibly an integer multiple of $2\pi $. (Indeed, in this *integrable* case the $N$ coordinates $z_{n}(t)$ can be identified with the $N$ zeros of a polynomial of degree $N$ the coefficients of which are periodic in $t$ with period $2\pi $, so that the set of these $N$ zeros is also periodic with period $2\pi
$, and each individual zero is therefore also periodic, although possibly with a larger period which is an integer multiple of $2\pi $ due to a possible reshuffling of the zeros as the motion unfolds; in the *real* case with all coupling constants *equal* and *positive*, $g_{nm} = g > 0$, when the motions are confined to the real axis and no such reshuffling can occur due to the singular and repulsive character of the two-body forces, *all* real solutions are *nonsingular* and *completely periodic* with period $2\pi$, $\underline {z}
(t + 2\pi) = \underline {z} (t)$; see for instance \[2\]). Here we focus instead on the more general case with *completely arbitrary* coupling constants $g_{nm} $, which is generally believed *not* to be integrable. But even in this case — as proven in \[1\] — there does exist a domain of initial data $\underline {z} (0)$, $\underline {\dot {z}} (0)$ having *infinite* measure in phase space — indeed, having a measure which is a finite fraction of that of the entire phase space — such that *all* the trajectories originating from it are *completely periodic* with period $2\pi $, $\underline {z} (t + 2\pi) = \underline {z} (t)$. As pointed out in \[1\], this is a somewhat surprising finding, inasmuch as it negates the expectation that, for a nonlinear dynamical system with several degrees of freedom that possesses completely periodic trajectories emerging from some specific initial data, any generic variation of these initial data destroy the complete periodicity of the trajectories or at least change their period — unless the system is essentially equivalent (say, via an appropriate change of variables) to a linear system (such as (\[eq1\]) with *all* coupling constants vanishing, $g_{nm} = 0$), which is certainly not the case for the system (\[eq1\]) with *arbitrary* coupling constants $g_{nm}$, at least not in any manner explicitly computable in closed form.
But, as shown in \[1\], this fact is a rather elementary consequence of an approach (a “trick”) introduced and rather extensively used recently to evince analogous results (see \[2\] and the references quoted there, as well as \[3, 4, 5\]). This same trick can as well be exploited to investigate the remaining solutions, namely those not belonging to the class of *completely periodic* solutions with period $2\pi $ the existence of which was proven in \[1\]. This we do in the present paper, and we also confirm the insight thereby gained by exhibiting numerical solutions of (\[eq1\]) performed via a computer code created by one of us (MS) \[6\]. In particular we demonstrate below the existence of open domains of initial data, having *nonvanishing* measures in the phase space of such data, which also yield *completely periodic* solutions, but with periods which are *integer* *multiples* of $2\pi $, and we also elucidate the mechanism that originates *non-periodic* and *chaotic* solutions.
In the next Section (the first part of which is closely patterned after Section 2 of \[1\] and is reported here to make this paper self-contained) the “trick” mentioned above — which in fact amounts to a change of (dependent and independent) variables — is introduced. In Section 3 the analyticity properties in a time-like complex variable are investigated of the solutions of the system of ODEs, see (\[eq11\]), related to (\[eq1\]) via the trick. The implications of these findings as regards the periodicity of certain solutions of (\[eq1\]) are discussed in Section 4; in particular the mechanism that underlies the existence of *completely periodic* motions with *higher* periods (*integer multiples* of $2\pi $), and of *non-periodic* and *chaotic* motions, is elucidated. In Section 5 numerical examples of these trajectories are exhibited. In Section 6 some final remarks are proffered. Two appendices complete our presentation: Appendix A contains some developments (confined there not to interrupt the flow of presentation in Section 3) concerning the analytic structure of the solutions of the evolution equations (\[eq11\]); Appendix B focuses on the *three-body* case ($N = 3$), in particular it reports its reducibility to quadratures and a discussion of the information about the analytic behavior of the solutions of (\[eq11\]) entailed by this fact.
Let us end this introductory Section 1 with some remarks on the choice to investigate the motion determined by the Newtonian equations (\[eq1\]) in the *complex*, rather than the *real*, domain. A clear hint that, at least from a mathematical point of view, this is a more natural environment to work in, comes already from the treatment of (\[eq1\]) in the *integrable* case with *equal* coupling constants, $g_{nm}=g$, since, as mentioned above, it is then appropriate to identify the $N$ particle positions $z_{n} \equiv z_{n}(t)$ with the $N$ zeros of a time dependent (monic) polynomial of degree $N$ in $z$, say $P_{N}(z,t)$ such that $P_{N} [ t, z_{n}(t)] = 0$ (see for instance Ref. \[2\]); and clearly the natural environment to investigate the zeros of a polynomial is the *complex* plane rather than the *real* line. In our context, an essential motivation to work in the complex comes from the important role that analyticity properties play in our treatment, see below. Moreover motions roaming over the complex plane display a much richer dynamics than those restricted to the real line, especially in the case with singular interparticle forces, because of the possibility in the former case, but not in the latter, that particles go around each other. And it is then natural to re-interpret the (*complex*) $N$-body problem (\[eq1\]) as describing the (*real*) motion of $N$ particles (*in the plane*), by introducing a one-to-one correspondence among the complex coordinates $z_{n} \equiv x_{n} +
i y_{n}$, see (\[eq3quater\]), and the real two-vectors in the plane $\vec{r}_{n} \equiv (x_{n}, y_{n})$. But this approach, that is quite convenient to identify interesting many-body problems in the plane (see Chapter 4 of Ref. \[2\]), suffers in the present case from a drawback: the resulting many-body problem in the plane is not rotation-invariant, see (1.3). Indeed the many-body problem (1.3) is characterized by a (clearly rotation-invariant) harmonic-oscillator one-body force attracting every particle towards the origin, and by a (clearly not rotation-invariant) singular two-body force acting among each particle pair. As clearly seen from (1.3), the strength of the two-body force is proportional to the inverse cube of the (Euclidian) interparticle distance, hence it generally diverges when two particles collide; but this force also depends, both in modulus and direction, from the orientation of the interparticle vector, as well as from the phase $\gamma_{nm}$ of the relevant interparticle coupling constant (\[eq3quater\]). Indeed the two-body force $\vec{f}_{nm}$ acting on the $n$-th particle due to the $m$-th particle is the two-vector $\vec{f}_{nm}=r_{nm}^{-3}|g_{nm}| (
\cos(\gamma_{nm}-3\theta_{nm}), \sin(\gamma_{nm}-3\theta_{nm}) )$, which is generally not aligned to the interparticle distance $\vec{r}_{nm}= r_{nm}(\cos\theta_{nm}, \sin\theta_{nm})$, see (1.3). The diligent reader is advised to try and become familiar with the specific implications of this fact, as they will be eventually helpful to understand the trajectories of the solutions of the model (\[eq1\]), see Section 5.
The trick
=========
In this section we describe the “trick” \[1–4\] that underlies our subsequent findings, and at the end we mention a remarkable property of the system of ODEs (\[eq1\]). But firstly we rewrite, mainly for notational convenience, these equations of motion, (\[eq1\]), as follows:
$$\label{eq4}
\ddot {z}_{n} + \omega ^{2} z_{n} = \sum\limits_{m = 1,\; m \ne n}^{N}
g_{nm} ( z_{n} - z_{m})^{- 3},$$
and we note that the corresponding Hamiltonian reads $$\label{eq5}
H(\underline {z} ,\underline {p}) =
\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{N} \left( p_{n}^{2} + \omega
^{2}z_{n}^{2}\right) + \frac{1}{4}\sum\limits_{n,m = 1,\; n \ne
m}^{N} g_{nm} (z_{n} - z_{m})^{- 2}.$$
Here we introduce the additional constant $\omega $, which is hereafter assumed to be *positive*, $\omega > 0$, and to which we associate the basic period $$\label{eq6}
T = 2\pi /\omega .$$ In the following it will sometimes be convenient to set $\omega = 1$ so that (\[eq4\]) coincide with (\[eq1\]) and the basic period becomes $T = 2\pi $, or to set instead $\omega = 2\pi $ so that the basic period becomes unity, $T =
1$. Of course these cases are all related via a rescaling of the dependent and independent variables, since clearly by setting
$$\label{eq7}
\tilde {z}(\tilde t) = az(t),\qquad
\tilde {t} = bt,\qquad
\tilde {\omega} = \omega /b,\qquad
\tilde {g}_{nm} = \left(a^{2}/b \right)^{2}g_{nm}$$
with $a$, $b$ two *positive* rescaling constants which can be chosen at our convenience, the ODEs (\[eq4\]) get reformulated in a completely analogous “tilded” version, $$\label{eq8}
\tilde {z}''_{n} + \tilde {\omega} ^{2} \tilde {z}_{n} = \sum\limits_{m =
1,\; m \ne n}^{N} \tilde {g}_{nm} ( \tilde {z}_{n} - \tilde {z}_{m}
)^{- 3},$$
where of course here the primes indicate differentiations with respect to the argument of the function they are appended to, $\tilde{z}' \equiv
d\tilde {z}(\tilde t)/d\tilde {t}$. Note in particular that by setting $b = a^{2} = \omega $ one gets $\tilde {\omega
} = 1$, $\tilde {g}_{nm} = g_{nm} $, namely the tilded version (\[eq8\]) reproduces essentially (\[eq1\]).
Now, the “trick”. Let us set
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq9}
z_{n} (t) = \exp( - i\omega t)\zeta _{n}(\tau),\\
\label{eq10}
\tau \equiv \tau (t) = [\exp(2i\omega t) - 1]/(2i\omega).\end{gathered}$$
As can be readily verified, this change of (dependent and independent) variables, (2.4), transforms (\[eq4\]) into $$\label{eq11}
\zeta''_{n} = \sum\limits_{m = 1,\; m \ne n}^{N} g_{nm} (\zeta
_{n} - \zeta _{m})^{- 3}.$$ Here and below appended primes denote derivatives with respect to the new independent variable $\tau $, while of course the dots in (\[eq4\]) and below denote as usual derivatives with respect to the *real* time $t$.
The change of variables (2.4) entails the following relations among the initial data, $\underline {z} (0)$, $\underline {\dot {z}} (0)$, respectively $\underline {\zeta} (0)$, $\underline {\zeta '} (0)$, for (\[eq4\]) respectively (\[eq11\]):
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq12}
z_{n} (0) = \zeta _{n} (0),\\
\label{eq13}
\dot {z}_{n} (0) = \zeta'_{n} (0) - i\omega
\zeta _{n} (0).\end{gathered}$$
We now observe that, as the (real, “physical time”) variable $t$ varies from $0$ to $T/2 = \pi /\omega $, the (complex) variable $\tau $ travels (counterclockwise) full circle over the circular contour $\tilde {C}$, the diameter of which, of length $1/\omega =
T/(2\pi)$, lies on the upper-half of the complex $\tau $-plane, with its lower end at the origin, $\tau = 0$, and its upper end at $\tau = i/\omega $. Hence if the solution $\underline {\zeta}
(\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) which emerges from some assigned initial data $\underline {\zeta} (0)$, $\underline {\zeta '} (0)$ is *holomorphic*, as a ($N$-vector-valued) function of the complex variable $\tau$, in the closed circular disk $C$ encircled by the circle $\tilde {C}$ in the complex $\tau$-plane, then the corresponding solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]), related to $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ by (2.4), is *completely periodic* in $t$ with period $T$, $\underline
{z} (t + T) = \underline {z} (t)$ (see (\[eq6\]); and note that $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$, considered as function of the *real* variable $t$, is then *periodic* with period $T/2$, but $\underline {z}(t)$ is instead *antiperiodic* with period $T/2$, $\underline {z} (t + T/2)
= - \underline {z} (t)$, due to the prefactor $\exp( - i\omega
t)$, see (\[eq9\])).
In \[1\] it was proven that there indeed exists a domain, having *infinite* measure in phase space, of initial data $\underline {\zeta } (0)$, $\underline {\zeta'} (0)$ such that the corresponding solutions $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) are *holomorphic* in $\tau $ in the disk $C$ — and this fact implies the existence of an open domain, having as well *infinite* measure in phase space, of corresponding initial data $\underline {z} (0)$, $\underline {\dot
{z}} (0)$ such that the corresponding solutions $\underline {z}
(t)$ of (\[eq4\]) are *completely periodic* with period $T$, $\underline {z} (t + T) = \underline {z} (t)$. In the following Section 3 we show that the singularities of the solutions $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) — considered as functions of the complex variable $\tau $ — are *branch points* of *square-root* type, and in Section 4 we infer from this that, whenever the solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) has a *finite* number of such branch points *inside* the circle $\tilde {C}$ — generally nested inside each other, namely occurring on different Riemann sheets — then the corresponding solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]), considered as a function of the *real* “time” variable $t$, is again *completely periodic*, albeit now with a period which is an *integer multiple* of $T$. We also infer that when instead the solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) has an *infinite* number of such *square-root* branch points *inside* the circle $\tilde {C}$ — again, generally nested inside each other, namely occurring on different Riemann sheets — then the corresponding solution $\underline {z}
(t)$ of (\[eq4\]), considered again as a function of the *real* “time” variable $t$, may be *not periodic* at all indeed it generally behaves *chaotically* (actually, strictly speaking, the *chaotic character* is not a property of a single solution, it rather has to do with the *difference* among the long-time** behavior of a solution and those of *other* solutions which emerge from *almost identical* initial data — see below).
Finally let us report a remarkable property of the system of ODEs (\[eq4\]). First of all we recall a trivial result, namely that the center of mass of the system (\[eq4\]),
$$\label{eq14}
\bar {z}(t) = N^{- 1}\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{N} z_{n} (t),$$
rotates uniformly with period $T$, see (\[eq6\]), since clearly these equations of motion, (\[eq4\]), entail $$\label{eq15}
\ddot {\bar {z}} + \omega ^{2}\bar {z} = 0,$$ hence $$\label{eq16}
\bar {z}(t) = \bar {z}(0)\cos(\omega t) + \dot {\bar {z}}(0)
(\omega)^{- 1}\sin(\omega t).$$
A less trivial result is that the sum of the squares of the particle coordinates,
$$\label{eq17}
\bar {z}^{(2)}(t) = N^{- 1}\sum\limits_{n =
1}^{N} [ z_{n} (t)]^{2},$$
evolves as well periodically, with period $T/2$. Indeed, as shown below, the equations of motion (\[eq4\]) entail $$\label{eq18}
\ddot {\bar {z}}^{(2)} + (2\omega)^{2}\bar
{z}^{(2)} = (4/N)H,$$ where the Hamiltonian $H$, see (\[eq5\]), is of course a constant of motion. Hence $$\label{eq19}
\bar {z}^{(2)}(t) = a\exp(2i\omega t)+b+c\exp(-2 i\omega t),$$
where the three constants $a$, $b$, $c$ are of course related to the initial data as follows:
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq20}
\bar {z}(0) = a + b + c = N^{ - 1}\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{N}
[z_{n} (0)]^{2},\\
\label{eq21}
\dot {\bar {z}}(0) = 2i\omega (a - b) =
(2/N)\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{N} \dot {z}_{n} (0) z_{n} (0),\\
\label{eq22}
\ddot {\bar {z}}^{(2)} (0) = - (2\omega)^{2}(a + b) = - (2\omega)^{2}
\bar {z}^{(2)}(0) + (4/N)H.\end{gathered}$$
There remains to prove that the equations of motion (\[eq4\]) entail (\[eq18\]). Indeed by differentiating twice the definition (\[eq17\]) one gets
$$\label{eq23}
\ddot {\bar {z}}^{(2)} = \frac{2}{N}\sum\limits_{n =
1}^{N} \left( \dot {z}_{n}^{2} + z_{n} \ddot {z}_{n} \right),$$
and by using the equations of motion (\[eq4\]) this yields $$\label{eq24}
\ddot {\bar {z}}^{(2)} = \frac{2}{N}\left[
\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{N} \left( \dot {z}_{n}^{2} - \omega
^{2}z_{n}^{2} \right) + \sum\limits_{n,m = 1;\; m \ne n}^{N} g_{nm}
z_{n} (z_{n} - z_{m})^{- 3}\right].$$ Hence (using again the definition (\[eq17\]), and the symmetry of the coupling constants, see (\[eq3\])) $$\label{eq25}
\ddot {\bar {z}}^{(2)} + 4\omega ^{2}\bar {z}^{(2)}
= \frac{2}{N}\left[\sum\limits_{n = 1}^{N}
\left(\dot {z}_{n}^{2} + \omega ^{2}z_{n}^{2} \right) + \frac 12
\sum\limits_{n,m = 1;\; m \ne n}^{N} g_{nm} (z_{n} - z_{m})^{- 2} \right],$$
and using again (\[eq3\]), as well as the Hamiltonian equations $\dot {z}_{n} =
p_{n} $ entailed by (\[eq5\]), it is immediately seen, via (\[eq5\]), that the right-hand side of (\[eq25\]) coincides with the right-hand side of (\[eq18\]). But the left-hand sides obviously coincide as well, so the result is proven. (We provided here a proof of this result for completeness, although of course this result can as well be directly inferred via the trick from the analogous finding recently proved for the system (2.5) \[7\]).
The analytic structure of the solutions of (\[eq11\])
=====================================================
In this section we discuss the analytic structure of the solutions $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of the system of ODEs (\[eq11\]), considered as functions of the complex variable $\tau $, and in particular we show that the singularities of these functions are branch points of *square-root* type (see below).
These singularities are of course associated with values of the dependent variables $\zeta _{n} $ that cause the right-hand side of (\[eq11\]) to diverge, namely they are associated with “collisions” of two or more of the coordinates $\zeta _{n} $. (By definition the “collision” of two or more coordinates occurs when their values coincide; but we use inverted commas to underline that, since we are considering *complex* values of the independent variable $\tau $, such “collisions” need not correspond to actual collisions of the “particles” the motion of which as the *real* “time” variable $t$ unfolds is described by the “physical” equations of motions (\[eq1\]) or (\[eq4\]) — we shall return to this point below). Clearly the generic case corresponds to *two-body* collisions, occurring at some value $\tau = \tau _{b} $ such that, say,
$$\label{eq26}
\zeta _{1} (\tau _{b}) = \zeta _{2} (\tau _{b}).$$
Here and below, without loss of generality, when discussing two-body collisions, we focus on the two particles carrying the labels $1$ and $2$. Note that it is natural to expect that this equation, (\[eq26\]), have one or more (possibly an infinity) of solutions $\tau _{b} $ in the complex $\tau $-plane for any *generic* solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of the ODEs (\[eq11\]); while the equations characterizing a multiple collision, say $$\label{eq27}
\zeta _{1} (\tau _{b}) = \zeta _{2} (\tau _{b}) = \zeta _{3} (\tau _{b}) =\cdots = \zeta _{M}
(\tau _{b}),$$
with $2 < M < N$ have generally no solution at all (for a *generic* solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of the ODEs (\[eq11\]); there exist of course *special* solutions of the ODEs (\[eq11\]) which feature such multiple collisions, and we discuss them below to demonstrate that they as well feature branch points of *square-root* type; we moreover believe, due to the scaling character of the equations of motion (\[eq11\]), that *completely multiple* collisions characterized by $M = N$ are, as well as *two-body* collisions, featured by any *generic* solution of (\[eq11\]) — as suggested by the analysis of the three-body case, see Appendix B).
To demonstrate that the singularity of the solution $\underline {\zeta}
(\tau)$ of the ODEs (\[eq11\]) associated with the collision (\[eq26\]) is a branch point of *square-root* type we introduce the following *ansatz*, valid in the neighborhood of $\tau = \tau _{b} $:
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq28}
\zeta_{1}(\tau) = b + \beta (\tau-\tau_{b})^{1/2}
+ v(\tau-\tau_{b})+a(\tau-\tau_{b})^{3/2}
+ \sum_{l = 4}^{\infty} \alpha_{l}^{(1)} (\tau-\tau_{b})^{l/2},
\\
\label{eq29}
\zeta _{2}(\tau) = b - \beta (\tau-\tau_{b})^{1/2}
+ v(\tau-\tau_{b})-a(\tau-\tau_{b})^{3/2}
+ \sum_{l = 4}^{\infty}\alpha_{l}^{(2)}(\tau-\tau_{b})^{l/2},
\\
\label{eq30}
\zeta_{n}(\tau) = b_{n} + v_{n}(\tau-\tau_{b})
+ \sum_{l = 4}^{\infty} \alpha_{l}^{(n)} (\tau-\tau_{b})^{l/2},\qquad n =
3,4,\ldots,N.\end{gathered}$$
The fact that this *ansatz* is consistent with the two-body-collision condition (\[eq26\]) is plain. It can moreover be shown (see Appendix A) that this *ansatz*, (3.2), is compatible with the ODEs (\[eq11\]), and moreover that, while the coefficients $\beta $ and $\alpha _{l}^{(n)}
$ featured by it are uniquely determined by the requirement that (3.2) satisfy (\[eq11\]), the remaining coefficients, namely the $4$ constants $b$, $v$, $a$ and $\tau _{b} $, see (\[eq28\]), (\[eq29\]), and the $2(N - 2)$ constants $b_{n}$, $v_{n} $, see (\[eq30\]), are *arbitrary* (except for the obvious requirements $b_{n} \ne b$, $b_{n} \ne b_{m} $) — and since altogether the number of these *arbitrary* constants is $2N$, we infer that this *ansatz*, (3.2), is adequate to represent in the neighborhood of $\tau=\tau_{b}$ the *general solution* of the system of $N$ *second-order* ODEs (\[eq11\]).
We therefore conclude that the singularities associated with the generic solution of (\[eq4\]) are branch points of *square-root* type, since clearly this is the singularity exhibited by the right-hand sides of (3.2) — on the assumption that the infinite series they feature do indeed converge in a sufficiently small neighborhood of $\tau = \tau _{b} $.
It is easily seen that this same conclusion obtains if consideration is extended to include *multiple* collisions, see (\[eq27\]). Indeed the corresponding *ansatz* reads, in analogy to (3.2),
$$\begin{gathered}
\zeta _{n} (\tau) = b + \beta _{n} (\tau - \tau_{b})^{1/2} + v(\tau - \tau _{b})\nonumber\\
\phantom{\zeta _{n} (\tau) =}{} + a_{n}
(\tau - \tau _{b})^{3/2} + \sum\limits_{l = 4}^{\infty}
\alpha _{l}^{(n)} (\tau - \tau _{b})^{l/2},
\qquad n = 1,2,\ldots,M,\label{eq31}
\\
\label{eq32}
\zeta _{n} (\tau) = b_{n} + v_{n} (\tau - \tau _{b} )
+ \sum\limits_{l = 4}^{\infty} \alpha _{l}^{(n)}
(\tau - \tau _{b})^{l/2},\qquad n = M + 1,M
+ 2,\ldots,N.\end{gathered}$$
The consistency of this *ansatz* with the ODEs (\[eq11\]) is also demonstrated in Appendix A; but note that, as shown there, only the $3$ constants $b$, $v$, $\tau _{b} $ appearing in the right-hand side of (\[eq31\]), and a common rescaling factor, say $a$, of the $M$ coefficients $a_{n}$, as well as the constants $b_{n}$, $v_{n} $ appearing in the right-hand side of (\[eq32\]), are now *arbitrary*; so, the *ansatz* (3.3) features altogether $4+2(N-M)=2N-2(M-2)$ arbitrary constants. Hence for $M > 2$ this *ansatz* does *not* feature the full complement of $2N$ arbitrary constants required in order that (3.3) represent, for $\tau \approx \tau _{b} $, the *general solution* of (\[eq11\]) — as indeed we expected (since we do *not* expect the *generic* solution of (\[eq11\]) to feature *multiple* collisions, at least with $2 < M < N$).
Let us end this section by reporting the *similarity solution* of (\[eq11\]) that indeed features an *$N$-body collision*. It reads, as can be easily verified,
$$\label{eq33}
\zeta _{n} (\tau) = b + \beta _{n} (\tau - \tau _{b})^{1/2} + v(\tau - \tau _{b}),$$
with the $3$ constants $b$, $v$ and $\tau _{b} $ arbitrary, while the $N$ constants $\beta _{n} $ are instead determined by the $N$ algebraic equations $$\label{eq34}
\beta _{n} = - 4\sum\limits_{m = 1,\; m \ne n}^{N} g_{nm} (\beta
_{n} - \beta _{m})^{ - 3}.$$
As it is well known (see for instance \[2\]), in the *integrable* equal-coupling-constants case,
$$\label{eq35}
g_{nm} = g,$$
the solution of (\[eq34\]) is $$\label{eq36}
\beta _{n} = ( - 2g)^{1/4}\xi _{n},$$ where the $N$ real numbers $\xi _{n} $ are the $N$ zeros of the Hermite polynomial $H_{N} (\xi)$ of degree $N$, $$\label{eq37}
H_{N} (\xi _{n}) = 0.$$
Note that the formula (\[eq36\]) defines in fact $4$ different sets of coefficients $\beta_{n}$, due to the $4$ possible determinations of the fourth root appearing in the right-hand side of this equation.
Finally let us emphasize that these findings entail that, even in the *integrable* equal-coupling-constants case, see (\[eq35\]), the solutions of the ODEs (\[eq11\]) do *not* possess the so-called Painlevé property, namely they are *not* free of *movable* branch points, indeed their branch points (of *square-root* type, see for instance the special solution (\[eq33\])) occur at values $\tau = \tau _{b} $ of the independent variable $\tau $ which are not *a priori* predictable, but rather depend, in the context of the initial-value problem, on the initial data. But in the *integrable* case the number of these branch points is always finite: they are indeed determined by the requirement that the monic polynomial of degree $N$ in the variable, say, $\zeta $, the $N$ zeros of which are the $N$ coordinates $\zeta _{n} (\tau)$ (and the coefficients of which are themselves polynomials of degree $N$ in $\tau $), have a *double zero* (see for instance \[2\]).
Periodicity of the solutions of the system of ODEs (\[eq4\]):\
theoretical considerations
==============================================================
In this section we analyze the implications of the findings of the previous Section 3 as regards the periodicity of the solutions of the ODEs (\[eq4\]).
We know of course that, if a solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) is holomorphic as a function of the complex variable $\tau $ *inside* the circle $\tilde {C}$ (see Section 2) — and we know that such solutions do exist, in fact in the context of the initial-value problem they emerge out of a set of initial data which has *infinite* measure in the phase space of such data \[1\] — then the solution $\underline {z}
(t)$ of (\[eq4\]) that corresponds to it via (2.4) is *completely periodic* with period $T$, see (\[eq6\]),
$$\label{eq38}
z_{n} (t + T) = z_{n} (t).$$
But the transformation (2.4) actually implies, as already noted in Section 2, an additional information, namely that in this case $\underline {z}
(t)$ is *completely antiperiodic* with period $T/2$, $$\label{eq39}
z_{n} (t + T/2) = - z_{n} (t).$$
Note that (\[eq39\]) implies (\[eq38\]), while of course (\[eq38\]) does not imply (\[eq39\]).
Let us instead assume that a branch point of a solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]), occurring, say, at $\tau = \tau _{b} $, does fall *inside* the circle $\tilde
{C}$ in the complex $\tau $-plane (see Section 2). Then, due to the *square-root* nature of this branch point, see (3.2), the evolution of the solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) as the *real* time variable $t$ unfolds is obtained by following the *complex* time-like variable $\tau $ as it travels (2.4) along the circular contour $\tilde
{C}$ on a *two-sheeted* Riemann surface. Clearly the change of variable (\[eq9\]), (\[eq10\]) entails then that the corresponding solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) is just as well *completely periodic* with period $T$, see (\[eq38\]), although in this case (\[eq39\]) does no more hold. And of course this conclusion holds provided *only one* branch point of the solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) falls inside the circle $\tilde {C}$ in the main sheet of the Riemann surface associated with this solution, and *no other* branch point occurs inside the circle $\tilde
{C}$ in the second sheet of this Riemann surface, namely on the sheet entered through the cut associated with the branch point occurring inside $\tilde {C}$ on the main sheet of the Riemann surface (of course this Riemann surface might feature many other sheets associated with other branch points occurring elsewhere hence not relevant to our present discussion).
Let us now continue this analysis by considering, more generally, a solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) that possibly contains more than one branch point inside the circle $\tilde {C}$ in the main sheet of its Riemann surface (that do not cancel each other) so that by traveling along the circle $\tilde {C}$ *several* additional Riemann sheets are accessed from the main sheet, and let us moreover assume that, on these additional sheets, *additional* branch points possibly occur inside the circle $\tilde
{C}$ which give access to other sheets, and that possibly on these other sheets there be *additional* branch points and so on. Let in conclusion $B$ be the *total number* of *additional* sheets accessed by a point traveling around and around on the circle $\tilde {C}$ on the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline {\zeta}
(\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]). This number $B$ might coincide with the total number of branch points occurring, inside the circle $\tilde {C}$, on this Riemann surface — on all its sheets — or it might be smaller. Indeed, since each of these branch points is of *square-root* type, each of the associated cuts — if entered into — gives access to *one additional* sheet. But not all these sheets need be accessed; the total number $B$ that are actually accessed depends on the structure of the Riemann surface, for instance no *additional* sheet at all is accessed if there is no branch point on the *main* sheet of the Riemann surface — even though other branch points may be present inside the circle $\tilde {C}$ on other sheets of the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]). (It might also be possible that different branch points cancel each other pairwise as is the case for two branch points that are on the same sheet inside the circle $\tilde {C}$ and generate a cut that starts at one of them and ends at the other). In any case the overall time requested for the point $\tau
(t)$ traveling on the Riemann surface to return to its point of departure (say, $\tau (0) = 0$ on the *main* sheet) is $(B + 1)T/2$, since a half-period $T/2$, see (\[eq10\]), is required to complete a tour around the circle $\tilde {C}$ on each sheet, and the number of sheets to be traveled before getting back to the point of departure is overall $B + 1$ (including the *main* sheet). Hence in this case, as the real time $t$ evolves, the solution $\underline {\zeta}
(\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) will be *completely periodic* with period $(B + 1)T/2$. Hence (see (2.4)) if $B$ is *even* the corresponding solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) will be *completely antiperiodic* with the same period $(B + 1)T/2$, $\underline {z} [t + (B + 1)T/2 ] = - \underline {z} (t)$, and *completely periodic* with the “odd” period $(B + 1)T$, $\underline {z} [t + (B + 1)T] =
\underline {z} (t)$. If instead $B$ is *odd*, the solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) as well as the corresponding solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) will both be *completely periodic* in $t$ with the period $(B + 1)T/2$ (which might be “even” or “odd” — of course, as an integer multiple of the basic period $T$), $\underline {z} [t +
(B + 1)T/2] = \underline {z} (t)$ (so, in this case, the trajectories of $\underline {z} (t)$ will display no symmetry, in contrast to the previous case).
In this analysis the assumption was implicitly understood that the total number $B$ of *additional* sheets accessed by traveling around and around on the circle $\tilde {C}$ on the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) be *finite* (a number $B$ which, as we just explained, might coincide with, or be smaller than, the total number of branch points of that Riemann surface that are located *inside* the circle $\tilde {C}$ in the complex $\tau $-plane); and moreover we implicitly assumed that no branch point occur exactly on the circle $\tilde {C}$. Let us now elaborate on these two points.
If a branch point $\tau _{b} $ occurs exactly on the circle $\tilde {C}$, then the “physical” equations of motion (\[eq4\]) become singular, due to a particle collision occurring at the *real* time $t_{c} $ defined $\mbox{mod}\left( {T/2} \right)$ (see (\[eq6\])) by the formula $$\label{eq40}
\tau _{b} = [\exp(2i\omega t_{c}) - 1]/(2i\omega).$$ Indeed it is easy to check via (2.4) that the condition that $t_{c} $ be *real* coincides with the requirement that the corresponding value of $\tau _{b} $, as given by (\[eq40\]), fall just on the circular contour $\tilde {C}$ in the complex $\tau $-plane. The singularity is of course due to the divergence, at the collision time $t = t_{c} $, of the right-hand side of the equations of motion (\[eq4\]); there is however no corresponding divergence of the solution $\underline {z} (t)$, which rather has a branch point of *square root* type at $t = t_{c} $, see (3.2). But of course this entails that the speeds of the colliding particles diverge at the collision time $t=t_{c}$ proportionally to $|t-t_{c}|^{-1/2}$, and their accelerations diverge proportionally to $|t-t_{c}|^{-3/2}$.
There is no *a priori* guarantee that the number of branch points inside $\tilde {C}$ of a solution $\underline {\zeta}
(\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) be *finite*, nor that the number $B$ of *additional* sheets accessed according to the mechanism described above by moving around the circle $\tilde {C}$ on the Riemann surface associated with that solution $\underline
{\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) be *finite* (of course $B$ might be *infinite* only if the number of branch points inside $\tilde {C}$ is itself *infinite*). Obviously in such a case $(B=\infty)$, although the complex number $\tau \equiv
\tau (t)$, see (\[eq10\]), considered as a function of the *real* “time” variable $t$, is still periodic with period $T/2$, neither the solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]), nor the corresponding solution $\underline {z}
(t)$ of (\[eq4\]), will be periodic. The question that might then be raised is whether such a solution — in particular, such a solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of the “physical” Newtonian equations of motion (\[eq1\]) corresponding to the many-body problem characterized by the Hamiltonian (1.2) — displays a “chaotic” behavior, namely, in the context of the initial-value problem, a “sensitive dependence” on the initial data. We shall return to this question below.
So far we have discussed the relation among the analytic structure of a solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) and the corresponding solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]). Let us now return to the simpler cases considered at the very beginning of this analysis and let us consider how the *transition* from one of the two regimes described there to the other occurs in the context of the initial-value problem for (\[eq4\]), and correspondingly for (\[eq11\]), see (2.6). Hence let us assume again that the initial data for (\[eq4\]), and correspondingly for (\[eq11\]) (see (2.6)), entail that no branch point of the corresponding solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) occurs *inside* the circular contour $\tilde {C}$ on the *main* sheet of the associated Riemann surface, so that the corresponding solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) satisfies both (\[eq38\]) and (\[eq39\]). Let us imagine then to modify with continuity the initial data, for instance by letting them depend on an appropriate scaling parameter (a particular way to do so will be introduced in the following Section 5, as a convenient technique to present numerical results). As a consequence the branch points of the solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) move, and the Riemann surface associated to this solution $\underline
{\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) gets accordingly modified. We are interested in a movement of the branch points which takes the closest one of them on the *main* sheet of the Riemann surface from outside to inside the circle $\tilde {C}$. In the process that branch point will cross the circle $\tilde {C}$, and the particular set of initial data that correspond to this happening is then just a set of initial data that entails the occurrence of a collision in the time evolution of the many-body problem (\[eq4\]), occurring at a *real* time $t = t_{c}
$ defined by (\[eq40\]), as discussed above. After the branch point has crossed the contour $\tilde {C}$ and has thereby entered inside the circular disk $C$, the corresponding solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) is again collision-free but its periodicity properties are changed. One might expect that the new solution continue then to satisfy (\[eq38\]) but cease to satisfy (\[eq39\]). This is indeed a possibility, but it is not the only one. Indeed, since the time evolution of the solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) obtains via (2.4) by following the time evolution of the corresponding solution $\underline
{\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) as the point $\tau \equiv \tau
(t)$ goes round the circle $\tilde {C}$ on the Riemann surface associated with that solution, the occurrence of a branch point *inside* the circle $\tilde {C}$ on the *main* sheet of that Riemann surface entails that the access is now open to a second sheet, and then possibly to other sheets if, on that second sheet, there also are branch points inside the circle $\tilde
{C}$. If this latter possibility does not occur, namely if on that second sheet there are no branch points inside the circle $\tilde
{C}$, then indeed there occurs for the corresponding solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) a transition from a periodicity property characterized by the validity of both (\[eq38\]) and (\[eq39\]), to one characterized by the validity of (\[eq38\]) but not of (\[eq39\]). If instead there is a least one branch point in the second sheet inside the circle $\tilde {C}$, then the periodicity — if any — featured after the transition by the solution $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) depends, as discussed above, on the number $B$ of sheets that are sequentially accessed before returning — if ever — to the *main* sheet.
To simplify our presentation we have discussion above the *transition* process by taking as point of departure for the analysis the *basic periodic solution* — that characterized by the validity of both (\[eq38\]) and (\[eq39\]), the existence of which has been demonstrated in \[1\] — and by discussing how a continuous modification of the initial data may cause a transition to a different regime of periodicity, with the transition occurring in correspondence to the special set of initial data that yields a solution characterized by a particle collision, namely a set of initial data for which the Newtonian equations of motion become singular at a finite *real* time $t_{c}$ (defined $\mbox{mod}(T/2)$). But it is clear that exactly the same mechanism accounts for every transition that occurs from a solution $\underline {z}(t)$ of (\[eq4\]) characterized by a type of periodicity to a solution $\underline
{z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) characterized by a different periodicity regime — or by a lack of periodicity.
The final point to be discussed is the question we postponed above, namely the character of the *nonperiodic* solutions $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) (if any), which we now understand to be characterized, in the context of the mechanism described above, by access to an endless sequence of different sheets — all of them generated by branch points of *square-root* type — of the Riemann surface associated with the corresponding solution $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]). The following two possibilities can be imagined in this connection — which of course does not entail they are indeed both realized.
The first possibility — which we surmise to be the most likely one to be actually realized — is that an *infinity* of such relevant branch points occur quite closely to the circular contour $\tilde {C}$, hence that there be some of them that occur arbitrarily close to $\tilde {C}$. This then entails that the corresponding *nonperiodic* solutions $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) manifest a *sensitive dependence* on their initial data (which we consider to be the signature of a *chaotic* behavior). Indeed a modification, however small, of such initial data entails a modification of the pattern of such branch points, which shall cause some of them to cross over from one to the other side of the circular contour $\tilde
{C}$. But then the two solutions $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) corresponding to these two assignments of initial data — before and after the modification, however close these data are to each other — will eventually evolve *quite differently*, since their time evolutions are determined by access to two *different* sequences of sheets of the Riemann surfaces associated with the two corresponding solutions $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) — two Riemann surfaces which themselves need not be very different (to the extent one can make such statements when comparing two objects having as complicated a structure as a Riemann surface with an *infinite* number of sheets produced by an *infinite* number of branch points of *square-root* type). So this is the mechanism whereby a *chaotic* behavior may develop for the system (\[eq1\]) — but of course not in the *integrable* case with equal coupling constants (in that case, as mentioned above, the number of branch points of the solutions $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) is always *finite*, since the $N$ coordinates $\zeta _{n}
(\tau)$ are in this case the $N$ zeros of a polynomial of degree $N$ the coefficients of which are polynomials in the variable $\tau $ \[2\]). Note that the emergence of such a chaotic behavior would not be associated with a local exponential divergence of trajectories in phase space — it would be rather analogous to the mechanism that causes a chaotic behavior in the case of, say, a triangular billiard with angles which are irrational fractions of $\pi$ — a chaotic behavior also not due to a local separation of trajectories in phase space, but rather to the eventual emergence of a different pattern of reflections (indeed of any two such billiard trajectories, however close their initial data, one shall eventually miss a reflection near a corner which the other one does take, and from that moment their time evolutions become quite different).
A different possibility, which we consider unlikely but we cannot *a priori* exclude at this stage of our analysis, is that *nonperiodic* solutions $\underline {z}(t)$ of (\[eq4\]) exist which are associated with a Riemann surface of the corresponding solutions $\underline
{\zeta} (\tau)$ of (\[eq11\]) that, even though it possesses an *infinite* number of relevant branch points inside the circular contour $\tilde {C}$, it features all of them — or at least most of them, except possibly for a *finite* number of them — located in a region well inside $\tilde {C}$, namely separated from it by an annulus of *finite* thickness. Clearly in such a case two *nonperiodic* solutions $\underline {z} (t)$ of (\[eq4\]) which emerge from sufficiently close initial data separate slowly and gradually throughout their time evolution, hence they do *not* display a *sensitive dependence* on their initial data — hence, in such a case there would be solutions which are *nonperiodic* (nor, of course, multiply periodic) but which nevertheless do not display a *chaotic* behavior — or, to be more precise, there would be sets of initial data, having nonvanishing measure in the phase space of initial data, which yield such *nonperiodic* (yet *nonchaotic*) solutions.
As indicated by its title, this paper is mainly focussed on the *periodic* solutions. In the following Section 5 the analysis of their phenomenology given in this section is complemented by the display of numerical simulations. We shall also exhibit solutions which appear *nonperiodic* and perhaps *chaotic*, although such characteristics can of course never be demonstrated with complete cogency via numerical examples.
Periodicity of the solutions of the system of ODEs (\[eq4\]): numerical simulations
===================================================================================
In this section we display several numerical solutions of the Newtonian equations of motion (\[eq4\]) with
$$\label{eq41}
\omega = 2\pi$$
hence (see (\[eq6\])) $$\label{eq42}
T = 1.$$
These results confirm graphically the findings discussed in the preceding Section 4. The strategy of our presentation is to exhibit a sequence of numerically-computed solutions of (\[eq4\]) with (\[eq41\]) corresponding to different choices of initial data, for various models characterized by an assignment of the number $N$ of particles and of the values of the coupling constants $g_{nm}$ (that are always assumed to satisfy the symmetry property (\[eq3\]), $g_{nm}=g_{mn}$). For obvious reasons of simplicity, see below, we restrict consideration to $N=3$ and $N=4$. For each model we consider sequences of motions characterized by sets of initial data linked to each other by the formulas
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq43}
x_{n} (0) = \lambda ^{- 1} x_{n}^{(0)},
\qquad y_{n} (0) = \lambda ^{ - 1}y_{n}^{(0)},\\
\label{eq44}
\dot {x}_{n} (0) = \lambda \dot {x}_{n}^{(0)} - 2\pi (\lambda - \lambda ^{- 1})
y_{n}^{(0)} ,\qquad
\dot {y}_{n} (0) = \lambda \dot {y}_{n}^{(0)} + 2\pi (\lambda - \lambda ^{ - 1})
x_{n}^{(0)},\end{gathered}$$
of course with $z_{n} \equiv x_{n} + i y_{n} $. Here $\lambda $ is a *positive* rescaling parameter the different values of which identify different sets of initial data (while the data $x_{n}^{(0)}$, $y_{n}^{(0)}$, $\dot {x}_{n}^{(0)}$, $\dot {y}_{n}^{(0)}$ are kept fixed). The motivation for such a choice is that, as it can be easily verified by rescaling appropriately the dependent and independent variables (see (2.3) and (2.6) with (\[eq41\])), these sets of initial data (5.2) identify different solutions $\underline {z} (t)$ of the system of ODEs (\[eq4\]) with (\[eq41\]) that correspond to different solutions $\underline {\zeta} (\tau)$ of the system of ODEs (\[eq11\]) related to each other by the following change of initial data, $$\label{eq52c}
\underline{\zeta}(0)=\lambda^{-1}\underline{\zeta}^{(0)},
\qquad \underline{\zeta}'(0)=\lambda\underline{\zeta}'{}^{(0)}.$$
This, as can be easily verified, entails these solutions $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ are related to each other merely via a rescaling of dependent and independent variables by a constant factor. Hence all these solutions are associated to the *same* Riemann surface except for a shrinking of the complex $\tau $-plane by a common factor — which, as can be readily verified, is just $\lambda ^{2}$. Therefore, in the context of the discussion of the preceding Section 4, to analyze the motions yielded by the initial data (5.2) one can just imagine to multiply the diameter of the circle $\tilde {C}$ by the factor $\lambda ^{2}$ without modifying the Riemann surface — so that larger values of $\lambda $ entail that more branch points fall within $\tilde {C}$.
So for small enough values of $\lambda$ — namely for initial conditions characterized by large particle coordinates hence by large interparticle separation and by large initial velocities almost “orthogonal” to the initial positions (see (5.2a,b)) — the circle $\tilde{C}$ shrinks to a small enough radius so that it contains no branch points, hence the corresponding motion (solution of (\[eq4\]) with (5.2a,b)) is *completely periodic* with period $T=1$, see (\[eq38\]) and (5.1b), and moreover it features the symmetry property (\[eq39\]). As $\lambda$ gets increased one goes through the scenarios described in Section 4 — since, as we concluded above, such an increase can be interpreted as amounting merely to an increase of the radius of the circle $\tilde{C}$, causing thereby more and more branch points to be enclosed by it. For very large $\lambda$ this process can cause *all* branch points to be enclosed *inside* $\tilde{C}$, a situation which is of course equivalent, as regards the periodicity of the solutions of (\[eq1\]) as functions of the *real* time variable $t$, to all of them being *outside* — hence the expectation, that for very large $\lambda$ the motion be again *completely periodic* with period $T=1$ and also symmetrical, see (\[eq38\]), (\[eq39\]) (but this need not necessarily happen, since the possibility that the solution $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ possesses branch points at infinity cannot be excluded). This expectation is indeed confirmed by some of the examples reported below, while in other cases for very large $\lambda$ the numerical simulations become too difficult to be performed reliably, and the corresponding trajectories become unsuitable for transparent display — note that for very large $\lambda$ the particles are initially all very close to the origin (hence to each other) and with large initial velocities, see (5.2a,b).
But in this paper we do not elaborate on the numerical aspects, except to reassure the skeptic reader that we made sure in each case of the reliability of the results presented below; we refer for more details to \[6\]. Let us however note that, while one might think that a useful check of the accuracy of the computation is provided by a verification that the numerically evaluated coordinates $z_{n}(t)$ indeed imply that the collective coordinates $\bar {z}(t)$ respectively $\bar {z}^{(2)} (t)$, see (\[eq14\]) respectively (\[eq17\]), evolve periodically with periods $T=1$ respectively $T/2=1/2$ according to (\[eq16\]) respectively (\[eq19\]), these tests are in fact not at all cogent: indeed, even poorly evaluated coordinates $z_{n} (t)$ tend to yield collective coordinates $\bar {z}(t)$ and $\bar
{z}^{(2)} (t)$ that evolve properly. This happens because the equations of motion that determine the evolution of the collective coordinates $\bar {z}(t)$ and $\bar {z}^{(2)}
(t)$ are in fact so simple (see (2.7) and (2.8)), that numerical errors made in the integration of (\[eq4\]) tend to cancel out when $\bar {z}(t)$ and $\bar {z}^{(2)}(t)$ are evaluated.
Let us also note that, in all the examples considered below, we assigned for simplicity real integer values to the coupling constants; but we did check in every case that the qualitative character of the motions does not change if these coupling constants are replaced by (neighboring) values which are neither entire nor real.
The first example we consider is characterized by the following parameters:
$$\label{eq46}
N=3; \qquad g_{12}=g_{21}=1,\qquad g_{23}=g_{32}=10, \qquad g_{31}=g_{13}=-2,$$
and by the following values of the parameters $x_{n}^{(0)}$, $y_{n}^{(0)}$, $\dot{x}_{n}^{(0)}$, $\dot{y}_{n}^{(0)}$ characterizing the initial data via (5.2): $$\begin{gathered}
x_{1}^{(0)}=1, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad \dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad
\dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=-1, \nonumber\\
x_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=1, \qquad \dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=-2, \qquad
\dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=0, \nonumber\\
x_{1}^{(0)}=0.5,\qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=0.5, \qquad
\dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=-1, \qquad \dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=0.
\label{eq47}\end{gathered}$$
The following Table 5.1 provides an overview of the main features (periodicity, symmetry) of the motions that emerge from initial data determined by (5.2) with (\[eq43\]), as well as an indication of the figures (if any) where the corresponding trajectories are displayed. Here and always below the trajectories of particle $1$, $2$ respectively $3$ are shown in red, green, respectively blue (and below, those of particle $4$ in yellow). Whenever we felt such an additional indication might be usefully displayed we indicated with a black diamond the *initial* position of each particle (at $t=0$), with a black dot the position at a subsequent time $t=t_{1}$ (generally chosen to coincide with some fraction of the period, $t_{1}=T/p$, with $p$ a conveniently chosen *positive integer*), and with smaller black dots the position at every subsequent integer multiple of $t_{1}$ (namely at $t=t_{k}=k t_{1}$, $k=2,3,\ldots$); in this manner the direction of the motion along the trajectories can be inferred (from the relative positions along the trajectories of the diamond and the larger dot), as well as some indication of the positions of the particles over time, as they move (by counting the dots along the trajectory). Of course a much more satisfactory visualization of the motions is provided by simulations in which the particle motions are displayed as they unfold over time (as in a movie); it is planned to make available soon, via the web, the numerical code suitable to perform such simulations on personal computers \[6\]. Let us emphasize that such simulations are particularly stunning to watch in the case of high-period trajectories, which are very complicated (see below), so that the fact that the particles return eventually *exactly* on their tracks appears quite miraculous and is indeed a remarkable proof of the reliability of the numerical computation.
Table 5.1
$\lambda$ 0.5 0.712 0.81 0.85 0.9 0.97 0.974 0.975 0.98 0.99
----------- ----- ------- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------- ------- ------ ------
Period 1 1 1 1 1 HSL 15 15 13 11
Symmetry Yes Yes No No No — No No No No
Fig. 5.1 a b c — d — e — — f
$\lambda$ 1 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.1 1.2 2 5
----------- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- ---- -----
Period 9 9 7 5 5 3 1 1 1 1
Symmetry No No No No No No No No No Yes
Fig. 5.1 g — h i — j — k — m
Now some comments on these results (see Table 5.1 and the set of Figs. 5.1). For $\lambda \leq 0.712$ there clearly are no singularities inside $\tilde{C}$, hence the motion is periodic with the basic period $T=1$, and moreover antiperiodic with period $T=1/2$, so that all trajectories are symmetrical (see for instance Figs. 5.1a,b). A transition occurs at some value of $\lambda$ larger than $0.712$ but smaller than $0.81$, and it causes a branch point to enter inside $\tilde{C}$, opening the way to a second sheet (of the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ of (2.5) with (5.3)) and thereby causing the trajectories of the solution $\underline{z}(t)$ of (2.1) to loose their symmetry, while still preserving period $T=1$. This transition is due to a collision among particles $1$ (red) and $3$ (blue), occurring at a time of the order of, or maybe a bit less than, $(3/10)T=3/10$ (see Figs. 5.1b and 5.1c, where clearly $t_{1}=T/10=1/10$). Another, more dramatic, transition occurs for a value of $\lambda$ between $0.9$ and $0.97$, and it causes a major increase in the complication of the motion, perhaps a transition to chaos. This transition is of course due to the entrance inside $\tilde{C}$ of a branch point that opens the way — as the complex variable $\tau$ travels around and around on the circle $\tilde{C}$ — to a very large number of sheets of the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ of (2.5) with (5.3), possibly to an infinity of them, resulting in motions that look chaotic: this we indicate in Table 5.1 with the acronym HSL, which stands for “Hic Sunt Leones” — see the column with $\lambda=0.97$. This transition is due again to a collision between particles $1$ (red) and $3$ (blue), at a time of the order, or maybe a little less, than $(8/10)T=8/10$ (see Fig. 5.1d, where clearly again $t_{1}=T/10=1/10$). Further increases of $\lambda$ cause instead a *decrease* of the complication of the trajectories, characterized first of all by a return to periodic (if still very complicated, due to the large periods) motions, and subsequently by a progressive decrease of the period (see the relevant graphs, from Fig. 5.1e to Fig. 5.1m); this is of course interpreted as due to the fact that the access to additional sheets of the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ of (2.5) with (5.3) gets shut off because also the second branch point corresponding to the cut that opened the way to those sheets gets enclosed inside the circle $\tilde{C}$. Thus the trajectories shown in Fig. 5.1e (corresponding to $\lambda=0.974$; see Table 5.1) are interpreted, on the basis of the discussion of the preceding Section 4, as corresponding to access to $30$ sheets altogether of the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ of (2.5) with (5.3); likewise those shown in Fig. 5.1f (corresponding to $\lambda=0.99$; see Table 5.1) are interpreted as corresponding to access to $22$ sheets of the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ of (2.5) with (5.3); those shown in Fig. 5.1k (corresponding to $\lambda=1.2$; see Table 5.1) are interpreted as corresponding to access to $2$ sheets, and finally those shown in Fig. 5.1m (corresponding to $\lambda=5$; see Table 5.1) are interpreted as corresponding to access to just $1$ sheet, namely just the main one.
The second example we consider is characterized by the following parameters:
$$\label{eq48}
N=3 ;\qquad
g_{12}=g_{21}=10, \qquad g_{23}=g_{32}=3,\qquad g_{31}=g_{13}=-10,$$
and by the following values of the parameters $x_{n}^{(0)}$, $y_{n}^{(0)}$, $\dot{x}_{n}^{(0)}$, $\dot{y}_{n}^{(0)}$ characterizing the initial data via (5.2): $$\begin{gathered}
x_{1}^{(0)}=1, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad
\dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad \dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=2, \nonumber\\
x_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=1,\qquad
\dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=4 ,\qquad \dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=0, \nonumber\\
x_{1}^{(0)}=0.5, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=0.5, \qquad
\dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=-0.5, \qquad \dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=1.
\label{eq49}\end{gathered}$$
Table 5.2
$\lambda$ 0.5 1 1.2 1.5 2 2.2 2.5 3 3.5 4
----------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Period 1 1 HSL HSL 14 14 17 17 17 17
Symmetry Yes No — — No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fig. 5.2 a b — c d — — — e —
$\lambda$ 4.05 4.15 4.2 4.5 5 10 18 20 30 50
----------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Period 17 10 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Symmetry Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fig. 5.2 — f g — h — i — — —
Since the qualitative picture is analogous to that displayed above, we limit our presentation to the display of Table 5.2 and of the corresponding set of graphs (see Figs. 5.2), letting to the alert reader the fun to repeat the discussion as given above. We merely emphasize that, in contrast to the previous case, we see in this case also trajectories with an *even* period, as well as some high-period trajectories that are *symmetrical* (the alert reader will have no difficulty in identifying the number of sheets of the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ of (2.5) with (5.4), for each of the cases reported in Table 5.2). One is also led to suspect, from the data reported in the last columns of Table 5.2, that the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ of (2.5) with (5.4) possesses (at least) $7$ branch points at or near infinity (of course on different sheets, so that they do not cancel each other).
The third example we consider is a $4$-particle one, characterized by the following parameters:
$$\begin{gathered}
N=4; \qquad g_{12}=g_{21}=-3, \qquad g_{13}=g_{31}=9, \qquad
g_{14}=g_{41}=-12, \nonumber\\
g_{23}=g_{32}=-9 ,\qquad g_{24}=g_{42}=12, \qquad g_{34}=g_{43}=3 ,
\label{eq50}\end{gathered}$$
and by the following values of the parameters $x_{n}^{(0)}$, $y_{n}^{(0)}$, $\dot{x}_{n}^{(0)}$, $\dot{y}_{n}^{(0)}$ characterizing the initial data via (5.2): $$\begin{gathered}
x_{1}^{(0)}=-2.4, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=0 ,\qquad
\dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad \dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=1, \nonumber\\
x_{1}^{(0)}=2.4, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad \dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=-2,\qquad
\dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=-2, \nonumber\\
x_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=0.5, \qquad
\dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=-0.5, \qquad \dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=-2, \nonumber\\
x_{1}^{(0)}=0.5, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=0.5, \qquad \dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=-0.5, \qquad
\dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=1.
\label{eq51}\end{gathered}$$
{width="15cm"}
{width="15cm"}
{width="15cm"}
{width="15cm"}
{width="15cm"}
{width="15cm"}
A representative selection of our findings is reported in Table 5.3, and some of the corresponding trajectories are displayed in the Figures as indicated there.
Table 5.3
$\lambda$ 0.4 0.533 0.8 0.9 0.9687 0.98 0.985 0.99 1
----------- ----- ------- ----- ----- -------- ------ ------- ------ -----
Period 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 5 5
Symmetry Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes
Fig. 5.3 a b c — d e f — g
$\lambda$ 1.01 1.1 1.225 1.25 1.3 1.5 1.6 2 5 10
----------- ------ ----- ------- ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Period HSL HSL HSL 5 3 1 1 1 1 1
Symmetry — — — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fig. 5.3 — h — i j — k — m —
For $\lambda \leq 0.533$ we have no singularities inside $\tilde{C}$, hence the motion is periodic with the basic period $T=1$, and moreover antiperiodic with period $T=1/2$, so that all trajectories are symmetrical (see Figs. 5.3a,b). A transition occurs at some value of $\lambda$ between $0.533$ and $0.8$, due to a collision among particles $3$ (blue) and $4$ (yellow), occurring at a time of the order of, or maybe a bit less than, $(3/10)T=3/10$ (see Figs. 5.3b and 5.3c, where clearly $t_{1}=T/10=1/10$). Another transition occurs for a value of $\lambda$ greater than $0.9687$ but less than $0.98$, and it causes a branch point to enter inside $\tilde{C}$ at some value of $\lambda$ between $0.8$ and $0.9687$, opening thereby the way to a third sheet of the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ of (2.5) with (5.5). This second transition is due to a collision, in this case among particles $2$ (green) and $4$ (yellow), occurring at a time of the order, or maybe a little less, than $(8/10)T=8/10$ (see Fig. 5.1d, where clearly again $t_{1}=T/10=1/10$). Then two more transitions occur (see Fig. 5.3e,f,g) — one for $\lambda$ between $0.98$ and $0.985$, the other for $\lambda$ between $0.985$ and $0.99$ — each opening the way to one more sheet of the Riemann surface associated with the solution $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ of (2.5) with (5.5) (recall the discussion of Section 4: overall access to $P$ sheets including the main one, $P=1+B$ in the notation of Section 4, yields a *completely periodic symmetrical* motion with period $P$ if $P$ is *odd — with every sheet being visited twice in each period*; it yields a *completely periodic unsymmetrical* motion with period $P/2$ if $P$ is *even — with every sheet being visited once in each period*: hence for the trajectories shown in Figs. 5.3a,b $P=1$, for those shown in Figs. 5.3c,d $P=2$, for those shown in Fig. 5.3e $P=3$, for those shown in Fig. 5.3f $P=4$, for those shown in Fig. 5.3g $P=5$). A more dramatic transition occurs for a value of $\lambda$ between $1$ and $1.01$, and it causes a major increase in the complication of the motion, perhaps a transition to chaos (see Fig. 5.3h). Like in the first example, and of course due to the same mechanism as discussed above, further increases of $\lambda$ ($\lambda > 1.225$) cause instead a *decrease* of the complication of the trajectories, characterized first of all by a return to periodic motions, and subsequently by a progressive decrease of the period (see Figs. 5.3i–m).
The fourth and last example we report is characterized by the following parameters:
$$\begin{gathered}
N=4 ; \qquad g_{12}=g_{21}=5, \qquad g_{13}=g_{31}=10, \qquad
g_{14}=g_{41}=20, \nonumber\\
g_{23}=g_{32}=-20, \qquad g_{24}=g_{42}=-10, \qquad g_{34}=g_{43}=-5,
\label{eq52}\end{gathered}$$
and by the following values of the parameters $x_{n}^{(0)}$, $y_{n}^{(0)}$, $\dot{x}_{n}^{(0)}$, $\dot{y}_{n}^{(0)}$ characterizing the initial data via (5.2): $$\begin{gathered}
x_{1}^{(0)}=1, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=-2, \qquad \dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=0,
\qquad \dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=-1, \nonumber\\
x_{1}^{(0)}=-2, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=1,\qquad \dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=-1,
\qquad \dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=-1, \nonumber\\
x_{1}^{(0)}=-2, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=0 ,\qquad \dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad
\dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=1, \nonumber\\
x_{1}^{(0)}=0, \qquad y_{1}^{(0)}=-2, \qquad \dot{x}_{1}^{(0)}=1, \qquad \dot{y}_{1}^{(0)}=0.
\label{eq53}\end{gathered}$$
A representative selection of our findings is reported in Table 5.4, and some of the corresponding trajectories are displayed in the Figs. 5.4 as indicated there.
Table 5.4
$\lambda$ 0.5 0.736 0.8 0.894 0.9 0.904 0.905 0.91 0.95
----------- ----- ------- ----- ------- ----- ------- ------- ------ ------
Period 1 1 1 1 2 2 HSL HSL HSL
Symmetry Yes Yes No No No No — — —
Fig. 5.4 a b c d e — — — —
$\lambda$ 1 1.1 1.125 1.13 1.15 1.2 1.5 2 5 10
----------- ----- ----- ------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ---- ---- ----
Period HSL HSL 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Symmetry — — No No No No No No No No
Fig. 5.4 f — — g — h — — i —
Since the qualitative picture is analogous to those displayed above, we limit our presentation to the display of Table 5.4 and of the corresponding set of Figs. 5.4, letting to the alert reader the fun to repeat the discussion as given above.
Outlook
=======
The results proven in this paper provide an additional explicit instance of a phenomenon whose rather general scope has been already advertized via a number of other examples, treated elsewhere in more or less complete detail \[1–4\].
An analogous treatment to that given in this paper will be published soon \[5\] in the context of the “generalized goldfish model” \[8, 2\], which is somewhat richer inasmuch as it features branch points the nature of which depends on the values of the coupling constants (in contrast to the case treated herein, where all relevant branch points are of square-root type), and has moreover the advantage that its treatment in the $C_{N}$ context is directly interpretable as a genuine (i.e., rotation-invariant) real many-body problem *in the plane* (as discussed at the end of the introductory Section 1, this is not the case for the model considered herein — although there does exist a modified version of it in which this “defect” is eliminated \[9\]). On the other hand the class of many-body problems with inverse-cube interparticle potentials, as considered herein, have been (especially, of course, in the integrable version with equal coupling constants) much studied over the last quarter century, while the “goldfish” model has not yet quite acquired a comparable “classical” status.
Of course a more detailed, if perhaps less “physical”, understanding of the dynamics of the model studied herein might be gained by investigating numerically the solutions $\underline{\zeta}(\tau)$ of the equations of motion (2.5) as functions of the *complex* variable $\tau$ (rather than the solutions $\underline{z}(t)$ as functions of the *real* variable $t$), and in particular by mapping out the detailed shape of the multi-sheeted Riemann surfaces associated with these solutions; and analogous considerations apply to all the models \[1–5\] in which the “trick”, see Section 2, plays a key role. This remains as a task for the future.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
While the results reported in this and related papers were under development we discussed them with several colleagues, who often provided precious suggestions. In particular we like to thank for these Robert Conte, Ovidiu Costin, Herman Flaschka, Giovanni Gallavotti, Nalini Joshi, Martin Kruskal, François Leyvraz, Orlando Ragnisco and Alexander Turbiner.
Appendix A: the *ansatz* (3.2) {#appendix-a-the-ansatz-3.2 .unnumbered}
===============================
In this appendix we show that the *ansatz* (3.2) is consistent with the ODEs (\[eq11\]), and that the requirement that (3.2) satisfy (\[eq11\]) allows to determine uniquely the coefficient $\beta $ and in principle as well all the coefficients $\alpha _{l}^{(n)} $ featured by this *ansatz*, while the remaining coefficients, namely the $4$ constants $b$, $v$, $a$ and $\tau _{b} $ in (\[eq28\]), (\[eq29\]), and the $2(N - 2)$ constants $b_{n}$, $v_{n} $ in (\[eq30\]), remain *arbitrary* (except for the obvious requirements $b_{n} \ne
b$, $\,b_{n} \ne b_{m} $, which are hereafter assumed to hold).
Indeed the insertion of (3.2) in (\[eq11\]) with $n = 1$ respectively $n = 2$ yields
$$\begin{gathered}
-\frac{1}{4}\beta(\tau - \tau_{b})^{-3/2} +\frac{3}{4}a(\tau -
\tau_{b})^{-1/2} +\sum_{l = 4}^{\infty}\frac{l(l -2)}{4}
\alpha_{l}^{(1)}(\tau-\tau_{b})^{(l - 4)/2}\nonumber\\
\qquad {} =g_{12}(2\beta)^{-3}(\tau-\tau_{b})^{-3/2}
\left\{1+\frac{a}{\beta}(\tau-\tau_{b}) + \sum_{l =
4}^{\infty}\frac{\alpha_{l}^{(1)}-\alpha_{l}^{(2)}}{2\beta}
(\tau-\tau_{b})^{(l-1)/2} \right\}^{-3} \nonumber\\
\qquad {}+\sum_{m = 1,\; m \ne n}^{N} g_{1m}(b-b_{m})^{-3}
\Bigg\{1+(b-b_{m})^{-1} \Bigg[\beta(\tau-\tau_{b})^{1/2}+
(v-v_{m})(\tau-\tau_{b})\nonumber\\
\qquad {} +a(\tau-\tau_{b})^{3/2} +\sum_{l =
4}^{\infty}\left(\alpha_{l}^{(1)}-\alpha_{l}^{(m)}\right)(\tau-\tau_{b})^{l/2}\Bigg]
\Bigg\}^{-3}\label{eqA1a}\end{gathered}$$
respectively $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{4}\beta(\tau - \tau_{b})^{-3/2}
-\frac{3}{4}a(\tau - \tau_{b})^{-1/2} +\sum_{l =
4}^{\infty}\frac{l(l - 2)}{4} \alpha_{l}^{(2)}(\tau-\tau_{b})^{(l - 4)/2} \nonumber\\
\qquad {}=-g_{12}(2\beta)^{-3}(\tau-\tau_{b})^{-3/2} \left\{
1+\frac{a}{\beta}(\tau-\tau_{b}) + \sum_{l =
4}^{\infty}\frac{\alpha_{l}^{(1)}-\alpha_{l}^{(2)}}{2\beta}
(\tau-\tau_{b})^{(l-1)/2} \right\}^{-3} \nonumber\\
\qquad +\sum_{m = 1,\; m \ne n}^{N} g_{2m}(b-b_{m})^{-3} \Bigg\{
1+(b-b_{m})^{-1} \Bigg [-\beta(\tau-\tau_{b})^{1/2}+
(v-v_{m})(\tau-\tau_{b})\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\qquad {}-a(\tau-\tau_{b})^{3/2} +\sum_{l =
4}^{\infty}\left(\alpha_{l}^{(2)}-\alpha_{l}^{(m)}\right)(\tau-\tau_{b})^{l/2}\Bigg]
\Bigg\}^{-3}. \label{eqA1b}\end{gathered}$$
We now equate in each of these two equations the coefficients of the term $(\tau - \tau _{b})^{ - 3/2}$ and we get the (same) relation that determines the coefficient $\beta $, $$\beta = ( g_{12} /2)^{1/4}.$$ And we also see that, with this assignment of $\beta $, in both equations, (\[eqA1a\]), (\[eqA1b\]), the terms that multiply $(\tau - \tau _{b})^{- 1/2}$ also match exactly.
It is also easily seen that the remaining terms can be matched recursively (by expanding the right-hand sides of these equations, (\[eqA1a\]), (\[eqA1b\]) — as well as those of (\[eqA1c\]), see below — in powers of $( \tau -
\tau _{b})^{1/2}$), and that in this manner the coefficients $\alpha _{l}^{(1)}$, $\alpha _{l}^{(2)} $ get uniquely determined, for instance
$$\alpha _{4}^{(j)} = \sum\limits_{m = 3}^{N} [ ( 13g_{jm} - 3g_{j +
1,m})/20 ]( b - b_{m} )^{ - 3},\qquad j = 1,2\,\,\mbox{mod}(2) .$$
To complete the analysis one must also check the remaining equations (\[eq11\]), with $n > 2$. Insertion of the *ansatz* (3.2) in these yields
$$\begin{gathered}
\sum\limits_{l = 4}^{\infty} \frac{l( l - 2)}{4}\alpha _{l}^{(n)}
(\tau - \tau _{b})^{( l - 4)/2}\nonumber\\
\qquad =g_{n1}(b_{n}-b)^{-3} \Bigg\{ 1+(b_{n}-b)^{-1}
\Bigg[\beta(\tau-\tau_{b})^{1/2}+
(v_{n}-v)(\tau-\tau_{b}) \nonumber\\
\qquad {}+a(\tau-\tau_{b})^{3/2}+\sum\limits_{l = 4}^{\infty}
\left( \alpha_{l}^{(n)} - \alpha_{l}^{(1)} \right)( \tau - \tau
_{b})^{l/2}\Bigg]
\Bigg\}^{- 3} \nonumber\\
\qquad {}+g_{n2}(b_{n}-b)^{-3} \Bigg\{1+(b_{n}-b)^{-1}
\Bigg[\beta(\tau-\tau_{b})^{1/2}+
(v_{n}-v)(\tau-\tau_{b})\nonumber\\
\qquad {}+a(\tau-\tau_{b})^{3/2} +\sum\limits_{l = 4}^{\infty}
\left( \alpha _{l}^{( n)} - \alpha _{l}^{(2)} \right)(\tau - \tau
_{b})^{l/2} \Bigg]\Bigg\}^{ - 3}\nonumber\\
\qquad {}+\sum\limits_{m = 1,\; m \ne n}^{N} g_{nm} (b_{n} -
b_{m})^{- 3}\Bigg\{ 1 + (b_{n} - b_{m})^{- 1}\Bigg[(v_{n} - v_{m})
( \tau - \tau _{b} ) \nonumber\\
\qquad {} +\sum\limits_{l = 4}^{\infty} \left( \alpha _{l}^{(n)}
- \alpha _{l}^{(m)} \right)(\tau - \tau _{b})^{l/2}
\Bigg]\Bigg\}^{ - 3},\qquad n = 3,4,\ldots,N . \label{eqA1c}\end{gathered}$$
The consistency of these equations is plain, as well as the possibility they entail to compute in principle — in conjunction with (\[eqA1b\]), (\[eqA1c\]) — the coefficients $\alpha
_{l}^{(n)} $. For instance one immediately obtains
$$\begin{gathered}
\alpha_{4}^{(n)}=\frac{1}{2} \left[(g_{n1}+g_{n2})(b_{n}-b)^{-3} +
\sum_{m = 3,\; m \ne n}^{N}
g_{nm}(b_{n}-b_{m})^{-3}\right],\nonumber\\
\qquad \qquad n = 3,4,\ldots,N .\end{gathered}$$
The treatment of the multiple-collision case, see (\[eq27\]), via the corresponding *ansatz*, (3.3), is closely analogous, but in this case the matching of the coefficients of the terms proportional to $(\tau - \tau _{b})^{ - 3/2}$ respectively to $(\tau - \tau _{b} )^{- 1/2}$ yields
$$\begin{gathered}
\beta _{n} = - 4\sum\limits_{m = 1,\; m \ne n}^{M} g_{nm} (\beta
_{n} - \beta _{m})^{ - 3},\qquad n = 1,2,\ldots,M,\\
a_{n} = - 4\sum\limits_{m = 1,\; m \ne n}^{M} g_{nm} (\beta _{n} -
\beta _{m})^{ - 4}(a_{n} - a_{m}),\qquad n = 1,2,\ldots,M.\end{gathered}$$
So in this case the coefficients $\beta _{n}$ and $a_{n}$ get fixed by these algebraic equations (up, for the coefficients $a_{n}$, to a common factor). But the basic conclusion about the *square-root* nature of the branch points is confirmed, as indeed entailed by the *ansatz* (3.3).
And it can be easily verified that analogous conclusions also obtain in the case of more general multiple collisions in which the coordinates collide in groups, for instance $$\begin{gathered}
\zeta _{1} (\tau _{b}) = \zeta _{2} (\tau _{b}),\qquad \zeta _{3}
(\tau _{b}) = \zeta _{4} (\tau _{b}) = \zeta _{5} (\tau
_{b}),\qquad \zeta _{n} (\tau _{b}) \ne \zeta _{1} (\tau _{b}),\nonumber\\
\zeta _{n}
(\tau _{b}) \ne \zeta _{3} ( \tau _{b}),\qquad \zeta _{n} (\tau
_{b}) \ne \zeta _{m} ( \tau _{b}),\qquad n,m = 6,7,\ldots,N,\end{gathered}$$ the appropriate *ansatz* being in this case of type (\[eq31\]) for the colliding coordinates $\zeta _{n} (\tau)$, $n
= 1,2,\ldots,5$ (with the same values of the constants $b$ and $v$ for each subgroup of colliding coordinates, say, in self-evident notation, $b_{1} = b_{2}$, $b_{3} = b_{4} = b_{5}$, $v_{1} = v_{2}
$, $v_{3} = v_{4} = v_{5} $), of type (\[eq32\]) for the non colliding coordinates $\zeta _{n} (\tau)$, $n = 6,7,\ldots,N$.
Appendix B: the three-body case {#appendix-b-the-three-body-case .unnumbered}
===============================
In this appendix we discuss the solution of the evolution equations (\[eq11\]) in the *three-body* case, $N = 3$. As we show below the solution of this three-body problem can be reduced to quadratures. This fact was discovered by C Jacobi almost two centuries ago (but this finding was only published after his death \[10\]), was then rediscovered by C Marchioro (who also did not publish this finding) and was finally neatly presented by D C Khandekar and S V Lawande \[11\], who actually treated (\[eq4\]) rather than (\[eq11\]) (they were not aware at the time of the “trick” (2.4) that relates (\[eq11\]) to (\[eq4\]), and they mainly focussed on the integrable case with equal coupling constants and on its connection with the corresponding quantal problem — for a bit more on the history of this problem see Section 2.N of Ref. \[2\]).
So we now focus on the evolution equations $$\label{eqB1} \zeta''_{n} = \sum\limits_{m = 1, \; m \ne n}^{3}
g_{nm} ( \zeta _{n} - \zeta _{m})^{- 3},\qquad n = 1,2,3,\quad
g_{nm} = g_{mn} ,\quad\zeta _{n} \equiv \zeta _{n} (\tau),$$ which clearly obtain from the Hamiltonian
$$\begin{gathered}
H = \frac 12 \left( p_{1}^{2} + p_{2}^{2} + p_{3}^{2} \right)
+\frac 12 \left[ g_{12} (\zeta_{1}-\zeta_{2})^{-2} + g_{23}
(\zeta_{2}-\zeta_{3})^{-2} + g_{31} (\zeta_{3}-\zeta_{1})^{-2}
\right]\label{eqB2a}\end{gathered}$$
hence entail that the quantity $$\begin{gathered}
H = \frac 12 \left(
\zeta^{\prime2}_{1} + \zeta^{\prime 2}_{2} + \zeta^{\prime 2}_{3}
\right)
+ \frac 12 \left[ g_{12} (\zeta_{1}-\zeta_{2})^{-2}\! +
g_{23} (\zeta_{2}-\zeta_{3})^{-2}\! + g_{31}
(\zeta_{3}-\zeta_{1})^{-2} \right]\!\label{eqB2b}\end{gathered}$$
is a constant of the motion. It is also plain that the initial position, $\bar {\zeta} (0)$, and the (initial) velocity, $V$, of the center of mass $$\bar{\zeta} = (\zeta _{1} + \zeta _{2} + \zeta _{3})/3,$$ are two additional constants of motion, since the evolution equations (\[eqB1\]) clearly entail that the center of mass moves uniformly: $$\label{eqB4} \bar{\zeta} (\tau) = \bar{\zeta} (0) + V\tau.$$ And we moreover now know (see the last part of Section 2) that the quantity
$$\label{eqB5a} \bar {\zeta} ^{(2)} = \left( \zeta _{1}^{2} + \zeta
_{2}^{2} + \zeta _{3}^{2} \right)/3$$
evolves according to the simple equation (see (\[eq18\])) $$\label{eqB5b} (\bar{\zeta}^{(2)})''=(4/3)H,$$
with $H$ defined by (\[eqB2b\]).
It is now convenient \[11\] to introduce the “Jacobi coordinates”
$$\label{eqB6a} \eta = 2^{ - 1/2}(\zeta _{1} - \zeta _{2}),\qquad
\xi = 6^{ - 1/2}(\zeta _{1} + \zeta _{2} - 2\zeta _{3}),$$
and moreover to introduce the corresponding “circular coordinates” by setting $$\label{eqB6b} \eta = \rho \sin( \theta),\qquad \xi = \rho \cos(
\theta).$$
Note that these definitions entail
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqB7a}
\zeta _{1} = \bar {\zeta} + 2^{ - 1/2}\eta + 6^{ - 1/2}\xi = \bar
{\zeta} -( 2/3)^{1/2}\rho \cos[ \theta + (2\pi /3)] ,\\
\label{eqB7b}
\zeta _{2} = \bar {\zeta} - 2^{- 1/2}\eta + 6^{ - 1/2}\xi = \bar
{\zeta} - (2/3)^{1/2}\rho \cos[\theta -(2\pi /3)],\\
\label{eqB7c}
\zeta _{3} = \bar {\zeta} - (2/3)^{1/2}\xi = \bar {\zeta
} - (2/3)^{1/2}\rho \cos\theta,\end{gathered}$$
as well as
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqB8a}
H = (3/2)V^{2} + (1/2){\rho} '^{2} +
(1/2)\rho ^{2}{\theta} '^{2} + ( 1/4) \rho ^{ - 2}f(\theta),\\
\label{eqB8b}
f(\theta) = g_{12} /\sin^{2}(\theta) +
g_{23}/\sin^{2} \left[ \theta + (2 \pi/3) \right] +
g_{31} /\sin^{2} \left[ \theta - (2 \pi/3) \right],\end{gathered}$$
and $$\bar {\zeta} ^{(2)} = \bar {\zeta} ^{2} + (1/3)\rho ^{2} .$$
From the last formula and (\[eqB4\]), (\[eqB5b\]) we get
$$\label{eqB10a}
\left( \rho^{2} \right)'' = 4H - 6V^{2} ,$$
hence $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqB10b}
\rho ^{2}(\tau) = A\left( \tau ^{2} + 2B\tau + C \right) =
A(\tau - \tau _{ +})(\tau - \tau _{ -}),\\
\label{eqB10c}
A = 2H - 3V^{2},\\
\label{eqB10d}
\tau _{ \pm} = - B \pm D,\\
\label{eqB10e}
D^{2} = B^{2} - C.\end{gathered}$$
Here we have introduced two other constants of integration, $B$ and $C$, while the constants $A$ and $D$ are defined by (\[eqB10c\]) and (\[eqB10e\]).
We now introduce this expression of $\rho(\tau)$ in (\[eqB8a\]) and easily obtain the formula
$$\label{eqB11a}
{\theta} '^{2} = - \left[ A^{2} D^{2} + (1/2) f (\theta) \right] \rho ^{ - 4},$$
that entails the quadrature $$\label{eqB11b}
\int^{\theta} d{\theta} ' \left[ -A^{2}D^{2} -
(1/2) f({\theta} ') \right]^{ -1/2} = \int^{\tau} d{\tau} ' \left[ \rho ( \tau ') \right]^{ - 2}.$$
The integral in the right-hand side of this formula, (\[eqB11b\]), is easily done (see (B.10)), and one arrives thus at the final formula
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqB12a}
F(\theta) = \mbox{arccotan}\, [(\tau + B)/D],\\
\label{eqB12b}
F(\theta) = \int^{\theta} d{\theta} '\left[
1 + (1/2) (AD)^{-2} f(\theta ') \right]^{ - 1/2} ,\end{gathered}$$
where of course $f(\theta)$ is defined by (\[eqB8b\]).
In the *integrable* “equal-coupling-constants” case,
$$\label{eqB13a}
g_{nm} = g,$$
it is easily seen that $$\label{eqB13b}
f(\theta) = 9g[\sin(3\theta)]^{ - 2},$$ hence the integration in the right-hand side of (\[eqB12b\]) is easily performed to yield $$\label{eqB13c}
F(\theta) = (1/3)\{ E -\arcsin[ \cos(3\theta)/\mu]\},$$ where $E$ is an integration constant and $$\label{eqB13d}
\mu = \left[ 1 + (9/2)g(AD)^{-2}\right]^{1/2}.$$
Hence in this case one gets for $\theta(\tau)$ the completely explicit expression $$\theta =(1/3)\arccos[\mu \sin\{
E-3\,\mbox{arccotan}\,[ (\tau + B)/D]\}],$$ which, together with (\[eqB10b\]) and (B.4), provides via (B.7) completely explicit expressions of the coordinates $\zeta _{n} (\tau)$, $n = 1,2,3$. From these it is immediately seen that the coordinates $\zeta _{n} (\tau)$, considered as functions of the complex variable $\tau $, feature two kinds of *square-root* branch points: those occurring at $\tau = \tau _{ \pm} $, see (\[eqB10b\]), (\[eqB10d\]), which clearly correspond to *triple* collisions, see (\[eqB10b\]) and (B.7); and those occurring at $\tau = \tau _{b} $, $$\label{eqB15}
\tau _{b} = - B + D\mbox{cotan}\{(1/3)[E-\arcsin(1/\mu)+(2\pi/3)k]\},
\qquad k = 0,1,2,$$ which correspond instead to *pair* collisions. Indeed it is easily seen that, for $\tau \approx \tau _{b} $,
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqB16a}
\theta = (2\pi /3)k + \alpha [(\tau - \tau_{b})/D]^{1/2} + O(|\tau - \tau _{b}|),\qquad k = 0,1,2,\\
\label{eqB16b}
\alpha=i(2/3)^{1/2}\left[ 1+(2/9)(AD)^{2}/g \right]^{-1/4}
D\left[ (\tau_{b}+B)^{2}+D^{2} \right]^{-1/2};\end{gathered}$$
and (\[eqB16a\]) clearly entails, see (B.7), that a *pair* collisions occurs at $\tau = \tau _{b} $.
The analysis of the periodicity of the solutions of (2.1) in this case is plain; of course the fact that the number of branch points is finite entails that in this *integrable* case *all nonsingular* solutions are *completely periodic*, either with period $T$, see (\[eq6\]), or with a period which is a (small) entire multiple of $T$, confirming the results implied by the general treatment \[2\] of the *integrable* equal-coupling-constant $N$-body problem (2.1).
In the general case with *arbitrary* coupling constants one can rewrite (\[eqB12b\]) as follows (by setting $u = 4\sin^{2}{\theta} ' - 3$):
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqB17a}
F(\theta)=(1/2)\int^{U(\theta)}
du \, u(1-u)^{-1/2}\nonumber\\
\phantom{F(\theta)=}{}\times \left[u^{2}(u+3+\tilde{G})+G
+\hat{G}(3+u)^{3/2}(1-u)^{1/2}\right]^{-1/2},\\
\tilde{G}=(2g_{12}-g_{23}-g_{31})(AD)^{-2} ,\nonumber\\
\label{eqB17b}
G=9(g_{23}+g_{31})(AD)^{-2}, \qquad\hat G= 3^{1/2}(g_{23}-g_{31})(AD)^{-2},\\
\label{eqB17c}
U(\theta) = 4[\sin\theta]^{2} -3 .\end{gathered}$$
In the equal-coupling-constants case, see (\[eqB13a\]), things simplify because
$$\tilde {G} = \hat {G} = 0,$$
see (\[eqB17b\]), hence the integral in the right-hand side of (\[eqB17a\]) can then be performed in terms of elementary functions, since via the change of variable $$u^{2}(u + 3) = 4v,$$ somewhat miraculously (albeit not surprisingly) (B.17) yield $$\begin{gathered}
F(\theta) = (1/3)\int^{W(\theta)} dv\,\left\{ ( 1 - v)(G + v) \right\}^{- 1/2},
\\
W(\theta) = [\sin(3\theta)]^{2};\end{gathered}$$
and of course one gets thereby again (\[eqB13c\]).
If instead (only) the two coupling constants $g_{23} $ and $g_{31} $ coincide, $g_{23} = g_{31} $, entailing $\hat {G} = 0$, the integral in the right-hand side of (\[eqB17a\]) is of elliptic type (of course the same outcome, namely the elliptic character of the solutions \[9\], characterizes any case with two equal coupling constants, although this is not immediately evident from (\[eqB17a\])). But not much enlightenment seems to obtain, even in this (somewhat simpler) case, from an attempt to perform explicitly the integration in the right-hand side of (\[eqB17a\]).
One must rather try and evince information directly from the integral representation of $F(\theta)$, see (\[eqB12b\]) with (\[eqB8b\]), or (B.17), or from the following representation which the diligent reader will have no difficulty in deriving:
$$\begin{gathered}
F(\theta)=(2i)^{-1} \int^{\exp(2 i \theta)} dw \, w^{-1} \left(w^{3}-1\right)
[ \phi(w)]^{-1/2} ,\\
\phi(w)=\left(w^{3}-1\right)^{2}-4(AD)^{-2} w \Big\{
g_{12} [ w-\exp(2 \pi i/3)]^{2}
[ w-\exp(-2 \pi i/3)]^{2}\nonumber\\
\phantom{\phi(w)=} {}+(w-1)^{2} \left[
g_{23}[ w-\exp(-2 \pi i/3)]^{2}+
g_{31} [ w-\exp(2 \pi i/3) ]^{2} \right] \Big\} .\end{gathered}$$
It is now clear from these formulas, together with (B.7), (B.10) and (\[eqB12b\]), that — just as in the *integrable* equal-coupling-constants case — also in the case with *arbitrary* coupling constants the solutions $\zeta _{n}
(\tau)$ feature two kinds of *square-root* branch points: those associated with *triple* collisions, which occur at $\tau = \tau _{ \pm} $, see (\[eqB10b\]), (\[eqB10d\]), and those associated with the vanishing of the derivative $F'(\theta)\equiv dF(\theta)/d\theta$ of $F(\theta)$, namely those associated with the $3$ values $\theta = 0$, $\theta = 2\pi /3$, $\theta = - 2\pi /3$ (see (B.19); of course $\theta $ is defined $\mbox{mod}(2\pi)$, see (\[eqB6b\])), which of course correspond, as expected, to *pair* collisions, see (B.7). It is however not possible now — in contrast to the *integrable* case, see (\[eqB15\]) — to obtain an explicit expression for the values $\tau _{b} $ of $\tau $ at which these branch points occur: but we infer from (B.17) and (\[eqB12a\]) that generally there is an *infinite* number of such branch points in the complex $\tau $-plane (again, in contrast to the *integrable* case, when there only are *three*, see (\[eqB15\])). It is on the other hand easy to obtain from these formulas an explicit expression for the behavior of $\theta
(\tau)$ for $\tau \approx \tau _{b} $, for instance for the branch point with $\theta (\tau _{b}) = 0$,
$$\begin{gathered}
\theta(\tau)=\beta [(\tau-\tau_{b})/A]^{1/2}+O(|\tau-\tau_{b}|),\\
\beta=i(b_{12}/2)^{1/4} \left[ D^{2}+(\tau_{b}+B) \right]^{-1/2}.\end{gathered}$$
[99]{}
Calogero F, Periodic Solutions of a System of Complex ODEs, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} **293** (2002), 146–150.
Calogero F, Many-Body Problems Amenable to Exact Treatments, Springer Lecture Notes in Physics Monograph, Vol. m66, 2001.
Calogero F and Françoise J-P, Periodic Motions Galore: How to Modify Nonlinear Evolution Equations So That They Feature a Lot of Periodic Solutions, [*J. Nonlin. Math. Phys.*]{} **9** (2002), 99–125.
Calogero F, Differential Equations Featuring Many Periodic Solutions, in: [*Geometry and Integrability*]{}, Edited by L Mason and Y Nutku, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Vol. 295, Cambridge Universiity Press (in press). .
Calogero F, Françoise J-P and Sommacal M, Periodic Solutions of a Many-Rotator Problem in the Plane. II. Analysis of Various Motion, [*J. Nonlin. Math. Phys.*]{} (in press).
Sommacal M, Studio con tecniche numeriche ed analitiche di problemi a molti corpi nel piano, Dissertation for the “Laurea in Fisica”, Department of Physics, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, 2002.
Sommacal M, A Property of the Calogero–Moser System, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} (submitted to).
Calogero F, The “Neatest” Many-Body Problem Amenable to Exact Treatments (a “Goldfish”?), [*Physica D*]{} [**152–153**]{} (2001), 78–84.
Calogero F, Three Solvable Many-Body Problems in the Plane, [*Acta Applicandae Mathematicae*]{} **51** (1998), 93–111.
Jacobi C, Problema trium corporum mutuis attractionibus cubis distantiarum inverse proportionalibus recta linea se moventium, in Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 4, Berlin, 1866, 533–539.
Khandekar D C and Lawande S V, Solution of a One-Dimensional Three-Body Problem in Classical Mechanics, [*Amer. J. Phys.*]{} **40** (1972), 458–462.
\[calogero-lastpage\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the present article we study the process of particle creation for Elko spinor fields as a consequence of expansion of the universe. We study the effect driven by a expanding background that is asymptotically minkowskian in the past and future. The differential equation that governs the time mode function is obtained for the conformal coupling case and, although its solution is non-analytic, within an approximation that preserves the characteristics of the terms that break the analyticity, analytic solutions are obtained. Thus, by means of the Bogolyubov transformations technique, the number density of particles created is obtained, which can be compared to exact solutions already present in literature for scalar and Dirac particles. The spectrum of created particles is obtained and it was found that it is a generalization of the scalar field case, which converges to the scalar field one when the specific terms concerning the Elko field are dropped out. We also found that lighter Elko particles are created in larger quantities than Dirac fermionic particles. By considering the Elko particles as candidate to dark matter in the universe, such result shows that there are more light dark matter (Elko) particles created by gravitational effects in the universe than baryonic (fermionic) matter, in agreement to standard model.'
author:
- 'S. H. Pereira'
- 'Rodrigo C. Lima'
title: Creation of Elko particles in asymptotically expanding universe
---
Introduction
============
Particle creation in an expanding universe is one of the most interesting results that follows from quantum field theory when applied to curved backgrounds, and the year of 2016 marks fifty years of Leonard Parker’s Ph.D. thesis [@parkerThesis; @parker] where he developed the techniques to address the problem in a rigorous way. Since then the problem has been studied in several articles [@partcreation; @staro; @pavlov01; @pavlov02; @gribmama02; @fabris01] and books [@davies; @fulling; @grib; @mukh2].
One of the most interesting results that follows from the work of Parker is that there is no creation of massless particles (photons, for instance) in a radiation dominated universe neither super massive particles in a matter dominated universe. This implies that there is no particle creation of the dominant type in the corresponding universe phase.
Two different methods are commonly used in order to study particle production by gravitational fields. The standard method, adopted by Parker and others [@davies; @fulling; @parker], is the method of the adiabatic vacuum state, where the vacuum state is defined as that one for which the lowest energy state smoothly goes to zero in the past ($t\to 0$) and in the future ($t\to \infty$). The result is equivalent to consider a universe that started from a Minkowski flat space at early times and evolves to a Minkowski flat space at late times. The particle creation occurs between such different stages. Another method is that of instantaneous hamiltonian diagonalization [@grib; @gribmama02; @pavlov01] developed by Grib and Mamayev at the same time of the works of Parker. In such approach the vacuum states are defined as those which minimizes the energy at a particular instant of time. In this method the creation rate is relatively higher than the adiabatic method [@pavlov02].
Exact solutions for the rate of created particles are a difficult task, depending on the scale factor that describes the evolution of the universe and also on the type of particle that we would consider, namely, fermionic or bosonic particles and massive or massless particles. Particularly, a scale factor of the form $(A+B\tanh(C\eta))^{s}$, with $A,\,B,\,C$ constants and $s=\pm 1,\,\pm 2$ is exactly soluble for scalar particles [@duncan; @moradi1], where $\eta$ represents the conformal time. Such kind of scale factor has interesting properties in the limit $A\to 0$ and $0<\eta<1/C$, for which the universe behaves like radiation-dominated with $s=2$ and approaches to de Sitter model with $s=-2$. Also, in the limit $B/A \ll 1$ and $s=1$, this model can be compared to exact solutions for Dirac particles [@moradi2]. In this paper we study such case. Another exactly soluble model for scalar particles is given by the scale factor $(1+\exp(C\eta))^{s}$ with $s=\pm 1,\,\pm 2$ [@moradi1], while for $s=-2$ we have solution for Dirac particles [@moradi2].
Other recent works have studied the creation of massive and massless scalar particles [@alvarenga; @padma; @ccdmFS], including modified gravity theories [@saulofR], super-heavy particles as candidates to dark matter [@superDM] and also fermionic spin $1/2$ particles [@ghosh] in different backgrounds for different methods. It is important to stress that there are several differences between the calculations of creation of scalar particles and fermionic ones. For some few specific models the calculations are analytic and exactly soluble for both kind of particles.
Recent works have shown the existence of a new kind of non-standard spinor with interesting properties for the particle physics. It is constructed as a spin-$1/2$ field describing a fermion that is eigenstate of charge conjugation operator (in contrast to Dirac particles, that are eigenstate of parity conjugation operator), and was proposed by Ahluwalia and Grumiller [@AHL1; @AHL2; @AHL3]. Such new type of spinor, in contrast to the Dirac spinor field, will violate either locality or Lorentz invariance, or both. For this reason, sometimes they are called Non-Standard Spinors (NSS), or dark spniors, since that they are naturally neutral, whereas Dirac spinors are charged. A special class of such NSS spinors are named Elko, which has mass dimension one (while Dirac particles has mass dimension $3/2$), which leads them to satisfy only a Klein-Gordon type equation. Moreover, being a neutral field, they are a good candidate to a particle that does not interact electromagnetically with the standard model particles, exactly as desired for dark matter particles. Exact solutions for Elko spinor field coupled to gravity in curved Friedmann-Robertson-Walker backgrounds was investigate in [@js]. In this paper we investigate the Elko particle creation using the Parker formalism.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we deduce the differential equation that governs the time mode function for the Elko spinor in a general curved background. In Section III we particularize and study the solutions to an asymptotically expanding metric. In Section IV the quantized field is constructed in terms of *in* and *out* solutions for the mode functions and the number density of created particles is obtained. In Section V we compare with the results of scalar and Dirac particles. We conclude in section VI.
General equation for Elko creation
==================================
In which follows we will use $\lambda(x)\equiv\lambda(\vec{x},t)$ for a general Elko spinor defined in a curved background in four dimensions, $\Lambda(\vec{x},\eta)$ for the Elko spinor in the conformal time $\eta$, $\lambda^{S/A}_\beta({\bf k})$ for the Elko spinor basis in flat space-time (see Appendix A), where $S/A$ stands for self-conjugate$/$anti-self-conjugate, $\beta$ for the helicities of the field and ${\mathfrak{f}(\vec{x},\eta)}$ is the quantum field constructed with the above basis. The corresponding duals will be denoted by ${\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}}$ and similarly for the other quantities.
We start with the Elko spinor action in a curved background [@js], $$\label{pe1}
S = \int\sqrt{-g}\left(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}\nabla_{\nu}\lambda - V(\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda},\lambda) - \frac{\xi}{2} R\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}\lambda\right)d^{4}x,$$ where $\lambda(x)$ and $\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}(x)$ represents the Elko spinor field ant its dual, respectively, which are coupled to gravity through the coupling $\xi$, being $\xi=0$ a minimal coupling and $\xi=1/6$ a conformal coupling. $R$ is the Ricci scalar, ${V(\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda},\lambda)}$ is the potential, ${g \equiv det (g_{\mu\nu})}$ and the covariant derivatives acting into the Elko fields ${\nabla_{\mu}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda} = \partial_{\mu}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda} + \stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}\Gamma_{\mu}}$ and ${\nabla_{\mu}\lambda = \partial_{\mu}\lambda - \Gamma_{\mu}\lambda}$, with ${\Gamma_{\mu}}$ being the spin connection.
For a spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric, $$\label{pe2}
ds^{2} = dt^{2} - a^{2}(t)(dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}),$$ the standard Dirac matrices $\gamma_\mu$ in a flat space time satisfies $\gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu+\gamma_\nu\gamma_\mu = 2\eta_{\mu\nu}$, with $\eta_{\mu\nu}=diag (1,-1,-1,-1)$, and are related to Dirac matrices in the curved metric (\[pe2\]) by $$\gamma^0(t)=\gamma_{0}\,, \hspace{1cm} \gamma^i(t)=-{1\over a(t)}\gamma_i\,,\quad i=1,\,2,\,3.$$ With this, the spin connections are ${\Gamma_{0} = \Gamma^{0}=0}$, ${\Gamma_{i} = -\frac{\dot{a}}{2}\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i}}$ and ${\Gamma^{i} = g^{ij}\Gamma_j=\frac{\dot{a}}{2a^2}\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i}}$. By assuming a potential of the form $V={1\over 2}m^2\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}\lambda$ and taking the least action principle from the action (\[pe1\]) with respect to $\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}$ and $\lambda$ we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\partial_{\alpha}[\sqrt{-g}g^{\alpha\nu}(\partial_{\nu}\lambda - \Gamma_{\nu}\lambda)] &+& \sqrt{-g}[g^{\mu\nu}(\Gamma_{\mu}\Gamma_{\nu}\lambda - \Gamma_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}\lambda) + m^{2}\lambda + \xi R\lambda] = 0,\nonumber \\
\partial_{\alpha}[\sqrt{-g}g^{\alpha\nu}(\partial_{\nu}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda} + \stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}\Gamma_{\nu})] &+& \sqrt{-g}[g^{\mu\nu}(\Gamma_{\mu}\Gamma_{\nu}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda} + \partial_{\mu}\Gamma_{\nu}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}) + m^{2}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda} + \xi R\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}] = 0.\end{aligned}$$
The motion equations for the Elko spinors are [@js] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe3}
\ddot{\lambda} + 3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)\dot{\lambda} - \frac{1}{a^{2}}\partial_{i}^{2}\lambda - \frac{3}{4}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2}\lambda + \frac{\dot{a}}{a^{2}}\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i}(\partial_{i}\lambda) + m^{2}\lambda + \xi R\lambda = 0,\nonumber \\
\ddot{\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}} + 3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)\dot{\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}} - \frac{1}{a^{2}}\partial_{i}^{2}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda} - \frac{3}{4}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda} - \frac{\dot{a}}{a^{2}}(\partial_{i}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda})\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i} + m^{2}\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda} + \xi R\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Now we rewrite the above equations in terms of the conformal time $\eta = \int dt/a(t)$, so that (\[pe2\]) turns to $ds^2=a^2(\eta)(d\eta^2 - dx^i dx_i)$ and ${\lambda(\vec{x},t)}$ ${\longrightarrow}$ ${\lambda(\vec{x},\eta)}$, ${a(t)}$ ${\longrightarrow}$ ${a(\eta)}$. We also rewrite the field ${\lambda(\vec{x},\eta) = \frac{\Lambda(\vec{x},\eta)}{a(\eta)}}$ and define $f'\equiv df/d \eta$. With this changes and using $$\nonumber
R = \frac{6}{a^{2}}(a\ddot{a} + \dot{a}^{2}) = \frac{6}{a^{2}}\frac{a^{''}}{a},$$ we obtain for (\[pe3\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe8}
&&\Lambda^{''} - \partial_{i}^{2}\Lambda + \frac{a^{'}}{a}\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i}(\partial_{i}\Lambda) + \left[m^{2}a^{2}- 6\frac{a^{''}}{a}\left(\frac{1}{6}-\xi\right) - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}}\right]\Lambda = 0\nonumber \\
&&\stackrel{\neg}{\Lambda}^{''} - \partial_{i}^{2}\stackrel{\neg}{\Lambda} - \frac{a^{'}}{a}(\partial_{i}\stackrel{\neg}{\Lambda})\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i} + \left[m^{2}a^{2}- 6\frac{a^{''}}{a}\left(\frac{1}{6}-\xi\right) - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}}\right]\stackrel{\neg}{\Lambda} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ In the conformal coupling case $\xi=1/6$, we finally obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe9}
&&\Lambda^{''} - \partial_{i}^{2}\Lambda + \frac{a^{'}}{a}\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i}(\partial_{i}\Lambda) + \left[m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}}\right]\Lambda = 0,\nonumber\\
&&\stackrel{\neg}{\Lambda}^{''} - \partial_{i}^{2}\stackrel{\neg}{\Lambda} - \frac{a^{'}}{a}(\partial_{i}\stackrel{\neg}{\Lambda})\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i} + \left[m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}}\right]\stackrel{\neg}{\Lambda} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
From now on we just consider the equation for $\Lambda$. A similar treatment can be done for $\stackrel{\neg}{\Lambda}$. There are four independent Elko fields, namely $\Lambda = \{ \Lambda_{\beta}^{S}, \Lambda_{\beta}^{A}\}$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe11}
\Lambda_{\beta}^{S} &=& \Lambda_{\{\pm,\mp\}}^{S} = N\lambda_{\{\pm,\mp\}}^{S}({\bf k})g^{(+)}(\eta)e^{i{\bf k\cdot x}},\nonumber\\
\Lambda_{\beta}^{A} &=& \Lambda_{\{\pm,\mp\}}^{A} = N\lambda_{\{\pm,\mp\}}^{A}({\bf k})g^{(-)}(\eta)e^{-i{\bf k\cdot x}},\end{aligned}$$ for the self-conjugate $\Lambda_{\beta}^{S}$ and $\Lambda_{\beta}^{A}$ for the anti-self-conjugate spinors, being ${N}$ a normalization constant, $\beta=\{\pm,\mp\}$ the helicities and ${g^{\pm}(\eta)}$ the positive and negative frequencies time functions. Substituting into (\[pe11\]) we obtain four independent equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe12}
&&N\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + i\frac{a^{'}}{a}\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i}k^{i} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}}\right)g^{(+)}(\eta)\lambda^{S}_{\{\pm,\mp\}}({\bf k})e^{i{\bf k \cdot x}} = 0\nonumber\\
&&N\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} - i\frac{a^{'}}{a}\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i}k^{i} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}}\right)g^{(-)}(\eta)\lambda^{A}_{\{\pm,\mp\}}({\bf k})e^{-i{\bf k \cdot x}} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ In the Weyl representation for the Dirac gamma matrices, the term $\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i}k^{i}$ is $$\nonumber
\gamma_{0}\gamma_{i}k^{i} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} -k_{3} & -k_{1}+ik_{2} & 0 & 0 \\
-k_{1}-ik_{2} & k_{3} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & k_{3} & k_{1}-ik_{2} \\
0 & 0 & k_{1} +ik_{2}& -k_{3}
\end{array} \right).$$ Thus, the above system can be written in more compact form as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe13}
&& ND^ {(+)}g^{(+)}(\eta)\lambda_{\{\pm,\mp\}}^{S}({\bf k})e^{i{\bf k \cdot x}} = 0,\nonumber\\
&& ND^ {(-)}g^{(-)}(\eta)\lambda_{\{\pm,\mp\}}^{A}({\bf k})e^{-i{\bf k \cdot x}} = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $D^{(\pm)}$ are the matrices $$\nonumber
D^{(\pm)} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} D^{(\pm)}_{00} & D^{(\pm)}_{01} & 0 & 0 \\
D^{(+)}_{10} & D^{(\pm)}_{11} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & D^{(\pm)}_{22} & D^{(\pm)}_{23}\\
0 & 0 & D^{(\pm)}_{32} & D^{(\pm)}_{33}
\end{array} \right)$$ with components: $$D^{(+)}_{00}=D^{(+)}_{33}=D^{(-)}_{11}=D^{(-)}_{22}=\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} -i\frac{a^{'}}{a}k_{3}$$ $$D^{(+)}_{11}=D^{(+)}_{22}=D^{(-)}_{00}=D^{(-)}_{33}=\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} +i\frac{a^{'}}{a}k_{3}$$ $$D^{(+)}_{01}=-D^{(+)}_{23}= -D^{(-)}_{01}=D^{(-)}_{23}=- i\frac{a^{'}}{a}k_{1}-\frac{a^{'}}{a}k_{2}$$ $$D^{(+)}_{10}=-D^{(+)}_{32}=-D^{(-)}_{10}=D^{(-)}_{32}=-i\frac{a^{'}}{a}k_{1} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}k_{2}$$ By assuming that ${\lambda^{S}_{\{\pm,\mp\}}}$ and ${\lambda^{A}_{\{\pm,\mp\}}}$ can be written in the general form (see Appendix A): $$\lambda^{S}_{\{ \pm,\mp \}}({\bf k})= \left( \begin{array}{c} b^{1,2} \\ c^{1,2} \\ d^{1,2} \\ f^{1,2} \end{array} \right)\hspace{1cm} \lambda^{A}_{\{ \pm,\mp \}}({\bf k})= \left( \begin{array}{c} h^{1,2} \\ l^{1,2} \\ m^{1,2} \\ n^{1,2} \end{array} \right)$$ with all the components non null, where the superscript $(1,2)$ stands for the helicities $\{+,-\}$ and $\{-,+\}$, respectively, the system (\[pe13\]) can be put into the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}\left[(-ik_{1}-k_{2})\frac{c^{1,2}}{b^{1,2}}- ik_{3}\right]\right)g^{(+)}(\eta) = 0,\\\nonumber
&&\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}\left[(-ik_{1}+k_{2})\frac{b^{1,2}}{c^{1,2}}+ ik_{3}\right]\right)g^{(+)}(\eta) = 0,\\\nonumber
&&\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}\left[(+ik_{1}+k_{2})\frac{f^{1,2}}{d^{1,2}}+ ik_{3}\right]\right)g^{(+)}(\eta) = 0,\\\nonumber
&&\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}\left[(+ik_{1}-k_{2})\frac{d^{1,2}}{f^{1,2}}- ik_{3}\right]\right)g^{(+)}(\eta) = 0,\\\nonumber
&&\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}\left[(+ik_{1}+k_{2})\frac{l^{1,2}}{h^{1,2}}+ ik_{3}\right]\right)g^{(-)}(\eta) = 0,\\\nonumber
&&\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}\left[(+ik_{1}-k_{2})\frac{h^{1,2}}{l^{1,2}}- ik_{3}\right]\right)g^{(-)}(\eta) = 0,\\\nonumber
&&\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}\left[(-ik_{1}-k_{2})\frac{n^{1,2}}{m^{1,2}}- ik_{3}\right]\right)g^{(-)}(\eta) = 0,\\\nonumber
&&\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}\left[(-ik_{1}+k_{2})\frac{m^{1,2}}{n^{1,2}}+ ik_{3}\right]\right)g^{(-)}(\eta) = 0,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ which can be reduced to a single equation $$\label{pe14}
\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}[X_{j} + iY_{j}]\right)g(\eta) = 0,$$ where ${X_{j} = X_{j}(k_{1},k_{2}, k_{3})}$ and ${Y_{j} = Y_{j}(k_{1},k_{2},k_{3})}$ with ${j=}$ 1, 2, 3, 4 for ${g^{(+)}(\eta)}$ of ${\Lambda_{\{+,-\}}^{S}}$; ${j=}$ 5, 6, 7, 8 for ${g^{(+)}(\eta)}$ of ${\Lambda_{\{-,+\}}^{S}}$; ${j=}$ 9, 10, 11, 12 for ${g^{(-)}(\eta)}$ of ${\Lambda_{\{+,-\}}^{A}}$ and ${j=}$ 13, 14, 15, 16 for ${g^{(-)}(\eta)}$ of ${\Lambda_{\{-,+\}}^{A}}$.
Equation (\[pe14\]) is the main equation to start the study of particle creation for the Elko field. Several interesting consequences can be obtained from (\[pe14\]). First, if we use spherical coordinates into the term $[X_{j} + iY_{j}]$, it can be showed that $X_j=0$ for all components and $Y_j=\mp k =\mp \vert {\bf k}\vert$, being $-k$ for ${\Lambda^{S}_{\{+,-\}}}$, ${\Lambda^{A}_{\{-,+\}}}$ and ${+k}$ for ${\Lambda^{S}_{\{-,+\}}}$, ${\Lambda^{A}_{\{+,-\}}}$. The last two terms into curl brackets, namely the terms proportional to $a'^2$ and $a'$, are specific to the Elko field. The first one carries the spinor coupling to the gravitational field that came from the spin connection $\Gamma_\mu$ and the second carries the explicit spinorial structure of the field. When both terms are discard we obtain exactly the same equation for the standard scalar field [@davies].
In which follows we will keep the general components $[X_{j} + iY_{j}]$ in arbitrary coordinate system, and at the end we will take the spherical coordinate system for a explicit calculation.
Solutions for an asymptotically flat metric
===========================================
Now we apply the above discussion to a particular metric that is asymptotically flat in the past and in the future: $$\label{pe15}
a^{2}(\eta) = A + B\tanh(\rho\eta),$$ where ${A}$, ${B}$ e ${\rho}$ are real, with ${A > B > 0}$ and ${\rho > 0}$. Such metric admits analytic solutions for both scalar field and Dirac fermionic fields, thus it is possible to compare the final results. In the limits ${\eta\longrightarrow\pm\infty}$ such metric satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{a^{'}}{a} = \frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} \longrightarrow 0,\nonumber\\
&& a^{2}(\eta) \longrightarrow A \pm B.\label{asymp}\end{aligned}$$ Defining an effective mass as $$\begin{aligned}
&& m_{eff}^{2}(\eta) = m^{2}a^{2} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} + \frac{a^{'}}{a}(X_{j} + iY_{j}),\label{pe16}\end{aligned}$$ we have the frequency $\omega^{2}(\eta) = k^{2} + m_{eff}^{2}(\eta)$, so that Eq. (\[pe14\]) simplifies to: $$\label{pe14s}
\left(\partial_{\eta}^{2} +\omega^{2}(\eta) \right)g(\eta) = 0,$$ in analogy to a frequency time varying harmonic oscillator. The frequencies in the past and in the future can be defined as $$\omega(\eta) \equiv \Bigg\{\begin{array}{cc} \omega_{in} = \sqrt{k^{2} + m^{2}(A - B)}, \qquad\eta\longrightarrow -\infty,\\
\omega_{out} = \sqrt{k^{2} + m^{2}(A + B)}, \qquad\eta\longrightarrow +\infty.
\end{array} \label{pe17}$$
Substituting (\[pe15\]) into (\[pe14\]) we have: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Bigg[\partial_{\eta}^{2} + k^{2} + m^{2}(A + B\tanh(\rho\eta)) - \frac{3}{4}\cdot\frac{1}{4}(B\rho)^{2}\left(\frac{1-\tanh^{2}(\rho\eta)}{A+B\tanh(\rho\eta)}\right)^{2}\nonumber\\\label{pe18}
&&+ \frac{1}{2}B\rho\left(\frac{1-\tanh^{2}(\rho\eta)}{A+B\tanh(\rho\eta)}\right)(X_{j} + iY_{j})\Bigg]g(\eta) = 0\label{pe18}\end{aligned}$$
It is important to stop for a moment to make some considerations about the differential equation (\[pe18\]). The last two terms within the square brackets carries the explicit contribution of the Elko spinor, coming from $a'^2$ and $a'$ as previously mentioned. However this differential equation has no known analytical solutions. Although the asymptotic behaviour (\[asymp\]) of the metric allows to discard these terms in the limits ${\eta\longrightarrow\pm\infty}$, it is well known that the process of creation in Parker’s formalism compares the number of created particles between the asymptotic stages, thus we would like to take into account the explicit contribution of these terms, otherwise we would simply have the same rate of creation from the standard scalar field. This can be done by substituting those terms by some function with the same behaviour in the range. A function that preserves the same shape of the previous one will contribute with nearly the same quantity into the final calculations, since that the total of created particles is just taken in the limit of asymptotic time from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$. We use the following approximations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe21}
\frac{a^{'}}{a} &=&f_{1\,ex}= \frac{1}{2}\frac{B\rho(1-\tanh^{2}(\rho\eta))}{(A+B\tanh(\rho\eta))} \approx \frac{1}{2}c_{1}\frac{B\rho(1-\tanh^{2}(\rho\eta))}{(A+B)} =f_{1\,ap}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe22}
\frac{a^{'2}}{a^{2}} &=& f_{2\,ex}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{B^{2}\rho^{2}(1-\tanh^{2}(\rho\eta))^{2}}{(A+B\tanh(\rho\eta))^{2}} \approx \frac{1}{4}\frac{c_{2}B^{2}\rho^{2}(1-\tanh^{2}(\rho\eta))}{(A+B)^{2}}=f_{2\,ap}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are constants to be adjusted in the approximated functions, in order to maintain the area below the function to the same order. A graphical and numerical analysis of the exact functions ($f_{1\,ex},\;f_{2\,ex}$) and approximated functions ($f_{1\,ap},\;f_{2\,ap}$) suggest a reasonable choice for the parameters as $c_1=(A+B)/A$ and $c_2=(2/3)c_1^2$. Some examples are plotted in the Figure \[fig1\] for different values of the constants $A$ and $B$. We have verified that the functions $f_{1\,ex}$ and $f_{1\,ap}$ are nearly equal to all values of $A$ and $B$ satisfying $A/B>2$. The difference between the area below the curves are less than $9\%$ for $A/B>2$ and less than $1\%$ for $A/B>6$. For the functions $f_{2\,ex}$ and $f_{2\,ap}$ the difference in the amplitude are more evident, however we have verified numerically that the difference between the area below the curves are less than $7\%$ for $A/B>3$ and less than $1\%$ for $A/B>8$. Thus we conclude that our approximation is good enough to ensure an error less than $1\%$ for both functions if the condition $A/B>8$ be satisfied.
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}\
(a)(b)\
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}\
(c)(d)
Substituting the approximated functions into (\[pe18\]) and making the change of variables ${\xi = [1+\tanh(\rho\eta)]/{2}}$ we obtain, after a division by ${4\rho^{2}\xi^{2}(1-\xi)^{2}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Bigg[\frac{d^{2}}{d\xi^{2}} + \left(\frac{1}{\xi-1} + \frac{1}{\xi}\right)\frac{d}{d\xi} + \left(\frac{\omega_{out}^{2}}{4\rho^{2}}\frac{1}{\xi-1} - \frac{\omega_{in}^{2}}{4\rho^{2}}\frac{1}{\xi}\right)\cdot\frac{1}{\xi(\xi-1)}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{B}{8(A+B)}\left(\frac{3c_{2}B}{2(A+B)} - \frac{4c_{1}(X_{j} + iY_{j})}{\rho}\right)\cdot\frac{1}{\xi(\xi-1)}\Bigg]\tilde{g}(\xi) = 0.\label{pe23}\end{aligned}$$ Such second order differential equation is of Riemann-Papperitz type, whose solutions are generalizations of hypergeometric functions. This shows the advantage to use the approximated functions (\[pe21\]) and (\[pe22\]), since that now we have analytic solutions and the informations about the Elko field will be present into the solutions.
The solution for ${\tilde{g}(\xi)}$ from (\[pe23\]) is (see Appendix B): $$\label{pe24}
\tilde{g}(\xi) = \xi^{\frac{i\omega_{in}}{2\rho}}(1-\xi)^{\frac{i\omega_{out}}{2\rho}}P\begin{Bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \infty \\
0 & 0 & \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho} & \xi\\
-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho} & -\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho} & \frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}
\end{Bmatrix}$$ where ${r = \frac{B}{8(A+B)}\left(\frac{3c_{2}B}{2(A+B)} - \frac{4c_{1}(X_{j} + iY_{j})}{\rho}\right)}$ and $P\{ \}$ is called Riemann symbol. Notice that, from the discussion that follows (\[pe14\]), in spherical coordinates we have $Y_j=\mp k =$, being $-k$ for ${\Lambda^{S}_{\{+,-\}}}$, ${\Lambda^{A}_{\{-,+\}}}$ and ${+k}$ for ${\Lambda^{S}_{\{-,+\}}}$, ${\Lambda^{A}_{\{+,-\}}}$. Thus we will refer to a single $r$ coefficient but remembering that it can assume two distinct values, namely $r=r_\mp$, according to signal of $Y_j$.
The solution (\[pe24\]) can be expressed in terms of hypergeometric functions $_2F_1(a,b;c;z)$. We let to Appendix B the cumbersome manipulations involving properties of hypergeometric functions, starting from the Riemann-Papperitz differential equation.
In order to study the particle creation between the asymptotic limits $-\infty < \eta < \infty$, here named *in* and *out* states, we need the functions $g^{(\pm)}(\eta)$ for these states. From (\[pe37\]) we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe38}
g_{in}^{(+)}(\eta) &=& \exp\left[i\left(-\omega_{+}\eta - \frac{\omega_{-}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&\times&_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}, \frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho};1-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho};\frac{1+\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right),\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe39}
g_{in}^{(-)}(\eta) &=& \exp\left[i\left(-\omega_{-}\eta - \frac{\omega_{+}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&\times&_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}, \frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho};1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho};\frac{1+\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ from which follows that: ${g^{(\pm)}_{in}(\eta\to -\infty) = e^{\mp i\omega_{in}\eta}}$ and: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe53}
g_{out}^{(+)}(\eta) &=& \exp\left[i\left(-\omega_{+}\eta - \frac{\omega_{-}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&\times&_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}, \frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho};\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho};\frac{1-\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe54}
g_{out}^{(-)}(\eta) &=& \exp\left[i\left(\omega_{-}\eta + \frac{\omega_{+}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&\times&_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}, \frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho};-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho};\frac{1-\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with ${g^{(\pm)}_{out}(\eta\to \infty) = {\textrm{e}}^{\mp i\omega_{out}\eta}}$. Thus we can write the $g^{\pm}_{in}(\eta\to -\infty)$ states in terms of $g^{\pm}_{out}(\eta\to \infty)$, $$\label{pe51}
g_{in}^{(+)}(\eta) = \sigma {\textrm{e}}^{-i\omega_{out}\eta} + \varrho {\textrm{e}}^{i\omega_{out}\eta},$$ $$\label{pe52}
g_{in}^{(-)}(\eta) = \pi {\textrm{e}}^{-i\omega_{out}\eta} + \tau {\textrm{e}}^{i\omega_{out}\eta},$$ where ${\sigma}$, ${\varrho}$, ${\pi}$ and ${\tau}$ are the Bogolyubov coefficients: $$\label{pe55}
\sigma = C_{1} = \frac{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\right)},$$\
$$\label{pe56}
\varrho = C_{2} = \frac{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)},$$\
$$\label{pe57}
\pi = C_{3} = \frac{\Gamma\left(1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)},$$\
$$\label{pe58}
\tau = C_{4} = \frac{\Gamma\left(1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\right)}.$$
Finally, the four Elko fields $\Lambda = \{ \Lambda_{\beta}^{S}, \Lambda_{\beta}^{A}\}$ from (\[pe11\]) are completely determined for *in* and *out* regions.
Quantum field and creation of Elko particles
============================================
Now we proceed to the quantization of the field and the explicit calculation of the number of created particles.
The two complete basis of solutions for self-conjugate and anti-self-conjugate Elko field in the regions [*in*]{} and [*out*]{} are, respectively, ${\{\Lambda^{S}_{in}({\bf k}, \beta,\eta),\Lambda^{A}_{in}({\bf k}, \beta,\eta)\}}$ e ${\{\Lambda^{S}_{out}({\bf k}, \beta,\eta),\Lambda^{A}_{out}({\bf k}, \beta,\eta)\}}$, with ${\beta}$ denoting the helicities. The Fourier decomposition of the field is (notice from (\[pe11\]) the presence of a normalization factor $N$): $$\label{pe61}
\mathfrak{f}_{in}(x) = \int d^{3}k\sum\limits_{\beta}[\hat{a}_{in}({\bf k},\beta)\Lambda_{in}^{S}({\bf k},\beta,\eta)e^{i{\bf k\cdot x}} + \hat{b}_{in}^{\dag}({\bf k},\beta)\Lambda_{in}^{A}({\bf k},\beta,\eta)e^{-i{\bf k\cdot x}}],$$ $$\label{pe62}
\mathfrak{f}_{out}(x) = \int d^{3}k\sum\limits_{\beta}[\hat{a}_{out}({\bf k},\beta)\Lambda_{out}^{S}({\bf k},\beta,\eta)e^{i{\bf k\cdot x}} + \hat{b}_{out}^{\dag}({\bf k},\beta)\Lambda_{out}^{A}({\bf k},\beta,\eta)e^{-i{\bf k\cdot x}}],$$ with the creation ($\hat{a}_{in/out}^{\dag},\hat{b}_{in/out}^{\dag}$) and annihilation ($\hat{a}_{in/out}, \hat{b}_{in/out}$) operators satisfying: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe63}
&&\{\hat{a}_{in/out}({\bf k},\beta),\hat{a}_{in/out}^{\dag}({\bf k^{'}},\beta^{'})\} = \delta^{3}({\bf k} - {\bf k^{'}})\delta_{\beta\beta^{'}},\nonumber\\
&&\{\hat{b}_{in/out}({\bf k},\beta),\hat{b}_{in/out}^{\dag}({\bf k^{'}},\beta^{'})\} = \delta^{3}({\bf k} - {\bf k^{'}})\delta_{\beta\beta^{'}},\nonumber\\
&&\{\hat{a}_{in/out}({\bf k},\beta),\hat{a}_{in/out}({\bf k^{'}},\beta^{'})\} = \{\hat{a}_{in/out}^{\dag}({\bf k},\beta),\hat{a}_{in/out}^{\dag}({\bf k^{'}},\beta^{'})\} = 0,\nonumber\\
&&\{\hat{b}_{in/out}({\bf k},\beta),\hat{b}_{in/out}({\bf k^{'}},\beta^{'})\} = \{\hat{b}_{in/out}^{\dag}({\bf k},\beta),\hat{b}_{in/out}^{\dag}({\bf k^{'}},\beta^{'})\} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
By means of Bogolyubov transformation it is possible to describe the modes of solutions [*in*]{} in terms of [*out*]{}, analogous to ${g_{in}^{(\pm)}(\eta)}$ in terms of ${g_{out}^{(\pm)}(\eta)}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe64}
&& \Lambda_{in}^{S}({\bf k}, \beta,\eta) = \sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}[\sigma_{\beta\beta^{'}}\Lambda_{out}^{S}({\bf k},\beta^{'},\eta) + \varrho_{\beta\beta^{'}}\Lambda_{out}^{A}({\bf k},\beta^{'},\eta)],\nonumber\\
&& \Lambda_{in}^{A}({\bf k}, \beta,\eta) = \sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}[\pi_{\beta\beta^{'}}\Lambda_{out}^{S}({\bf k},\beta^{'},\eta) + \tau_{\beta\beta^{'}}\Lambda_{out}^{A}({\bf k},\beta^{'},\eta)],\end{aligned}$$ where ${\sigma_{\beta\beta^{'}}}$, ${\varrho_{\beta\beta^{'}}}$, ${\pi_{\beta\beta^{'}}}$ e ${\tau_{\beta\beta^{'}}}$ are the Bogolyubov coefficients. The operators can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe65}
&&\hat{a}_{out}({\bf k},\beta) = \sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}[\sigma_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{a}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'}) + \pi_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{b}^{\dag}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'})],\\\nonumber
&&\hat{b}_{out}({\bf k},\beta) = \sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}[\tau^{*}_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{b}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'}) + \varrho^{*}_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{a}^{\dag}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'})].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In order to satisfy (\[pe63\]) we must have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe67}
\sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}(\lvert \sigma_{\beta\beta^{'}}\lvert^{2} + \lvert \pi_{\beta\beta^{'}}\lvert^{2}) = 1,\nonumber\\
\sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}(\lvert \tau_{\beta\beta^{'}}\lvert^{2} + \lvert \varrho_{\beta\beta^{'}}\lvert^{2}) = 1.\end{aligned}$$
The expected value of created self-conjugated Elko particles for an observer at [*out*]{} in terms of the [*in*]{} vacuum is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe68}
\langle N^{S}\rangle &=& \langle0_{in}|\hat{a}^{\dag}_{out}({\bf k},\beta)\hat{a}_{out}({\bf k},\beta)|0_{in}\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\langle0_{in}|\sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}(\sigma^{*}_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{a}^{\dag}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'}) + \pi^{*}_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{b}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'}))\times(\sigma_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{a}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'}) + \pi_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{b}^{\dag}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'}))|0_{in}\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}\lvert\pi_{\beta\beta^{'}}\rvert^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ At the same time, the expected value of created anti-self-conjugated Elko particles for an observer at [*out*]{} in terms of the [*in*]{} vacuum is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe69}
\langle N^{A}\rangle &=& \langle0_{in}|\hat{b}^{\dag}_{out}({\bf k},\beta)\hat{b}_{out}({\bf k},\beta)|0_{in}\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\langle0_{in}|\sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}(\tau_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{b}^{\dag}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'}) + \varrho_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{a}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'}))\times(\tau^{*}_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{b}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'}) + \varrho^{*}_{\beta\beta^{'}}\hat{a}^{\dag}_{in}({\bf k},\beta^{'}))|0_{in}\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}\lvert\varrho_{\beta\beta^{'}}\rvert^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the total expected value of created Elko particles for an observer at [*out*]{} in terms of the [*in*]{} vacuum is: $$\label{pe70}
\langle N_{\lambda}\rangle = \langle N^{S}\rangle + \langle N^{A}\rangle = \sum\limits_{\beta^{'}}(\lvert\pi_{\beta\beta^{'}}\rvert^{2}+\lvert\varrho_{\beta\beta^{'}}\rvert^{2}).$$ The modes ${\{\Lambda_{in}^{S}({\bf k},\beta,\eta), \Lambda_{in}^{A}({\bf k},\beta,\eta)\}}$ in terms of ${\{\Lambda_{out}^{S}({\bf k},\beta,\eta), \Lambda_{out}^{A}({\bf k},\beta,\eta)\}}$, depend solely on the description of ${g_{in}^{(\pm)}(\eta)}$ in terms of ${g_{out}^{(\pm)}(\eta)}$. From now on we introduce the correct normalization factors, namely ${N_{in/out} = (2m\omega_{in/out})^{-1/2}}$ . By means of the transformations (\[pe40\]) and (\[pe31\]) for ${\eta\longrightarrow+\infty}$, follows from (\[pe51\]) and (\[pe52\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe71}
N_{in}g_{in}^{(+)}(\eta) &\approx& N_{out}\left(\frac{N_{in}}{N_{out}}\right)\frac{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\right)}e^{-i\omega_{out}\eta}\nonumber\\
&+&N_{out}\left(\frac{N_{in}}{N_{out}}\right)\frac{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)}e^{i\omega_{out}\eta}, \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe72}
N_{in}g_{in}^{(-)}(\eta) &\approx& N_{out}\left(\frac{N_{in}}{N_{out}}\right)\frac{\Gamma\left(1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)}e^{-i\omega_{out}\eta}\nonumber\\
&+&N_{out}\left(\frac{N_{in}}{N_{out}}\right)\frac{\Gamma\left(1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\right)}e^{i\omega_{out}\eta}. \end{aligned}$$ Identifying the Bogolyubov coefficients from Eqs. (\[pe71\]) and (\[pe72\]) into (\[pe70\]), we finally obtain the total density of created Elko spinor particles as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe73}
\langle N_{\lambda}\rangle = 2\frac{\omega_{out}}{\omega_{in}}&\Bigg\{&\left\lvert\frac{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r_-})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r_-})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)}\right\rvert^{2}\nonumber\\
&+&\left\lvert\frac{\Gamma\left(1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r_+})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r_+})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)}\right\rvert^{2}\Bigg\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the first term must be calculated with $r_-$ and the second one with $r_+$, according to the discussion after (\[pe24\]). The factor 2 comes from the two helicities into the sum (\[pe67\]), namely $\beta=\{\pm,\mp \}$. This is the main result of this work. Several interesting characteristics will be studied in the next section.
Comparison with scalar and Dirac fermion creation
=================================================
Now we proceed to compare result (\[pe73\]) for the density of created Elko particles for the asymptotic metric (\[pe15\]), namely $a(\eta)=\sqrt{A+B\tanh(\rho\eta)}$, with the well known similar results for real scalar particles [@davies; @duncan; @moradi1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe74}
\langle N_{\phi}\rangle = 2\frac{\omega_{out}}{\omega_{in}}\left\lvert\frac{\Gamma\left(1-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(1 + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\right)}\right\rvert^{2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The factor 2 comes from the fact that the anti-particle of a real scalar field is its own particle, being created in equal amount. Taking $r_\mp =0$ into (\[pe73\]) we obtain twice the value of (\[pe74\]), due to two helicities of the Elko particles.
Since the Elko is a fermionic particle, we also would like to compare its creation with that of Dirac fermions. However, an analytic expression for creation of Dirac fermionic particles for the metric (\[pe15\]) is not known. Nevertheless an analytic expression exist for a metric of the form [@moradi2] $a(\eta)=C+D\tanh(\rho\eta)$. Taking into account that $\tanh(\rho\eta)$ is limited to $\pm 1$ and considering the limit $B/A\ll 1$ in our case, the metric (\[pe15\]) can be expanded as $a(\eta)\simeq \sqrt{A} + (B/2\sqrt{A})\tanh(\rho\eta)+\dots$, thus we can compare our result (\[pe73\]) with the corresponding for Dirac fermionic particles [@moradi2]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe75}
\langle N_{\psi}\rangle =2\frac{N_{in}}{N^{out}}\frac{\left\lvert\Gamma\left(\frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho} - \frac{imD}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(1 + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho} + \frac{imD}{\rho}\right)\right\rvert^{2}}{\left\lvert\Gamma\left(1-\frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho} + \frac{imD}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(-\frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho} - \frac{imD}{\rho}\right)\right\rvert^{2} + \left\lvert\Gamma\left(\frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho} - \frac{imD}{\rho}\right)\Gamma\left(1 + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho} + \frac{imD}{\rho}\right)\right\rvert^{2}}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ with $C=\sqrt{A}$, $D=B/2\sqrt{A}$, $\omega_\pm =(\omega_{out}\pm \omega_{in})/2$ and $\omega_{in/out}=\sqrt{k^2+ m^2(C\mp D)^2}$. The normalization are given by [@moradi2]: $$N_{in}^{out}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m^2(C\pm D)^2+2m(C\pm D)\sqrt{k^2+m^2(C\pm D)^2}}}\,.$$ The factor 2 comes from the fact that the number of anti-particles created is equal to the particles in the Dirac case.
Figure 2 shows the behaviour of the density of created particles as a function of its momentum for several different values of the constants. Dirac particles are in red line, Elko particles in black line and scalar particles in green line. Several interesting aspects can be seen in the graphics. For same masses, the spectrum of created Dirac particles are always greater than the Elko and scalar particles. For all kinds of particles the maximum occurs for null momenta, an indication that rest particles are created in greater quantity. Higher momenta particles demand more energy to be created, so they are suppressed. Taking $r_\mp =0$ for the Elko number density we recover exactly the spectrum of the scalar particles, with a factor 2 coming from the two kinds of Elko, namely self-conjugate and anti-self-conjugate. We also notice that greater the distance between the parameters $A$ and $B$, lesser the number of created particles (Figs. 2 (a), (b) and (c)). In Fig. 2 (d) we see the effect of the parameter $\rho$, that raises the number of created particles and enlarges the form of the spectrum (compared to Fig. 2 (b) for the same values of parameters).
In Figure 3 we compare the number of created particles as a function of its mass for some constant values of momenta. Interesting to notice that for both Dirac and scalar particles the number density of created particles goes to zero in the zero mass limit for every momenta, while for Elko particles the number density increases in the null mass limit. A second maximum occurs for Elko of small masses and momenta (Figs. 3 (a) and (b)), in agreement to the maximum that also there exist for scalar and Dirac particles. In the specific case of null mass and null momenta the number density diverges for Elko particles. Such behaviour is showed in Figure 4, for a 3D plotting. The presence of a second maximum is also evident from Fig. 4 (a). Although such result point to a infinite amount of created Elko particles with zero mass at rest, the very definition of the Elko field assures it must be massive. Thus we cannot have zero mass Elko particles being created, since that such spinor is not defined at this limit.
As a last analysis we compare in Figure 5 the number density of created particles just for Elko and Dirac, for slightly different masses as a function of its momenta. Notice that the creation of Elko particles is greater than Dirac particles when its mass is lesser than the Dirac one (normalized to one). This has a interesting interpretation if we consider the Elko as the candidate to dark matter in the universe. Lighter Elko particles are created in larger quantities than Dirac fermionic particles. Such difference could be responsible for the presence of about 5% of baryonic matter and 25% of dark matter particles in the actual universe. Being more light than the baryonic particles, the Elko particles are more difficult to be detected into accelerators for instance.
Concluding remarks
==================
In this paper we have analysed the gravitational particle creation of the Elko spinor field for a metric scale factor of the form $a(\eta)=\sqrt{A+B\tanh \rho \eta}$. Such model admits exact analytic solutions for real scalar particles in general case and also for Dirac particles in the limit $B/A\ll 1$, thus we have conditions to compare the spectrum of creation of Elko particles with real scalar and fermionic Dirac particles.
The differential equation that governs the time mode function was obtained, Eq. (\[pe14\]), being exactly a generalization of real scalar particles. Analytic solutions of such equation were obtained for the aforementioned scale factor after using an approximation that permits to write the solutions by means of generalized hypergeometric functions, Eq. (\[pe24\]). Finally, the number density of created Elko particles was obtained, Eq. (\[pe73\]). All the above results are generalization of the corresponding to real scalar particles. Although being a fermion, the time dependent part of the Elko spinor field follows an evolution similar to scalar particles. Even so, in which concerns the spectrum of created particles, several interesting properties are present, as follows.
For particles of same mass we have obtained that the number density of created Elko particles is greater than scalar particles and lesser than Dirac particles. For the three kinds of particles the maximum of creation occurs for null momenta, which is reasonable, since production of high kinetic energy particles needs much more gravitational field variation.
The spectrum of density of created particles as a function of the its masses were also analysed for some constant values of the momenta. Dirac and scalar particles have a maximum production for a non null mass and goes to zero in the null and high mass limit, similar to a thermal spectrum. Elko particles presents a peculiar behaviour. In the zero mass limit the creation is maximum, going to infinity for null momenta. Another consequence is that lighter Elko particles can be created in more quantity than Dirac particles. By considering the Elko particles as candidate to dark matter in the universe, we interpreted that there exist much more light Elko particles created gravitationally than baryonic fermionic particles. Such result is confirmed by observations, since that there are about 25% of dark matter against about 5% of baryonic matter, according to standard model of cosmology.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}\
(a)(b)\
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}\
(c)(d)\
\[fig2\]
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}\
(a)(b)\
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}\
(c)(d)
{width="47.00000%"} {width="52.00000%"}\
(a)(b)
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}\
(a)(b)
APPENDIX {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Elko spinor field
-----------------
The Elko spinors $\lambda({\bf k})$ are constructed by imposing they are eigenspinors of the charge conjugation operator $C$ [@AHL1; @AHL2; @AHL3]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cee1}
C\lambda({\bf k}) = \pm\lambda({\bf k}) \Rightarrow \begin{cases}
C\lambda^{S}({\bf k}) = +1.\lambda^{S}({\bf k})\\
C\lambda^{A}({\bf k}) = -1.\lambda^{A}({\bf k})
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ with ${\lambda^{S}({\bf k})}$ and ${\lambda^{A}({\bf k})}$ standing for self-conjugate and anti-self-conjugate spinors, respectively, with eingenvalues ${+1}$ and ${-1}$. The operator $C$ is given by, in the Weyl representation: $$\label{cee2}
C \stackrel{Weyl}{=} \begin{pmatrix}
0_{2\times2} & i\Theta\\
-i\Theta & 0_{2\times2}
\end{pmatrix}K,$$ where ${\Theta = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1\\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}$ is the Wigner time reverse operator and $K$ just takes the complex conjugation of the fields on the right.
With the Dirac $\gamma$ matrices given by ${\gamma^{0} = \begin{pmatrix}
0_{2\times2} & I_{2\times2}\\
I_{2\times2} & 0_{2\times2}
\end{pmatrix}}$ e ${\gamma^{i} = \begin{pmatrix}
0_{2\times2} & -\sigma^{i}_{2\times2}\\
\sigma^{i}_{2\times2} & 0_{2\times2}
\end{pmatrix}}$, where ${\sigma^{i} = \sigma_{i}}$ are the Pauli matrices, we have four spinors satisfying (\[cee2\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cee3}
&&\lambda^{S}_{\{+,-\}}({\bf 0}) = \begin{pmatrix}
+\sigma_{2}[\phi_{L}^{-}({\bf 0})]^{*} \\
\phi_{L}^{-}({\bf 0})
\end{pmatrix} \longmapsto \begin{pmatrix}
\Uparrow\\
\Downarrow
\end{pmatrix},\nonumber\\
&&\lambda^{S}_{\{-,+\}}({\bf 0}) = \begin{pmatrix}
+\sigma_{2}[\phi_{L}^{+}({\bf 0})]^{*} \\
\phi_{L}^{+}({\bf 0})
\end{pmatrix} \longmapsto \begin{pmatrix}
\Downarrow\\
\Uparrow
\end{pmatrix},\nonumber\\
&&\lambda^{A}_{\{+,-\}}({\bf 0}) = \begin{pmatrix}
-\sigma_{2}[\phi_{L}^{-}({\bf 0})]^{*} \\
\phi_{L}^{-}({\bf 0})
\end{pmatrix} \longmapsto \begin{pmatrix}
\Uparrow\\
\Downarrow
\end{pmatrix},\nonumber\\
&&\lambda^{A}_{\{-,+\}}({\bf 0}) = \begin{pmatrix}
-\sigma_{2}[\phi_{L}^{+}({\bf 0})]^{*} \\
\phi_{L}^{+}({\bf 0})
\end{pmatrix} \longmapsto \begin{pmatrix}
\Downarrow\\
\Uparrow
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\beta =}$ (${\{+,-\}}$,${\{-,+\}}$) stands for the helicities, pictorially represented on the right, and ${\phi_{L}^{\pm}({\bf 0})}$ are the left-handed Weyl at rest: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cee4}
&&\phi_{L}^{+}({\bf 0}) = \sqrt{m}\begin{pmatrix}
cos(\theta/2)e^{-i\varphi/2}\\
sen(\theta/2)e^{+i\varphi/2}
\end{pmatrix},\nonumber\\
&&\phi_{L}^{-}({\bf 0}) = \sqrt{m}\begin{pmatrix}
-sen(\theta/2)e^{-i\varphi/2}\\
cos(\theta/2)e^{+i\varphi/2}
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ and ${m}$ represents its mass. In the null mass limit the Elko spinor is not defined. For an arbitrary moment we just apply a Lorentz boost: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cee5}
&&\lambda^{S}_{\{\pm,\mp\}}({\bf k}) = \sqrt{\frac{E + m}{2m}}\left(1 \pm \frac{k}{E+m}\right)\lambda^{S}_{\{\pm,\mp\}}({\bf 0}),\nonumber\\
&&\lambda^{A}_{\{\pm,\mp\}}({\bf k}) = \sqrt{\frac{E + m}{2m}}\left(1 \pm \frac{k}{E+m}\right)\lambda^{A}_{\{\pm,\mp\}}({\bf 0}),\end{aligned}$$ with ${E = (k^{2} + m^{2})^{1/2}}$ the energy.
The duals $\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}_{\beta}({\bf k})$ are constructed such that ${\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}_{\beta}({\bf k})\lambda_{\beta}({\bf k})}$ are Lorentz invariants, so they are defined as: $$\label{cee6}
\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}_{\{\mp,\pm\}}^{S/A}({\bf k}) = \pm i[\lambda_{\{\pm,\mp\}}^{S/A}({\bf k})]^{\dag}\gamma^{0},$$ With (\[cee5\]) and (\[cee6\]) we obtain the following properties: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cee7}
&&\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}_{\beta}({\bf k})^{S}\lambda_{\beta^{'}}({\bf k})^{S} = 2m\delta_{\beta\beta^{'}},\nonumber\\
&&\stackrel{\neg}{\lambda}_{\beta}({\bf k})^{A}\lambda_{\beta^{'}}({\bf k})^{A} = -2m\delta_{\beta\beta^{'}}\end{aligned}$$
In Ref. [@AHL4] a new dual was proposed leading to important consequences in their quantum fields, with some additional support given in [@RJ] and [@WT]. The important fact to our study is that such a new dual preserves the relations (\[cee7\]).
Riemann-Papperitz equation
--------------------------
The Riemann-Papperitz differential equation for ${w = w(z)}$ is given by [@25]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A10}
&&\frac{d^{2}w}{dz^{2}} + \left[\frac{1-\alpha-\alpha^{'}}{z-z_{1}} + \frac{1-\beta-\beta^{'}}{z-z_{2}} + \frac{1-\gamma-\gamma^{'}}{z-z_{3}}\right]\frac{dw}{dz}\nonumber\\
&&+\left[\frac{\alpha\alpha^{'}(z_{1}-z_{2})(z_{1}-z_{3})}{z-z_{1}} + \frac{\beta\beta^{'}(z_{2}-z_{3})(z_{2}-z_{1})}{z-z_{2}} + \frac{\gamma\gamma^{'}(z_{3}-z_{1})(z_{3}-z_{2})}{z-z_{3}}\right]\nonumber\\
&&\times\frac{w}{(z-z_{1})(z-z_{2})(z-z_{3})} = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where ${z_{1}}$, ${z_{2}}$ and ${z_{3}}$ are the poles of the equation and ${\alpha}$, ${\alpha^{'}}$, ${\beta}$, ${\beta^{'}}$, ${\gamma}$ and ${\gamma^{'}}$ de Riemann coefficients that satisfies: $$\label{A11}
\alpha + \alpha^{'} + \beta + \beta^{'} + \gamma + \gamma^{'} - 1 = 0.$$ Choosing the poles as ${z_{1} = 0}$, ${z_{2} = 1}$ and ${z_{3} = \infty}$, (\[A10\]) is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A12}
&&\frac{d^{2}w}{dz^{2}} + \left[\frac{1-\beta-\beta^{'}}{z-1} + \frac{1-\alpha-\alpha^{'}}{z}\right]\frac{dw}{dz}+\left[\frac{\beta\beta^{'}}{z-1} - \frac{\alpha\alpha^{'}}{z} + \gamma\gamma^{'}\right]\frac{w}{z(z-1)} = 0,\end{aligned}$$ whose solution is: $$\label{A13}
w(z) = P\begin{Bmatrix}
z_{1} & z_{2} & z_{3} \\
\alpha & \beta & \gamma & z\\
\alpha^{'} & \beta^{'} & \gamma^{'}
\end{Bmatrix} = P\begin{Bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \infty \\
\alpha & \beta & \gamma & z\\
\alpha^{'} & \beta^{'} & \gamma^{'}
\end{Bmatrix},$$ represented by the ${P}\{\}$ Riemann symbol, which admits the following transformation for the poles: $$\label{A14}
P\begin{Bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \infty \\
\delta + \kappa & \varepsilon + l & \zeta - \kappa - l & z\\
\delta^{'} + \kappa & \varepsilon^{'} + l & \zeta^{'} - \kappa - l
\end{Bmatrix} = z^{\kappa}(1-z)^{l}P\begin{Bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \infty \\
\delta& \varepsilon & \zeta & z\\
\delta^{'} & \varepsilon^{'}& \zeta^{'}
\end{Bmatrix}$$\
Now, choosing the coefficients of (\[A12\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A16}
&&\begin{cases}
1-\alpha-\alpha^{'} = 1\\
\alpha\alpha^{'} = \frac{\omega_{in}^{2}}{4\rho^{2}}
\end{cases} \Rightarrow \alpha = -\alpha^{'} = i\frac{\omega_{in}}{2\rho}, \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A17}
&&\begin{cases}
1-\beta-\beta^{'} = 1\\
\beta\beta^{'} = \frac{\omega_{out}^{2}}{4\rho^{2}}
\end{cases} \Rightarrow \beta = -\beta^{'} = i\frac{\omega_{out}}{2\rho}, \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A18}
&&\begin{cases}
1-\gamma-\gamma^{'} = 0\\
\gamma\gamma^{'} = r
\end{cases} \Rightarrow \gamma = \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2}, \gamma^{'} = \frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2}, \end{aligned}$$ where ${z \rightarrow \xi}$, ${w(z) \rightarrow \tilde{g}(\xi)}$ and ${r = \frac{B}{8(A+B)}\left(\frac{3c_{2}B}{2(A+B)} - \frac{4c_{1}(X_{j} + iY_{j})}{\rho}\right)}$. We obtain for ${\tilde{g}(\xi)}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A15}
&&\Bigg[\frac{d^{2}}{d\xi^{2}} + \left(\frac{1}{\xi-1} + \frac{1}{\xi}\right)\frac{d}{d\xi} + \left(\frac{\omega_{out}^{2}}{4\rho^{2}}\frac{1}{\xi-1} - \frac{\omega_{in}^{2}}{4\rho^{2}}\frac{1}{\xi}\right)\cdot\frac{1}{\xi(\xi-1)}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{B}{8(A+B)}\left(\frac{3c_{2}B}{2(A+B)} - \frac{4c_{1}(X_{j} + iY_{j})}{\rho}\right)\cdot\frac{1}{\xi(\xi-1)}\Bigg]\tilde{g}(\xi) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ which is exactly (\[pe23\]). The solution comes from (\[A13\]): $$\label{A19}
\tilde{g}(\xi) = P\begin{Bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \infty \\
i\frac{\omega_{in}}{2\rho} & i\frac{\omega_{out}}{2\rho} & \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} & \xi\\
-i\frac{\omega_{in}}{2\rho} & -i\frac{\omega_{out}}{2\rho} & \frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2}
\end{Bmatrix}.$$ Using the transformation (\[A14\]) into (\[A19\]): $$\nonumber
\tilde{g}(\xi) = P\begin{Bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \infty \\
i\frac{\omega_{in}}{2\rho} & i\frac{\omega_{out}}{2\rho} & \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} & \xi\\
-i\frac{\omega_{in}}{2\rho} & -i\frac{\omega_{out}}{2\rho} & \frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2}
\end{Bmatrix} = P\begin{Bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \infty \\
\delta + \kappa & \varepsilon + l & \zeta - \kappa - l & \xi\\
\delta^{'} + \kappa & \varepsilon^{'} + l & \zeta^{'} - \kappa - l
\end{Bmatrix},\nonumber$$ and taking ${\kappa = \frac{i\omega_{in}}{2\rho}}$ and ${l = \frac{i\omega_{out}}{2\rho}}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\begin{cases}
\delta = 0\\
\varepsilon = 0\\
\zeta = \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\\
\delta^{'} = -\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\\
\varepsilon^{'} = -\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\\
\zeta^{'} = \frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho},
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ with ${\omega_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}(\omega_{out} \pm \omega_{in})}$.\
Finally, ${\tilde{g}(\xi)}$ from (\[A19\]) and (\[A14\]) can be written as: $$\label{A20}
\tilde{g}(\xi) = \xi^{\frac{i\omega_{in}}{2\rho}}(1-\xi)^{\frac{i\omega_{out}}{2\rho}}P\begin{Bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \infty \\
0 & 0 & \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho} & \xi\\
-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho} & -\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho} & \frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}
\end{Bmatrix}$$ which is just the solution (\[pe24\]) for our problem.
Now we can write the above solution in terms of the standard hypergeometric function [@25]: $$\label{pe26}
_{2}F_{1}(\epsilon,\upsilon;\varpi;z) = P\begin{Bmatrix}
0 & 1 & \infty \\
0 & 0 & \epsilon & z\\
1-\varpi & \varpi-\epsilon-\upsilon & \upsilon
\end{Bmatrix},$$ where $_{2}F_{1}(\epsilon,\upsilon;\varpi;z)$ is defined by the series: $$\label{pe27}
_{2}F_{1}(\epsilon,\upsilon;\varpi;z) = 1 + \frac{\epsilon\cdot \upsilon}{\varpi\cdot 1}z + \frac{\epsilon(\epsilon+1)\upsilon(\upsilon+1)}{\varpi(\varpi+1)\cdot 1\cdot 2}z^{2} +...,$$ and satisfies the relation: $$\label{pe31}
_{2}F_{1}(\epsilon,\upsilon;\varpi;z) = {(1-z)^{\varpi-\epsilon-\upsilon}} _2F_{1}(\varpi-\epsilon,\varpi-\upsilon;\varpi;z).$$
Comparing (\[A20\]) with (\[pe26\]) we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\begin{cases}
\epsilon = \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\\
\upsilon = \frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\\
\varpi = 1 + \frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}\\
z = \xi
\end{cases},\end{aligned}$$ and ${\tilde{g}(\xi)}$ can be write as a hypergeometric: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe28}
\tilde{g}(\xi) &=& \xi^{\frac{i\omega_{in}}{2\rho}}(1-\xi)^{\frac{i\omega_{out}}{2\rho}}\nonumber\\
&\times&_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}, \frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}; 1 + \frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho};\xi\right).\end{aligned}$$ In order to write the solution for ${g(\eta)}$ we use $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe29}
\begin{cases}
\xi^{\frac{i\omega_{in}}{2\rho}} = \left(\frac{1+\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)^{\frac{i\omega_{in}}{2\rho}} = \left(\frac{{\textrm{e}}^{\rho\eta}}{2\cosh(\rho\eta)}\right)^{\frac{i\omega_{in}}{2\rho}} = {\textrm{e}}^{\frac{i\omega_{in}}{2}\eta}{\textrm{e}}^{-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{2\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))},\\
(1-\xi)^{\frac{i\omega_{out}}{2\rho}} = \left(\frac{1-\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)^{\frac{i\omega_{out}}{2\rho}} = {\textrm{e}}^{\frac{-i\omega_{out}}{2}\eta}{\textrm{e}}^{-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{2\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))}.
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ Substituting into (\[pe28\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe30}
g(\eta) &=& \exp\left[-i\left(\omega_{-}\eta + \frac{\omega_{+}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&\times&_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}, \frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}; 1 + \frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho};\frac{1+\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ With equation ([\[pe30\]]{}) we will obtain ${g_{in}(\eta)}$ e ${g_{out}(\eta)}$.
Now, by using (\[pe31\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\begin{cases}
\varpi-\epsilon-\upsilon = -\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\\
\varpi-\epsilon = \frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\\
\varpi-\upsilon = \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}
\end{cases},\end{aligned}$$ we also have for $\tilde{g}(\xi)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe33}
\tilde{g}(\xi) = \xi^{\frac{i\omega_{in}}{2\rho}}\, _{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}, \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho};1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho};\xi\right),\end{aligned}$$ and for ${g(\eta)}$ (using (\[pe29\])): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe34}
g(\eta) &=& \exp\left[i\left(\frac{\omega_{in}}{2}\eta - \frac{\omega_{in}}{2\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&\times&_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}, \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho};1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho};\frac{1+\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ In the limit $\eta\to -\infty$ we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe37}
g(\eta\to -\infty) &=& \exp\left[i\left(\omega_{+}\eta + \frac{\omega_{-}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&\times&_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}, \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-4r}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho};1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho};\frac{1+\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)\\\nonumber
&\to&g_{in}^{*}(\eta) = {\textrm{e}}^{i\omega_{in}\eta}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From this follow (\[pe38\]) and (\[pe39\]).
In a similar way we can construct the solutions for $\eta\to \infty$. By using the transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe40}
&&_{2}F_{1}(\epsilon, \upsilon;\varpi;z) = \frac{\Gamma(\varpi)\Gamma(\varpi-\epsilon-\upsilon)}{\Gamma(\varpi-\epsilon)\Gamma(\varpi-\upsilon)}\times_{2}F_{1}(\epsilon,\upsilon;\epsilon+\upsilon-\varpi;1-z)\\\nonumber
&&+(1-z)^{\varpi-\epsilon-\upsilon}\frac{\Gamma(\varpi)\Gamma(\epsilon+\upsilon-\varpi)}{\Gamma(\epsilon)\Gamma(\upsilon)}\times_{2}F_{1}(\varpi-\epsilon,\varpi-\upsilon;\varpi-\epsilon-\upsilon+1;1-z),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\Gamma}$ is the Euler function, identifying the coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe41}
\begin{cases}
\varpi-\epsilon-\upsilon = -\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\\
\varpi-\epsilon = \frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2}-\frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\\
\varpi-\upsilon = \frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2}-\frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}\\
\epsilon+\upsilon-\varpi=\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\\
\varpi-\epsilon-\upsilon+1=1-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\\
\end{cases}, \end{aligned}$$ for ${g^{(+)}_{in}(\eta)}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe42}
\begin{cases}
\varpi-\epsilon-\upsilon = -\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\\
\varpi-\epsilon = \frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2}-\frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\\
\varpi-\upsilon = \frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2}-\frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}\\
\epsilon+\upsilon-\varpi=\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\\
\varpi-\epsilon-\upsilon+1=1-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}\\
\end{cases}, \end{aligned}$$ for ${g^{(-)}_{in}(\eta)}$, we arrive at: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe43}
&&g_{in}^{(+)}(\eta) = \exp\left[i\left(-\omega_{+}\eta - \frac{\omega_{-}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&&\times\Bigg[{C_{1}}\;\times \;_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}, \frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho};\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho};\frac{1-\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)\\\nonumber
&&+{C_{2}}\;(1-z)^{-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}}\\\nonumber
&&\times \; _{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}, \frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho};1-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho};\frac{1-\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)\Bigg],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe45}
&&g_{in}^{(-)}(\eta) = \exp\left[i\left(-\omega_{-}\eta - \frac{\omega_{+}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&&\times \Bigg[C_{3}\;\times \;_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho}, \frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho};\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho};\frac{1-\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)\\\nonumber
&&+C_{4}\;(1-z)^{-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}}\\\nonumber
&& \times \; _{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho}, \frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho};1-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho};\frac{1-\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)\Bigg],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe44}
&& C_{1} = \frac{\Gamma(1-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho})\Gamma(-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho})}{\Gamma(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho})\Gamma(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho})},\\
&& C_{2} = \frac{\Gamma(1-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho})\Gamma(\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho})}{\Gamma(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho})\Gamma(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho})}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe46}
&& C_{3} = \frac{\Gamma(1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho})\Gamma(-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho})}{\Gamma(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho})\Gamma(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho})},\\
&& C_{4} = \frac{\Gamma(1+\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho})\Gamma(\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho})}{\Gamma(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho})\Gamma(\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho})}. \end{aligned}$$ By using (\[pe31\]) and $$\label{pe48}
\frac{1+tgh(\rho\eta)}{2} = \frac{e^{2\rho\eta}}{e^{2\rho\eta}+1},$$ Eqs. (\[pe43\]) and (\[pe45\]) are rewrite as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe49}
&& g_{in}^{(+)}(\eta) = \exp\left[i\left(-\omega_{+} \eta - \frac{\omega_{-}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&&\times C_{1}\times \; _{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho},\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho};\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho};\frac{1-tgh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)\\\nonumber
&&+C_{2}\times \exp\left[i\left(-\omega_{+}\eta - \frac{\omega_{-}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\times \left(\frac{{\textrm{e}}^{2\rho\eta}}{{\textrm{e}}^{2\rho\eta}+1}\right)^{\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}}\times\left(\frac{1}{{\textrm{e}}^{2\rho\eta}+1}\right)^{-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}}\\\nonumber
&&\times\;_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho},\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{-}}{\rho};1-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho};\frac{1-\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pe50}
&&g_{in}^{(-)}(\eta) = \exp\left[i\left(-\omega_{-}\eta - \frac{\omega_{+}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\\\nonumber
&&\times C_{3}\times\; _{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho},\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} + \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho};\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho};\frac{1-\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right)\\\nonumber
&&+C_{4}\times \exp\left[i\left(-\omega_{-}\eta - \frac{\omega_{+}}{\rho}\ln(2\cosh(\rho\eta))\right)\right]\times \left(\frac{{\textrm{e}}^{2\rho\eta}}{{\textrm{e}}^{2\rho\eta}+1}\right)^{-\frac{i\omega_{in}}{\rho}}\times\left(\frac{1}{{\textrm{e}}^{2\rho\eta}+1}\right)^{-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho}}\\\nonumber
&&\times_{2}F_{1}\left(\frac{1\mp(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho},\frac{1\pm(\sqrt{1-4r})^{*}}{2} - \frac{i\omega_{+}}{\rho};1-\frac{i\omega_{out}}{\rho};\frac{1-\tanh(\rho\eta)}{2}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we can identify ${g_{out}^{(+)}(\eta)}$, ${g_{out}^{(-)}(\eta)}$, ${\sigma}$, ${\varrho}$, ${\pi}$ and ${\tau}$ as in (\[pe53\])-(\[pe54\]) and the coefficients (\[pe55\])-(\[pe58\]).
SHP is grateful to CNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazilian research agency, for financial support, grants number 304297/2015-1. RCL is grateful to CAPES for financial support.
[99]{} L. Parker, *The creation of particles in an expanding universe*, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1966).
L. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**21**]{}, 562 (1968); Phys. Rev. [**183**]{}, 1057 (1969); Phys. Rev. [**D 3**]{}, 346 (1971); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**28**]{}, 705 (1972); Phys. Rev. [**D 7**]{}, 976 (1973); J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**45**]{}, 374023 (2012).
Ya. B Zel’dovich, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**12**]{}, 443 (1970), (English transl. JETP [**12**]{}, 307 (1970)); R. Brout, F.Englert and E. Gunzig, Ann. Phys. [**115**]{}, 78 (1978); M. Bordag, J. Lindig and V. M. Mostepanenko, Class. Quantum Grav. [**15**]{} 581 (1998); M. Mijic, Phys. Rev. [**D 57**]{}, 2138 (1998); S. Biswas and I. Chowdhury, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**D 15**]{}, 937 (2006).
S. G. Mamayev, V. M. Mostepanenko and A. A. Starobinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP [**43**]{}, 823 (1976).
Yu. V. Pavlov, Grav. Cosmol. [**14**]{}, 314 (2008).
A. A. Grib and Yu. V. Pavlov, Grav. Cosmol. [**11**]{}, 119 (2005); Grav. Cosmol. [**12**]{}, 159 (2006); AIP Conf. Proc. [**956**]{}, 96 (2007); Yu. V. Pavlov, Theor. Math. Phys. [**126**]{}, 92 (2001).
A. A. Grib and S. G. Mamayev, Yad. Fiz. [**10**]{}, 1276 (1969)\[English transl.: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**10**]{}, 722 (1970)\]; A. A. Grib, S. G. Mamayev and V. M. Mostepanenko, Gen. Rel. Grav., [**7**]{}, 535 (1975).
J. D. Barrow, A. B. Batista, J. C. Fabris and S. Houndjo, Phys. Rev. [**D 78**]{}, 123508 (2008); A. B. Batista, J. C. Fabris and S. J. M. Houndjo, Grav. Cosmol. [**14**]{}, 140 (2008).
N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, [*Quantum Fields in Curved Space*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982).
S. A. Fulling, [*Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989).
A. A. Grib, S. G. Mamayev and V. M. Mostepanenko, [*Vaccum Quantum effects in Strong Fields*]{} (Friedmann Laboratory Publishing, St. Petesburg, 1994).
V. F. Mukhanov and S. Winitzki, [*Introduction to Quantum Effects in Gravity*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007).
Bernard, C., Duncan, A.: Ann. Phys [**107**]{}, 201 (1977).
S. Moradi, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**47**]{}, 2807 (2008);
S. Moradi, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**48**]{}, 969 (2009);
F. G. Alvarenga, A. B. Batista, J. C. Fabris and S. Houndjo, Grav. Cosmol. [**16**]{}, 105 (2010);
G. Mahajan and T. Padmanabhan, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**40**]{}, 709 (2008);
J.F. Jesus and S.H. Pereira, JCAP07, 040 (2014);
S. H. Pereira, C. H. G. Bessa and J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Lett. [**B 690**]{}, 103 (2010); S. H. Pereira and R. F. L. Holanda, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. [**46**]{} 1699 (2014); S. H. Pereira, J. C. Z. Aguilar and E. C. Romão, Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrof. [**50**]{} 195 (2014).
D. J. H. Chung, P. Crotty, E. W. Kolb, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. [**D 64**]{}, 043503 (2001); D. J. H. Chung, E. W. Kolb, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 4048 (1998); D. J. H. Chung, E. W. Kolb, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. [**D 60**]{}, 063504 (1999); D. J. H. Chung, E. W. Kolb, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. [**D 59**]{}, 023501( 1999).
S. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. [**D 91**]{}, 124075 (2015).
D. V. Ahluwalia-Khalilova and D. Grumiller, *Phys. Rev.* [**D 72**]{} (2005) 067701.
D. V. Ahluwalia-Khalilova and D. Grumiller, *JCAP* **07** (2005) 012.
D. V. Ahluwalia, (2013), arXiv:1305.7509v1 \[hep-th\].
J. M. Hoff da Silva and S. H. Pereira, *JCAP* **03** (2014) 009.
D. V. Ahluwalia, (2016) arXiv:1601.03188 \[hep-th\].
R. J. Bueno Rogério, J. M. Hoff da Silva, (2016) arXiv:1602.05871 \[hep-th\].
D. V. Ahluwalia, (2016) arXiv:1605.04224 \[physics.gen-ph\].
S. G. Mamayev and N. N. Trunov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**37**]{}, 592 (1983); Yadernaya Fizika [**37**]{}, 1603 (1983).
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, eds., *Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables* (Dover: New York, 1972).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Jordan isomorphisms of rings are defined by two equations. The first one is the equation of additivity while the second one concerns multiplicativity with respect to the so-called Jordan product. In this paper we present results showing that on standard operator algebras over spaces with dimension at least 2, the bijective solutions of that second equation are automatically additive.'
address: |
Institute of Mathematics and Informatics\
University of Debrecen\
4010 Debrecen, P.O.Box 12, Hungary
author:
- LAJOS MOLNÁR
title: Jordan maps on standard operator algebras
---
=2000
[^1]
Introduction and statement of the results
=========================================
It is an interesting problem to study the interrelation between the multiplicative and the additive structures of a ring. The first quite surprising result on how the multiplicative structure of a ring determines its additive structure is due to Martindale [@Martindale]. In [@Martindale Corollary] he proved that every bijective multiplicative map from a prime ring containing a nontrivial idempotent onto an arbitrary ring is necessarily additive and, hence, it is a ring isomorphism. This result has been utilized by Šemrl in [@Semrl] to describe the form of the semigroup isomorphisms of standard operator algebras on Banach spaces.
Beyond ring homomorphisms there is another very important class of transformations between rings. These are the Jordan homomorphisms. The Jordan structure of associative rings has been studied by many people in ring theory. Moreover, Jordan operator algebras have serious applications in the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. If $\mathcal R, \mathcal R'$ are rings and $\phi:\mathcal R\to
\mathcal R'$ is a transformation, then $\phi$ is called a Jordan homomorphism if it is additive and satisfies $$\label{E:mjor14}
\phi(A^2)=\phi(A)^2 \qquad (A\in \mathcal R).$$ If $\mathcal R'$ is 2-torsion free, then, under the assumption of additivity, is equivalent to $$\label{E:mjor15}
\phi(AB+BA)=\phi(A)\phi(B)+\phi(B)\phi(A)
\qquad (A,B\in \mathcal R).$$ Clearly, every ring homomorphism is a Jordan homomorphism and the same is true for ring antihomomorphisms (the transformation $\phi:
\mathcal R \to \mathcal
R'$ is called a ring antihomomorphism if $\phi$ is additive and satisfies $\phi(AB)=\phi(B)\phi(A)$ for all $A,B \in \mathcal R$). In algebras, it seems more frequent that instead of , one considers the equation $$\label{E:mjor16}
\phi((1/2)(AB+BA))=(1/2)(\phi(A)\phi(B)+\phi(B)\phi(A))
\qquad (A,B\in \mathcal R).$$ Under the assumption of additivity these two equations are obviously equivalent.
The additivity of bijective maps $\phi$ between von Neumann algebras without commutative direct summand satisfying the equation and $$\phi(A^*)=\phi(A)^*$$ was studied in [@Hakeda] and [@HakSai]. The aim of this paper is to investigate similar problems on standard operator algebras. From our present point of view the main difference between standard operator algebras and von Neumann algebras is that standard operator algebras need not have unit and they are not necessarily closed in any operator topology.
In what follows we shall study the equations and . Both equations play important role; the first one is because of ring theory and the second one is because of the applications of Jordan operator algebras in mathematical physics. Our main results describe the form of the bijective solutions of the considered equations. It will turn out that all such solutions are automatically additive. We refer to our recent papers [@Molnar2], [@Molnar] for some other results of similar spirit.
We now summarize the results of the paper. In what follows we consider all linear spaces over the complex field. If $X$ is a Banach space, then we denote by $B(X)$ and $F(X)$ the algebra of all bounded linear operators and the ideal of all bounded linear finite rank operators on $X$, respectively. A subalgebra of $B(X)$ is called a standard operator algebra if it contains $F(X)$. The dual space of $X$ is denoted by $X'$ and $A'$ stands for the Banach space adjoint of the operator $A\in B(X)$.
Our first result describes the form of the bijective solutions of on standard operator algebras.
\[T:mjor1\] Let $X, Y$ be Banach spaces, $\dim X>1$, and let $\A \subset B(X)$, $\B
\subset B(Y)$ be standard operator algebras. Suppose that $\phi:\A \to \B$ is a bijective transformation satisfying $$\label{E:mjor1}
\phi((1/2)(AB+BA))=(1/2)(\phi(A)\phi(B)+\phi(B)\phi(A))$$ for every $A,B \in \A$.
If $X$ is infinite dimensional, then we have the following possibilities:
- there exists an invertible bounded linear operator $T: X\to Y$ such that $$\phi(A)=TAT^{-1} \qquad (A\in \A);$$
- there exists an invertible bounded conjugate-linear operator $T: X\to
Y$ such that $$\phi(A)=TAT^{-1} \qquad (A\in \A);$$
- there exists an invertible bounded linear operator $T: X'\to
Y$ such that $$\phi(A)=TA'T^{-1} \qquad (A\in \A);$$
- there exists an invertible bounded conjugate-linear operator $T: X'\to
Y$ such that $$\phi(A)=TA'T^{-1} \qquad (A\in \A).$$
If $X$ is finite dimensional, then we have $\dim X=\dim Y$. So, our transformation $\phi$ can be supposed to act on the matrix algebra $M_n(\C)$. In this case we have the following possibilities:
- there exist a ring automorphism $h$ of $\C$ and an invertible matrix $T\in M_n(\C)$ such that $$\phi(A)=Th(A)T^{-1} \qquad (A\in M_n(\C));$$
- there exist a ring automorphism $h$ of $\C$ and an invertible matrix $T\in M_n(\C)$ such that $$\phi(A)=Th(A)^tT^{-1} \qquad (A\in M_n(\C)).$$
Here, ${}^t$ stands for the transpose and $h(A)$ denotes the matrix obtained from $A$ by applying $h$ on every entry of it.
From the theorem above we easily have the following corollary. If $H$ is a Hilbert space and $A\in B(H)$, then $A^*$ denotes the Hilbert space adjoint of $A$.
\[C:mjor3\] Let $H,K$ be Hilbert spaces, $\dim H>1$, and let $\A \subset B(H)$, $\B
\subset B(K)$ be standard operator algebras which are closed under taking adjoints. Suppose that $\phi:\A \to \B$ is a bijective transformation satisfying $$\label{E:mjor19}
\begin{aligned}
\phi(A^*) &=\phi(A)^*\\
\phi((1/2)(AB+BA)) &=(1/2)(\phi(A)\phi(B)+\phi(B)\phi(A))
\end{aligned}$$ for every $A,B \in \A$.
Then we have the following possibilities:
- there exists a unitary operator $U: H\to K$ such that $$\phi(A)=UAU^* \qquad (A\in \A);$$
- there exists an antiunitary operator $U: H\to K$ such that $$\phi(A)=UAU^* \qquad (A\in \A);$$
- there exists a unitary operator $U: H\to
K$ such that $$\phi(A)=UA^*U^* \qquad (A\in \A);$$
- there exists an antiunitary operator $U: H\to K$ such that $$\phi(A)=UA^*U^* \qquad (A\in \A).$$
Unfortunately, we do not have a result concerning the equation in the Banach space setting. However, we have the following result describing the self-adjoint solutions of that equation on standard operator algebras over Hilbert spaces. The restriction to self-adjoint solutions is very natural in operator theory where they usually consider transformations on operator algebras which preserve adjoints.
\[T:mjor2\] Let $H,K$ be Hilbert spaces, $\dim H>1$, and let $\A \subset B(H)$, $\B
\subset B(K)$ be standard operator algebras which are closed under taking adjoints. Let $\phi:\A \to \B$ be a bijective transformation satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(A^*) &=\phi(A)^* \\
\phi(AB+BA) &=\phi(A)\phi(B)+\phi(B)\phi(A)
\end{aligned}$$ for every $A,B \in \A$. Then we have the same possibilities for $\phi$ as in Corollary \[C:mjor3\].
Although we do not have a result on the equation in the Banach space setting, we suspect that its solutions are the same as those ones listed in Theorem \[T:mjor1\]. Unfortunately, this is only a conjecture which is left as an open problem.
Finally, we point out the fact that in all of our statements we have supposed that the underlying spaces are at least 2-dimensional. In fact, this assumption is necessary to put as it turns out from the following example. Over 1-dimensional spaces, standard operator algebras are trivially identified with the complex field $\C$. Now, consider a bijective additive function $a:\R \to \R$ for which $a(1)=1$ and $a(\log_2 3)\neq \log_2 3$. Such a function exists since $1$ and $\log_2 3$ are linearly independent in the linear space $\R$ over the field of rationals. Let $f:]0, +\infty [ \to ]0, +\infty[$ be defined by $$f(t)=2^{a(\log_2 t)}.$$ Define the funtion $h:\C \to \C$ by $$h(z) =
\begin{cases}
0 , &\text{if $z=0$;} \\
f(|z|)\frac{z}{|z|} , &\text{if $z\neq 0$.}
\end{cases}$$ It is easy to see that $h:\C \to \C$ is a bijective multiplicative function, $h(2)=2$ and $h(\overline{z})=\overline{h(z)}$ $(z\in \C)$. On the other hand, $h$ is not additive, since $h(3)\neq h(1)+h(2)$. This function serves as a counterexample for all of our results above after omitting the assumption on dimension.
Proofs
======
This section is devoted to the proofs of our results.
If $X$ is a Banach space, then the operator $P\in B(X)$ is an idempotent if $P^2=P$. There is a partial ordering between idempotents. If $P,Q\in B(X)$ are idempotents, then we write $P\leq Q$ if $PQ=QP=P$. The idempotents $P,Q\in B(X)$ are said to be orthogonal if $PQ=QP=0$.
Let $x\in X$ and $f\in X'$ be nonzero. The rank-1 operator $x\ot f$ is defined by $$(x\ot f)(z)=f(z)x \qquad (z\in X).$$ It is trivial to see that $x\ot f$ is an idempotent if and only if $f(x)=1$. Conversely, every rank-1 idempotent can be written in this form.
We begin with the proof of our first result.
First observe that $\phi(0)=0$. Indeed, if $A\in \A$ is such that $\phi(A)=0$, then we have $$\phi(0)=\phi((1/2)(A0+0A))=(1/2)(\phi(A)\phi(0)+\phi(0)\phi(A))=0.$$ We deduce from that $\phi$ preserves the idempotents. Since $\phi^{-1}$ has the same properties as $\phi$, it follows that $\phi$ preserves the idempotents in both directions. If the idempotents $P,Q\in \A$ are orthogonal, then we have $$0=\phi(0)=\phi((1/2)(PQ+QP))=
(1/2)(\phi(P)\phi(Q)+\phi(Q)\phi(P)).$$ Multiplying this equality by $\phi(Q)$ from the left and from the right respectively, we have $\phi(Q)\phi(P)\phi(Q)=\phi(P)\phi(Q)$ and $\phi(Q)\phi(P)\phi(Q)=\phi(Q)\phi(P)$. This implies that $$0=\phi(Q)\phi(P)\phi(Q)=
\phi(P)\phi(Q)=
\phi(Q)\phi(P).$$ Therefore, $\phi$ preserves the orthogonality between idempotents in both directions.
We assert that $\phi$ preserves the partial order $\leq$ between the idempotents. If $P,Q\in \A$ are idempotents and $P\leq Q$, then we obtain $$\phi(P)=\phi((1/2)(PQ+QP))=
(1/2)(\phi(P)\phi(Q)+\phi(Q)\phi(P)).$$ Multiplying this equality by $\phi(Q)$ from the left and from the right respectively, we get that $\phi(Q)\phi(P)\phi(Q)=\phi(Q)\phi(P)$ and $\phi(Q)\phi(P)\phi(Q)=\phi(P)\phi(Q)$. This implies that $\phi(P)=\phi(P)\phi(Q)=\phi(Q)\phi(P)$ and hence we have $\phi(P)\leq
\phi(Q)$.
It is easy to see that an idempotent $P\in \A$ is of rank $n$ if and only if there is a system $P_1, \ldots, P_n\in \A$ of pairwise orthogonal nonzero idempotents for which $P_k\leq P$ $(k=1, \ldots, n)$, but there is no such system of $n+1$ members. It now follows that $\phi$ preserves the rank of idempotents.
Let $P,Q\in \A$ be orthogonal finite rank idempotents. We know that $\phi(P), \phi(Q)$ are orthogonal finite rank idempotents. As $\phi$ preserves the order, we have $\phi(P),\phi(Q)\leq \phi(P+Q)$ implying $\phi(P)+\phi(Q)\leq
\phi(P+Q)$. Since $\phi$ preserves also the rank of idempotents, it follows that $\phi(P)+\phi(Q)=\phi(P+Q)$. This means that $\phi$ is orthoadditive on the set of all finite rank idempotents in $\A$.
Let $P_1, \ldots, P_n\in \A$ be pairwise orthogonal finite rank idempotents and $\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n\in \C$. Using the orthoadditivity of $\phi$ we have $$\label{E:mjor5}
\begin{gathered}
\phi(\sum_k\lambda_k P_k)=\\
\phi((1/2)((\sum_k\lambda_k P_k)(\sum_l P_l)+(\sum_l P_l)
(\sum_k\lambda_k P_k)))=\\
(1/2)(\phi(\sum_k\lambda_k P_k)\phi(\sum_l P_l)+\phi(\sum_l P_l)
\phi(\sum_k\lambda_k P_k))=\\
(1/2)(\phi(\sum_k\lambda_k P_k)\sum_l\phi(P_l)+\sum_l \phi(P_l)
\phi(\sum_k\lambda_k P_k))=\\
\sum_l (1/2)(\phi(\sum_k\lambda_k P_k)\phi(P_l)+\phi(P_l)
\phi(\sum_k\lambda_k P_k))=\\
\sum_l \phi((1/2)((\sum_k\lambda_k P_k)P_l+P_l
(\sum_k\lambda_k P_k)))=\\
\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_l \phi(\lambda_l P_l).
\end{gathered}$$
Next we prove that $\phi(-P)=-\phi(P)$ for every finite rank idempotent $P\in \A$. Let $P$ be of rank 1. We have $$\begin{gathered}
\phi(\lambda P)=
\phi((1/2)((\lambda P)P+P(\lambda P)))=\\
(1/2)(\phi(\lambda P)\phi(P)+\phi(P)\phi(\lambda P)).
\end{gathered}$$ Multiplying this equality by $\phi(P)$ from the left and from the right respectively, we have $\phi(P)\phi(\lambda P)\phi(P)=\phi(P)\phi(\lambda P)$ and $\phi(P)\phi(\lambda P)\phi(P)=\phi(\lambda P)\phi(P)$. It follows that $$\phi(\lambda P)=\phi(P)\phi(\lambda P)\phi(P).$$ Since $\phi(P)$ is of rank 1, it follows from the equality above that $$\label{E:mjor2}
\phi(\lambda P)=\mu \phi(P)$$ for some scalar $\mu \in \C$. So, we obtain that $\phi(-P)=c\phi(P)$ for some scalar $c\in \C$. Since $$c^2\phi(P)=(c\phi(P))^2=\phi(-P)^2=\phi((-P)^2)=\phi(P),$$ we have $c=\pm 1$. By the injectivity of $\phi$ we get $\phi(-P)=-\phi(P)$. Using we deduce that $$\label{E:mjor17}
\phi(-P)=-\phi(P)$$ for every finite rank idempotent $P\in \A$.
For any $A,B \in \A$ we write $$A\circ B=
(1/2)(AB+BA).$$ With this notation the equation can be rewritten as $$\phi(A\circ B)=\phi(A)\circ \phi(B) \qquad (A,B \in \A).$$
Let $T\in F(X)$ be arbitrary and let $P\in F(X)$ be an idempotent. Choose a finite rank idempotent $Q\in \A$ for which $QT=TQ=T$ and $QP=PQ=P$. Such a $Q$ can be constructed in the following way. Let $S\in F(X)$. Pick a finite rank idempotent $Q^l_S$ with range containing the range of $S$. We have $Q^l_S S=S$. Next, pick a finite dimensional subspace $M$ of $X$ whose direct sum with the kernel $N$ of $S$ is $X$. Consider the idempotent $Q^r_S$ with range $M$ corresponding to the direct sum $M\oplus N=X$. We have $SQ^r_S=S$. Finally, as the partially ordered set of all finite rank idempotents on $X$ is cofinal (see, for example, [@Molnar3 Lemma]), we can choose a finite rank idempotent $Q$ for which $Q^l_T,Q^r_T,Q^l_P,Q^r_P \leq Q$. It is easy to check that $Q$ has the desired properties. Now, it requires only trivial computation to verify that $$\label{E:mjor4}
(2P-Q)\circ (T\circ P)=PTP.$$ It follows that $$\phi(2P-Q)\circ (\phi(T)\circ \phi(P))=\phi(PTP).$$ We prove that $\phi(2P-Q)=2\phi(P)-\phi(Q)$. Indeed, since $Q-P$ is an idempotent which is orthogonal to $P$, by and we can compute $$\begin{gathered}
\phi(2P-Q)=\phi(P-(Q-P))=
\phi(P)+\phi(-(Q-P))=\\
\phi(P)-\phi(Q-P)=
\phi(P)-(\phi(Q)-\phi(P))= 2\phi(P)-\phi(Q).
\end{gathered}$$ So, we have $$(2\phi(P)-\phi(Q))\circ (\phi(T)\circ \phi(P))=\phi(PTP).$$ We assert that $\phi(Q)\phi(T)\phi(Q)=\phi(T)$ and $\phi(Q)\phi(P)\phi(Q)=\phi(P)$. In fact, these follow from the equalities $$\phi(T)=
(1/2)(\phi(T)\phi(Q)+\phi(Q)\phi(T))$$ and $$\phi(P)=
(1/2)(\phi(P)\phi(Q)+\phi(Q)\phi(P))$$ after mutliplying them by $\phi(Q)$ from the left and from the right, respectively. Similarly as in the case of , one can now easily check that $$(2\phi(P)-\phi(Q))\circ (\phi(T)\circ \phi(P))=\phi(P)\phi(T)\phi(P).$$ Therefore, we have $\phi(PTP)=\phi(P)\phi(T)\phi(P)$. We note that in this part of the proof we have used an idea similar to what was followed in the proof of [@Hakeda Lemma 1.6].
In the next section of the proof we apply some ideas from the proof of [@Molnar Theorem]. Fix a rank-1 idempotent $P\in
\A$. By , there is a function $h_P:\C \to \C$ such that $$\phi(\lambda P)=h_P(\lambda) \phi(P) \qquad (\lambda \in \C).$$ We show that $h_P$ does not depend on $P$. If $Q\in \A$ is another rank-1 idempotent not orthogonal to $P$, then we compute $$\begin{gathered}
\phi((1/2)((\lambda P)Q+Q(\lambda P)))=
(1/2)(h_P(\lambda)\phi(P)\phi(Q)+h_P(\lambda)\phi(Q)\phi(P))=\\
h_P(\lambda)(1/2)(\phi(P)\phi(Q)+\phi(Q)\phi(P)).
\end{gathered}$$ We similarly have $$\phi((1/2)(P(\lambda Q)+(\lambda Q)P))=
h_Q(\lambda)(1/2)(\phi(P)\phi(Q)+\phi(Q)\phi(P)).$$ Since $\phi(P)\phi(Q)+\phi(Q)\phi(P)\neq 0$ ($\phi(P)$ is not orthogonal to $\phi(Q)$), it follows that $h_P=h_Q$. If $Q$ is orthogonal to $P$, then we can choose a rank-1 idempotent $R\in \A$ such that $R$ is not orthogonal to $P$ and not orthogonal to $Q$. We have $h_P=h_R=h_Q$. Therefore, there is a function $h:\C \to \C$ such that $$\label{E:mjor18}
\phi(\lambda P)=h(\lambda )\phi(P)$$ for every $\lambda \in \C$ and every rank-1 idempotent $P\in \A$.
We assert that $\phi(\lambda A)=h(\lambda )\phi(A)$ for every $A\in
F(X)$. If $A$ is a finite rank idempotent, then this follows from and . If $A\in F(X)$ is arbitrary, then there is a finite rank idempotent $P$ such that $PA=AP=A$. We compute $$\begin{gathered}
\phi(\lambda A)=\phi((1/2)(A(\lambda P)+(\lambda P)A))=\\
(1/2)(\phi(A)h(\lambda)\phi(P)+h(\lambda)\phi(P)\phi(A))=
h(\lambda)\phi(A).
\end{gathered}$$ We next prove that $h$ is multiplicative. Let $P\in \A$ be a nonzero finite rank idempotent. We have $$\begin{gathered}
h(\lambda \mu)\phi(P)=
\phi(\lambda \mu P)=
\phi((1/2)((\lambda P)(\mu P) +(\mu P)(\lambda P)))=\\
(1/2)(h(\lambda)\phi(P)h(\mu)\phi(P) +h(\mu)\phi(P)h(\lambda)\phi(P))=
h(\lambda )h(\mu)\phi(P)
\end{gathered}$$ and this shows that $h$ is multiplicative.
We prove that $h$ is additive. Let $x,y\in X$ be linearly independent vectors, and choose linear functionals $f,g\in X'$ such that $f(x)=1,f(y)=0$ and $g(x)=0, g(y)=1$. Let $\lambda ,\mu \in \C$ be such that $\lambda +\mu=1$. Define $R=(\lambda x +\mu y)\ot (f+g)$, $P =x\ot f$, $Q=y\ot g$. Clearly, $R,P,Q$ are rank-1 idempotents and $P$ is orthogonal to $Q$. By what we already know, we deduce $$\begin{gathered}
h(\lambda +\mu)\phi(R)=
\phi((\lambda +\mu)R)=
\phi(R(P+Q)R)=\\
\phi(R)\phi(P+ Q)\phi(R)=
\phi(R)\phi(P)\phi(R)+ \phi(R)\phi(Q)\phi(R)=\\
\phi(RPR)+ \phi(RQR)=
\phi(\lambda R)+\phi(\mu R)=
(h(\lambda )+h(\mu))\phi(R).
\end{gathered}$$ By the multiplicativity of $h$, we have $h(\lambda
+\mu)=h(\lambda) +h(\mu)$ whenever $\lambda +\mu \neq 0$. To see the additivity of $h$, it remains to prove that $h(-\lambda)=-h(\lambda)$. Since $h$ is multiplicative, it follows that $h(-\lambda)^2=h(\lambda^2)=h(\lambda
)^2$. By the injectivity of $h$ we have the desired equality $h(-\lambda)=-h(\lambda)$.
We now verify that $\phi$ is additive on $F(X)$. Let $A,B\in F(X)$ be arbitrary and pick any rank-1 idempotent $P\in
F(X)$. Choose $x\in X, f\in X^*$ such that $P=x\ot f$. We compute $$\begin{gathered}
\phi(P)\phi(A+B)\phi(P)=
\phi(P(A+B) P)=
\phi(f((A+B)x) P)=
\\
h(f((A+B)x))\phi(P)=
h(f(Ax)) \phi(P)+h(f(Bx)) \phi(P)=
\\
\phi(f(Ax) P)+\phi(f(Bx) P)=
\phi(PA P)+\phi(P B P)=
\\
\phi(P)\phi(A) \phi(P)+\phi(P) \phi(B) \phi(P)=
\phi(P)(\phi(A)+\phi(B)) \phi(P).
\end{gathered}$$ Since this holds true for every rank-1 idempotent $P$ on $X$, we easily obtain that $\phi(A+B)=\phi(A)+\phi(B)$. Consequently, $\phi:
F(X) \to F(Y)$ is an additive bijection satisfying .
Since the algebra $F(X)$ (as well as every standard operator algebra) is prime (this means that for every $A,B \in F(X)$, the equality $AF(X) B=\{ 0\}$ implies $A=0$ or $B=0$), we can apply a result of Herstein [@Herstein] to obtain that $\phi$ is necessarily a ring isomorphism or a ring antiisomorphism of $F(X)$. In the isomorphic case we can apply the result in [@Semrl] and obtain the desired form of $\phi$ on $F(X)$. In the finite dimensional case we are done since in that case any standard operator algebra coincides with $F(X)$. Observe that the argument given in [@Semrl] for the finite dimensional case can be changed to give the antiisomorphic part of our result in the finite dimensional case. So, let us assume that $X$ is infinite dimensional and that $\phi$ is a ring isomorphism. By [@Semrl] there is a bounded invertible either linear or conjugate-linear operator $T:X\to Y$ such that $$\phi(A)=TAT^{-1} \qquad (A\in F(X)).$$ If $A\in \A$ is arbitrary, then for every finite rank idempotent $P\in
F(X)$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
(1/2)T(AP+PA)T^{-1}=
\phi((1/2)(AP+PA))=\\
(1/2)(\phi(A)\phi(P)+\phi(P)\phi(A))=
(1/2)(\phi(A)TPT^{-1}+TPT^{-1}\phi(A)).
\end{gathered}$$ Multiplying this equality by $T^{-1}$ from the left and by $T$ from the right, we get $$AP+PA=
T^{-1}\phi(A)TP+PT^{-1}\phi(A)T.$$ Now, multiplying this equality by $P$ from both sides, we arrive at $$PAP=PT^{-1}\phi(A)TP.$$ Since $P\in \A$ was an arbitrary finite rank idempotent, it follows that $A=T^{-1}\phi(A)T$ $(A\in \A)$. Therefore, we have $\phi(A)=TAT^{-1}$ $(A\in \A)$.
Suppose finally that $X$ is infinite dimensional and $\phi$ is a ring antiisomorpism of $F(X)$. Performing trivial modifications in the proofs of [@Semrl Theorem] and [@BresarSemrl Proposition 3.1], one can verify that there is a bounded invertible either linear or conjugate-linear operator $T:X' \to Y$ such that $$\phi(A)=TA'T^{-1} \qquad (A\in F(X)).$$ Similarly to the isomorphic case, we can arrive at the equality $$P'A'+A'P'=
(AP+PA)'=
T^{-1}\phi(A)TP'+P'T^{-1}\phi(A)T.$$ As $P'$ is an idempotent, multiplying this equality by $P'$ from both sides, we deduce $$P'A'P'=P'T^{-1}\phi(A)TP'.$$ Since, as we learn from [@BresarSemrl Proposition 3.1], in the antiisomorphic case $X,Y$ are reflexive, it follows that $P'$ runs through the set of all finite rank idempotents in $B(X')$ as $P$ runs through the set of all finite rank idempotents in $B(X)$. So, just as in the isomorphic case we can infer that $$\phi(A)=TA'T^{-1} \qquad (A\in \A).$$ This completes the proof of the theorem.
It is now easy to prove Corollary \[C:mjor3\]. We recall that the self-adjoint idempotents in $B(H)$ are called projections.
Clearly, Theorem \[T:mjor1\] can be applied. According to that result, we have several possibilities concerning the form of $\phi$. We give the proof in the case of only one such possibility. The other cases can be handled in a quite similar way. Suppose that $H$ is infinite dimensional. By Theorem \[T:mjor1\], we have, for example, a bounded linear operator $T:H\to K$ such that $$\phi(A)=TAT^{-1} \qquad (A\in \A).$$ Pick an arbitrary rank-1 projection $P\in \A$. By the self-adjointness of $\phi$ we have $${(T^{-1})}^*PT^*=
(TPT^{-1})^*=
TPT^{-1}.$$ Since this holds for every rank-1 projection $P$ on $H$ we easily obtain that the vectors ${(T^{-1})}^*x$, $Tx$ are linearly dependent for every $x\in H$. It needs only an elementary linear algebraic argument to show that in this case ${T^{-1}}^*$ and $T$ are necessarily linearly dependent, that is, we have $T^{-1}=\lambda T^*$ for some $\lambda \in \C$. On the other hand, it follows from that $\phi$ sends projections to projections. This implies that the scalar $\lambda$ above is necessarily positive. Denote $U=\sqrt \lambda
T$. We infer that $U:H\to K$ is an invertible bounded linear operator with $U^{-1}=U^*$. This gives us that $U$ is unitary.
As for the case when $H$ is finite dimensional, we recall the well-known fact that if $h:\C \to \C$ is a ring automorphism of $\C$ for which $h(\overline{\lambda})
=\overline{h(\lambda)}$ $(\lambda \in \C)$, then $h$ is either the identity or the conjugation.
The proof of Theorem \[T:mjor2\] will rest on the following lemmas. Recall that an operator $A\in B(H)$ is said to be positive if $\la Ax,x\ra \geq 0$ holds for every $x\in H$. In this case we write $A\geq 0$.
\[L:mjor3\] Let $H$ be a Hilbert space and $A,B\in B(H)$. Suppose that $A$ is positive and $AB+BA=0$. Then we have $AB=BA=0$.
Since $AB=-BA$, we obtain $$A^2B=A(AB)=A(-BA)=(-AB)A=(BA)A=BA^2.$$ That is, $A^2$ commutes with $B$. It is well-known that if a positive operator $T$ commutes with an operator, then the same holds true for the positive square root of $T$. In fact, this follows from the fact that the square root of $T$ is the norm limit of polynomials of $T$. Therefore, we get that $A$ commutes with $B$ which gives us that $AB=BA=0$.
In what follows let $\clrng A$ denote the closure of the range of the operator $A\in B(H)$.
\[L:mjor4\] Let $\A$ be a standard operator algebra on a Hilbert space. Let $A,B \in
\A$ be self-adjoint. Then we have ${\clrng A} \subset \clrng
B$ if and only if for every positive operator $C\in \A$ with $BC=0$ it follows that $AC=0$.
All we have to do is to note that $\A$ contains all projections of rank 1 and that the condition ${\clrng A} \subset \clrng B$ is equivalent to the condition that $\ker B\subset \ker A$.
As for the proof of our next lemma we recall the following useful notation. If $x,y\in H$, then $x\ot y$ stands for the operator defined by $$(x\ot y)(z)=\la z,y\ra x \qquad (z\in H).$$
\[L:mjor5\] Let $H$ be a Hilbert space. If $A\in B(H)$ is such that $TA+AT\geq 0$ holds for every $0\leq T\in
F(H)$, then $A$ is a nonnegative scalar multiple of the identity.
First observe that $A$ is positive. Indeed, for every finite rank projection $P$ on $H$ we have $PA+AP\geq 0$. Considering an increasing net of finite rank projections weakly converging to the identity, we obtain that $A+A\geq 0$ and this implies $A\geq 0$.
If $0\neq x\in H$ is arbitrary, then we have $$x\ot Ax+Ax \ot x\geq 0$$ It follows from this inequality that for any $y\in H$ we have $$\la y, Ax\ra \la x, y\ra +
\la y, x\ra \la Ax, y\ra \geq 0$$ which implies that $$\label{E:mjor12}
{\operatorname{Re}}(\la y, Ax\ra \la x, y\ra) \geq 0.$$ We can write $Ax=\lambda x+x^\perp$, where $\lambda \in \C$ and $x^\perp\in H$ is a vector orthogonal to $x$. Define $y=\mu x+x^\perp$ for an arbitrary $\mu \in \C$. It follows from that $${\operatorname{Re}}(\mu \bar \lambda \| x\|^2+\| x^\perp\|^2) \bar \mu\geq 0.$$ This implies that $$|\mu|^2{\operatorname{Re}}\bar \lambda \| x\|^2 +\| x^\perp \|^2 {\operatorname{Re}}\bar \mu \geq 0$$ holds for every $\mu \in \C$. It is easy to see that we necessarily have $\| x^\perp\|^2=0$.
The above observation yields that for every $x\in H$, the vectors $Ax$ and $x$ are linearly dependent. As we have mentined in the proof of Corollary \[C:mjor3\], such a local linear dependence implies global linear dependence. Therefore, it follows that $A$ is a scalar multiple of the identity. It is clear that the scalar in question is nonnegative.
\[L:mjor7\] Let $n\in \N$, $n>1$. Suppose that $\psi:M_n (\C)\to M_n(\C)$ is a bijective transformation for which $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(A^*)&=\psi(A)^*\\
\psi(AB+BA)&=\psi(A)\psi(B)+\psi(B)\psi(A)
\end{aligned}$$ holds for every $A,B \in M_n(\C)$. Then $\psi$ satisfies .
First observe that $\psi$ preserves positivity in both directions. Indeed, if $A\in M_n(\C)$ is positive, then there is a positive $B\in M_n(\C)$ such that $2B^2=A$. We have $$\psi(A)=\psi(B^*B+BB^*)=
\psi(B)^*\psi(B)+\psi(B)\psi(B)^*\geq 0.$$ Since $\psi^{-1}$ has the same properties as $\psi$, we get that $\psi$ preserves positivity in both directions.
Let $A\in M_n(\C)$ be positive. We have $$\psi(A)\psi(I)+\psi(I)\psi(A)=\psi(2A)\geq 0.$$ Since $\psi(A)$ runs through the positive elements of $M_n(\C)$, by Lemma \[L:mjor5\] we infer that $\psi(I)$ is a positive scalar multiple of the identity. Denote $\psi(I)=\lambda I$. Consider the transformation $\tilde \psi :M_n(\C) \to M_n(\C)$ defined by $$\tilde \psi(A)=(1/\lambda)\psi(A) \qquad (A\in M_n(\C)).$$ Since we have $$\psi(A)=\psi(I (A/2)+(A/2)I)=2\lambda \psi(A/2),$$ one can easily check that $\tilde \psi$ satisfies $$\tilde \psi((1/2)(AB+BA))=
(1/2)(\tilde \psi(A)\tilde \psi(B)+\tilde \psi(B)\tilde \psi(A)).$$ By Theorem \[T:mjor1\], $\tilde \psi$ is additive. It follows from the definition of $\tilde \psi$ that $\psi$ is also additive which plainly implies the assertion of the lemma.
We are now in a position to prove our final result.
Just as in the proof of Theorem \[T:mjor1\] one can prove that $\phi(0)=0$.
We next show that $\phi$ preserves the positive elements in both directions. This can be done quite similarly to the first part of the proof of Lemma \[L:mjor7\].
Let $A\in \A$ be positive and $B\in \A$ be arbitrary. Suppose that $AB=BA=0$. We have $$0=\phi(0)=\phi(AB+BA)=\phi(A)\phi(B)+\phi(B)\phi(A).$$ Since $\phi(A)$ is positive, it follows from Lemma \[L:mjor3\] that $\phi(A)\phi(B)=\phi(B)\phi(A)=0$. As $\phi^{-1}$ has the same properties as $\phi$, we find that for any two self-adjoint operators $A,B\in \A$ one of them being positive we have $AB=0$ if and only if $\phi(A)\phi(B)=0$. From Lemma \[L:mjor4\] we deduce that for any two self-adjoint operators $A,B \in \A$ we have $\clrng A\subset \clrng B$ if and only if $\clrng \phi(A) \subset \clrng \phi(B)$.
Let $n$ be a positive integer. Using the spectral theorem, one can easily verify the following characterization of positive rank-$n$ operators. The positive operator $A\in \A$ is of rank $n$ if and only if there exists a system $A_1, \ldots, A_{n}\in \A$ of nonzero positive operators such that $\clrng A_k \subset \clrng A$ $(k=1, \ldots, n)$, $A_kA_l=0$, $(k\neq l)$ but there is no such system of $n+1$ members. By this characterization, $\phi$ preserves the positive rank-$n$ operators in both directions.
Let $A\in \A$ be a positive rank-$n$ operator. Then $\phi(A)$ is also positive and is of rank $n$. Let $B\in \A$ be any operator acting on $H_0=\clrng A$. We mean by this that $B$ maps $H_0$ into itself and $B$ is zero on $H_0^\perp$. One can easily verify that $\clrng (B^*B+BB^*) \subset H_0$. Denote $C=\phi(B)$ and $K_0=\clrng \phi(A)$. It follows that $\clrng (C^*C+CC^*)\subset K_0$. If $k\in K_0^\perp$, then we have $k\in \ker (C^*C+CC^*)$. Since $\la C^*Ck,k\ra +\la CC^* k,k\ra=0$, we obtain that $\la C^*Ck,k\ra=0$ and $\la CC^*k,k\ra =0$. It follows that $Ck=0$ and $C^*k=0$. Consequently, we get that $C(K_0^\perp)=\{ 0\}$ and $C(K_0)\subset K_0$. Therefore, we have proved that if $B\in \A$ acts on $\clrng A$, then $\phi(B)\in \B$ acts on $\clrng \phi(A)$.
The argument above gives us that $\phi$ sends finite rank operators to finite rank operators. Indeed, any finite rank operator can be considered as an operator acting on the range of a positive finite rank operator. Since $\phi^{-1}$ has the same properties as $\phi$, we obtain that $\phi$ maps $F(H)$ onto $F(H)$ and, identifying the operator algebra over $H_0$ and $K_0$ with $M_n(\C)$, the map $\phi$ induces a bijective transformation $\psi:M_n(\C) \to M_n(\C)$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(T^*)&=\psi(T)^*\\
\psi(TS+ST)&=\psi(T)\psi(S)+\psi(S)\psi(T)
\end{aligned}$$ for every $T,S \in M_n(\C)$. Lemma \[L:mjor7\] tells us that $\psi$ satisfies on $M_n(\C)$. Since $A$ was arbitrary, it follows that $\phi$ fulfils on $F(H)$. Now, referring to Corollary \[C:mjor3\] we have the form of $\phi$ on $F(H)$ which can be shown to be valid on the whole $\A$ in a way very similar to the last part of the proof of Theorem \[T:mjor1\].
[99]{}
M. Brešar and P. Šemrl, *Mappings which preserve idempotents, local automorphisms, and local derivations,* Canad. J. Math. **45** (1993), 483–496.
I.N. Herstein, *Jordan homomorphisms*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **81** (1956), 331–341.
J. Hakeda, *Additivity of Jordan \*-maps on $AW^*$-algebras,* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **96** (1986), 413–420.
J. Hakeda and K. Saitô, *Additivity of Jordan \*-maps on operator algebras,* J. Math. Soc. Japan **38** (1986), 403–408.
W.S. Martindale III, *When are multiplicative mappings additive?,* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **21** (1969), 695–698.
L. Molnár, *On isomorphisms of standard operator algebras,* Studia Math. **142** (2000), 295–302.
L. Molnár, *\*-semigroup endomorphisms of $B(H)$,* in I. Gohberg (Edt.), Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, Proceedings of the Memorial Conference for Béla Szőkefalvi-Nagy, Szeged, 1999, Birkhäuser (to appear).
L. Molnár, *Orthogonality preserving transformations on indefinite inner product spaces: generalization of Uhlhorn’s version of Wigner’s theorem,* (preprint)
P. Šemrl, *Isomorphisms of standard operator algebras,* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **123** (1995), 1851–1855.
[^1]: This research was supported by the Hungarian National Foundation for Scientific Research (OTKA), Grant No. T030082, T031995, and by the Ministry of Education, Hungary, Reg. No. FKFP 0349/2000
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We construct global solutions to Type IIB supergravity with 16 residual supersymmetries whose space-time is $AdS_6 \times S^2$ warped over a Riemann surface. Families of solutions are labeled by an arbitrary number $L\geq 3$ of asymptotic regions, in each of which the supergravity fields match those of a $(p,q)$ five-brane, and may therefore be viewed as near-horizon limits of fully localized intersections of five-branes in Type IIB string theory. These solutions provide compelling candidates for holographic duals to a large class of five-dimensional superconformal quantum field theories which arise as non-trivial UV fixed points of perturbatively non-renormalizable Yang-Mills theories, thereby making them more directly accessible to quantitative analysis.'
author:
- 'Eric D’Hoker'
- Michael Gutperle
- 'Christoph F. Uhlemann'
title: 'Holographic duals for five-dimensional superconformal quantum field theories'
---
Introduction
============
Yang-Mills theories in dimensions greater than four are perturbatively non-renormalizable. Nevertheless, investigations of Coulomb branch dynamics in supersymmetric gauge theory, and of brane configurations in string theory, provide convincing evidence that some five-dimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories can flow to non-trivial ultraviolet fixed points [@Seiberg:1996bd; @Morrison:1996xf; @Intriligator:1997pq]. The resulting superconformal field theories (SCFT) are strongly interacting, exhibit a variety of global symmetries such as the exceptional Lie group $E_8$, and do not possess a standard Lagrangian description. Aside from the intrinsic interest these mysterious theories present, a further motivation for their study is a certain similarity to Einstein gravity in four dimensions which is also perturbatively non-renormalizable but for which a non-trivial fixed point, if it exists, would lead to a well-defined theory.
A natural realization of Coulomb branch dynamics in five-dimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory is provided by webs of intersecting five-branes in Type IIB string theory [@Aharony:1997ju; @Aharony:1997bh]. Five-branes transform under the $SL(2,\ZZ)$ duality group of Type IIB [@Schwarz:1995dk], and may be labelled by two co-prime integers $(p,q)$, with NS5 and D5-branes carrying the charges $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$. The requirements of charge conservation and 16 residual supersymmetries constrain the angles spanned between the branes at every intersection in the web. The superconformal limit of a brane web is obtained by letting the finite lengths of branes tend to zero, thereby collapsing the web to a star-shaped figure, as illustrated in fig. \[fig:web\].
Neither the dynamics on the Coulomb branch in supersymmetric gauge theory, nor the structure of $(p,q)$ five-brane webs in string theory give us, however, direct quantitative access to the superconformal theories. Holographic methods, which are applicable when the gauge group has large rank, provide an ideal tool to fill this gap. Five-dimensional conformal $SO(2,5)$ symmetry requires supergravity dual solutions built on $AdS_6$. A sparse set of singular $AdS_6$ solutions to Type IIA supergravity was found in [@Brandhuber:1999np; @Bergman:2012kr], and evidence for their relation to five-dimensional SCFTs was presented in [@Jafferis:2012iv; @Alday:2014rxa]. The T-duals give solutions in Type IIB which exhibit yet further singularities [@Lozano:2013oma], and no $AdS_6$ solutions directly in Type IIB have been obtained.
In this letter we construct all global solutions with 16 supersymmetries in Type IIB supergravity, whose space-time is $AdS_6 \times S^2$ warped over a Riemann surface $\Sigma$ with the topology of a disc, using the local solutions derived recently in [@D'Hoker:2016rdq]. Families of global solutions are characterized by an arbitrary number $L \geq 3$ of asymptotic regions in which the supergravity fields coincide with those of a $(p,q)$ five-brane. We shall argue that these solutions provide holographic duals for five-dimensional superconformal field theories, and thereby open the way to quantitative studies using the tools of AdS/CFT.
The symmetries and the Ansatz for supergravity fields are reviewed in sec. \[sec:iib-ansatz\], while the local solutions of [@D'Hoker:2016rdq] are summarized in sec. \[sec:local-sol\]. Global supergravity solutions are constructed in sec. \[sec:global-sol\], and related to five-brane webs describing five-dimensional SCFTs in sec. \[sec:brane-webs\]. We close with a discussion in sec. \[sec:discussion\].
Type IIB supergravity Ansatz {#sec:iib-ansatz}
=============================
The superconformal algebra in five dimensions is unique and given by the Lie superalgebra $F(4)$, whose maximal bosonic subalgebra $SO(2,5) \oplus SO(3)$ is dictated by conformal symmetry and R-symmetry [@Nahm:1977tg; @Minwalla:1997ka]. Its 16 fermionic generators distinguish it from counterparts in dimensions 3, 4, and 6 where the number of fermionic generators of the maximal superconformal algebra is 32.
The fields of Type IIB supergravity are the metric $g_{MN}$, the complex axion-dilaton scalar $B$, the complex 2-form $C_{(2)}$, the real 4-form $C_{(4)}$, as well as the gravitino and the dilatino fields [@Schwarz:1983qr; @Howe:1983sra].
In the supergravity description, the bosonic symmetry $SO(2,5) \oplus SO(3)$ is realized as an isometry and the full space-time is given by $(AdS_6 \times S^2) \ltimes \Sigma$, where the product is warped over a Riemann surface $\Sigma$. The symmetry requirement similarly restricts the fluxes and leads to the following Ansatz for the Type IIB supergravity fields, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\begin{split}
ds^2 &= f_6^2 \, ds^2 _{AdS_6} + f_2 ^2 \, ds^2 _{S^2} + ds^2 _\Sigma~,
\\
C_{(2)}&={\ensuremath{\mathcal C}}\operatorname{vol}_{S^2}~,
\qquad\qquad
C_{(4)}=0~,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $ds^2 _{AdS_6}$ and $ds^2 _{S^2}$ are the metrics of unit radius invariant under $SO(2,5)$ and $SO(3)$ respectively, while $\operatorname{vol}_{S^2}$ is the volume form on S$^2$. We may choose local complex coordinates $w,\bar w$ in which the metric on $\Sigma$ is conformally flat and given by $ds^2 _\Sigma = 4 \rho^2 |dw|^2$. The metric factors $f_6, f_2, \rho$, and the fields $B$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal C}}$ then depend only on $\Sigma$, while the gravitino and dilatino fields vanish.
Local solutions {#sec:local-sol}
===============
Type IIB supergravity solutions invariant under $SO(2,5) \oplus SO(3)$ and 16 supersymmetries are obtained by reducing the BPS equations to the supergravity fields of the Ansatz (\[1\]), and then solving these reduced BPS equations. Several earlier attempts to follow this strategy fell short of solving the reduced BPS equations [@Apruzzi:2014qva; @Kim:2015hya; @Kim:2016rhs].
Recently, the BPS equations were integrated completely in [@D'Hoker:2016rdq], by building on the methods developed in [@D'Hoker:2007xy]. The intermediate manipulations are quite involved, but the final result is simple and may be expressed in terms of two locally holomorphic functions ${\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ on the Riemann surface $\Sigma$. The solution may be expressed with the help of the variables $\kappa ^2, {\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}$, and $R$ defined by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:W-R-def}
\nonumber
\kappa^2&=-|\partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_+|^2+|\partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_-|^2~,
\\
\nonumber
\partial_w{\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}&={\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_+\partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_- - {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_-\partial_w{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_+~,
\\
\nonumber
{\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}&=|{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_+|^2-|{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_-|^2+{\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}+\bar{{\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}}~,
\\
R+\frac{1}{R}&=2+6\,\frac{\kappa^2 \, {\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}}{|\partial_w{\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}|^2}~.\end{aligned}$$ In terms of these variables, and an additional integration constant $c_6$, the supergravity fields of the solutions can be expressed concisely. The metric functions read $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
f_2^2&=\frac{c_6^2 \kappa^2 (1-R)}{9 \, \rho^2 (1+R)}~,
\qquad
f_6^2=\frac{c_6^2 \kappa^2 (1+R) }{\rho^2 \, (1-R)}~,
\\
\rho^2&=\frac{ c_6 (R+R^2)^\frac{1}{2} }{|\partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}|} \left ( \frac{\kappa ^2 }{1-R} \right )^{\frac{3}{2}}~,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ the axion-dilaton field $B$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
B &=\frac{\partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_+ \, \partial_{\bar w} {\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}- R \, \partial_{\bar w} \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_- \partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}}{
R \, \partial_{\bar w} \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_+ \partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}- \partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_- \partial_{\bar w} {\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}}~,\end{aligned}$$ while the flux potential ${\ensuremath{\mathcal C}}$ takes the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:flux}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal C}}&= \frac{4 i c_6}{9}\left [ \frac{\partial_{\bar w}\bar{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_- (R^2+1) \partial_w{\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}-2R\partial_w{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_+\partial_{\bar w} {\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}}{(R+1)^2 \, \kappa^2 } \right .
\nonumber \\ & \hskip 1in \left . - \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_- - 2 {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_+\right ]~.\end{aligned}$$ In the local solutions presented above, the locally holomorphic functions ${\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ are arbitrary. The constant $c_6$ can be absorbed into a rescaling of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ and we will therefore set it to one in the following.
Global solutions {#sec:global-sol}
================
To obtain physically well-defined global solutions, the supergravity fields must satisfy the reality, positivity, and regularity conditions derived in [@D'Hoker:2016rdq]. For example, reality and positivity of the metric functions $f_6^2, f_2^2, \rho^2$ requires $R$ of (\[eq:W-R-def\]) to be real and $\kappa ^2, {\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}$, and $(1-R)$ to have the same sign. Furthermore, $\Sigma$ necessarily needs to have a non-empty boundary [@ads6-2]. The full set of reality, positivity and regularity conditions is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8}
\kappa^2&>0~,& {\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}&>0\end{aligned}$$ in the interior of $\Sigma$, along with the boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9}
\kappa^2\big\vert_{\partial\Sigma}={\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}\big\vert_{\partial\Sigma}&=0~.\end{aligned}$$ These conditions ensure that the sphere $S^2$ degenerates to form a regular $S^3$ sphere while $AdS_6$ retains a non-vanishing radius, such that the full ten-dimensional geometry is smooth and does not have a boundary. The main result of this letter, to be derived in the remainder of this section, is the solution for the locally holomorphic functions ${\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ subject to the conditions (\[8\]) and (\[9\]).
The first step in the resolution of this problem hinges on an analogy to two-dimensional electrostatics [@ads6-2] which we summarize below. Since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ are locally holomorphic, the ratio $\lambda = \partial_w{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_+/\partial_w{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_-$ is locally meromorphic, and the real function $\Phi= -\ln |\lambda|^2$ is harmonic where $\lambda$ is holomorphic. The function $\Phi$ may be interpreted as an electrostatics potential. The regularity conditions on $\kappa^2$ imply that $\Phi$ needs to be strictly positive in the interior of $\Sigma$ and must vanish on the boundary $ \partial \Sigma$.
In this letter, we shall restrict attention to the simplest case when $\Sigma$ has genus zero and $\partial\Sigma$ has one component, so that $\Sigma$ has the topology of the upper half plane with $\partial \Sigma=\mathds{R}$. Assuming that $\partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ are meromorphic throughout $\Sigma$, the function $\Phi$ is constructed as the potential for an arbitrary distribution of positive charges in the upper half plane along with negative mirror charges in the lower half plane, thereby automatically ensuring $\Phi >0$ in the interior of $\Sigma$ and $\Phi=0$ on $\partial\Sigma$.
The function $\lambda$ is constructed by holomorphically splitting the potential $\Phi$. To obtain a single-valued $\lambda$ we require unit charges, so that $\lambda$ is a rational function with simple zeros at $s_n$ and simple poles at $\bar s_n$ with $\Im (s_n) >0$ for $n=1,\cdots, L-2$. Regularity of the differentials $ \partial _w {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ requires them to have $L$ common poles $r_\ell$ on the real axis for $\ell = 1, \cdots, L$, as illustrated in fig. \[fig1\]. Integrating $\partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ gives the functions ${\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm (w) &={\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm^0+\sum_{\ell=1}^L Z_\pm^\ell \ln(w-r_\ell)~,\end{aligned}$$ where the residues obey $Z_\pm^\ell= - \overline{Z_\mp^\ell}$ and are given by $$\begin{aligned}
Z_+^\ell
&=
\sigma\prod_{n=1}^{L-2}(r_\ell-s_n)\prod_{k \neq\ell}^L\frac{1}{r_\ell-r_k}~,\end{aligned}$$ while ${\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}^0_\pm$ and $\sigma$ are complex constants. The construction guarantees $\kappa^2>0$ in the interior of $\Sigma$ and $\kappa^2=0$ on $\partial \Sigma$. Furthermore, due to $\sum_{\ell} Z_\pm^\ell=0$ the functions ${\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ are regular at infinity and $\Sigma$ can be mapped to a disc.
![The upper half plane $\Sigma$ with boundary $\partial \Sigma = \mathds{R}$. Zeros of the function $\lambda$ are at the points $s_n$ and poles at $\bar s_n$, with $n=1,\cdots, L-2$ and $\Im (s_n) >0$. The differentials $\partial_w {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ have poles at the points $r_\ell \in \mathds{R}$ with $\ell =1, \cdots, L$. \[fig1\]](fig3.eps)
Next, we enforce the boundary condition of (\[9\]) on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}$. The analysis involves careful consideration of the logarithmic branch cuts, and gives ${\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11}
\begin{split}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}&=
\sum _{\ell < k}^L Z^{[\ell k]} \Bigg \{
\left ( \ln \frac{w-r_k}{(r_\ell-r_k)^2} \right )\, \left ( \, \overline{\ln \frac{ w-r_\ell}{(r_\ell-r_k)^2} } \, \right )
\\ &\hphantom{=}
+ \int _ \infty ^w dz \, \left ( \frac{ \ln (z -r_\ell)}{z - r_k } - \frac{ \ln (z -r_k)}{z - r_\ell } \right )
- \hbox{c.c}
\Bigg \}\,,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $Z^{[\ell k]}\equiv Z_+^\ell Z_-^k-Z_+^k Z_-^\ell$. The branch cuts of the logarithms are chosen to be on the real axis to the left so that, for $x$ real and positive, $\ln (x)$ is real and $\ln (e^{i \pi} x)=\ln(x)+i\pi$. When $w$ is real and to the right of all poles $r_\ell$, inspection of (\[11\]) readily reveals that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}=0$ there. To guarantee that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}$ remains zero as $w$ crosses each pole $r_k$ in turn, we must implement one condition per pole on the parameters $s_n, r_\ell, {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm ^0, \sigma$, which takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:constr}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}^0 Z_-^k + \bar {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}^0 Z_+^k
+ \sum _{\ell \not= k }Z^{[\ell k]} \ln |r_\ell - r_k| &=0~.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have set $2{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}^0={\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}^0_+-\bar{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_-^0$, and note that the combination $2{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_+^0 + \bar{\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_-^0$ effects a gauge transformation on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal C}}$ and therefore parametrizes physically equivalent solutions. The sum over all conditions in (\[eqn:constr\]) vanishes, since $\sum_\ell Z_\pm^\ell=0$ by construction, so only $L-1$ conditions are independent.
Finally, we enforce the condition (\[8\]) that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}>0$ in the interior of $\Sigma$. Instead of obtaining this result directly from (\[11\]), we use a short indirect argument, based on the relation $\partial_w\partial_{\bar w}{\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}=-\kappa^2$ between $\kappa ^2$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}$. Using this equation, the vanishing of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}$ on $\partial \Sigma$, the positivity of the scalar Green function on $\Sigma$ with Dirichlet conditions on $\partial \Sigma$, and the positivity of $\kappa^2$ in the interior of $\Sigma$, it readily follows that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal G}}>0$ in the interior of $\Sigma$.
The functions ${\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}_\pm$ constructed above directly provide, via (\[eq:W-R-def\])–(\[eqn:flux\]), explicit Type IIB supergravity solutions. These solutions are manifestly regular throughout $\Sigma$ and its boundary, except perhaps at the isolated points corresponding to the poles $r_\ell$ where a separate analysis is required which will be presented in the next section.
Connection to five-brane webs {#sec:brane-webs}
=============================
In this section, we shall show that the Type IIB supergravity solutions obtained in the preceding sections are compelling candidates for gravity duals to the five-dimensional SCFTs associated with $(p,q)$ five-brane webs. The arguments are based on the following observations.
- The solutions have 16 residual supersymmetries and are invariant under $SO(2,5) \oplus SO(3)$.
- The 3-form field carries non-trivial NS-NS and R-R charges $(p_k,q_k)$ at the poles $r_k$ of a given solution which are governed by the discontinuity of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal C}}$ across $r_k$. The sum of all the charges is conserved.
- The behavior of all supergravity fields near each pole $r_k$ matches that of the well-known $(p,q)$ five-branes for the charge assignment $(p_k,q_k)$. Thus, the poles $r_k$ specify the locations of the semi-infinite external five-branes of the web with those charges.
- The minimal number of poles required for a non-trivial solution is $3$, matching the minimal number of external semi-infinite $(p,q)$ branes needed to realize an intersection and a five-dimensional SCFT.
- The number of free parameters in a solution with $L$ poles is $2L-2$ and matches exactly the number of free parameters of a five-brane intersection with $L$ external branes, given by the external charges subject to overall charge conservation.
To examine the solution near a pole $r_k$, we set $w=r_k+\tau e^{i\theta}$ for $0 \leq \theta \leq \pi$ and expand for small $\tau >0$. The metric function $f_6$ diverges as $\tau \to 0$ which makes $AdS_6$ expand to Minkowski space-time $\RR^{1,5}$ while $S^2$ combines with the $\theta$-coordinate of $\Sigma$ to form a smooth $S^3$. In this limit, the string-frame metric near $r_k$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2&=
ds^2_{\mathds{R}^{1,5}}+
\frac{2}{3} \Big | Z_+^k -Z_-^k \Big | \,\left (
\frac{d\tau ^2}{\tau ^2}+ds^2_{\mathrm{S}^3} \right ) ~.\end{aligned}$$ The metric is geodesically complete and regular. The dilaton grows logarithmically with $\tau$, precisely as is expected near a $(p,q)$ five-brane. The entire solution matches precisely onto the near-brane expansion of the $(p,q)$ five-brane solutions constructed in [@Lu:1998vh], with the following identifications of the $(p,q)$ charges $$\begin{aligned}
p_k&=\frac{8}{3} \, \Re(Z_+^k)~,
&
q_k&=-\frac{8}{3}\, \Im(Z_+^k)~.\end{aligned}$$ The match includes overall scaling, the form of the geometry and a precise correspondence of overall coefficients. The constraint $\sum_k Z_\pm^k=0$ implements the charge conservation constraint of the five-brane web.
A minimal number of three poles is required, since otherwise $\lambda$ has no zeros in the upper half plane and the solution is singular. Since five-dimensional SCFTs are realized on intersections of five-branes, the geometries obtained by zooming in on the intersection inevitably maintain signatures of the semi-infinite external branes. This is different from e.g. the case of $\mathcal{N}\,{=}\,4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills, and its $AdS_5\times S^5$ dual, and is reflected in the presence of the poles. Solutions with more than 3 poles are possible, and correspond to brane webs with more than 3 external branes. Gauge theory descriptions of SCFTs corresponding to 3 external branes are less straightforward, but have been discussed in [@Bergman:2014kza].
The remaining free parameters for a solution with $L$ poles are the complex constants $\sigma$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}^0$, the locations of the zeros $s_1,\dots, s_{L-2}$ and the positions of the poles on the real axis $r_1,\dots,r_L$. They make for a total of $3L$ real parameters, which have to satisfy the $L-1$ relations in (\[eqn:constr\]). Moreover, $SL(2,\RR)$ automorphisms of the upper half plane map to physically equivalent supergravity solutions, further reducing the number of parameters by $3$. This leaves a total of $2L-2$ real parameters, corresponding precisely to the charge assignments for external five-branes in the brane web diagrams subject to two real conservation conditions on the charges $(p_k,q_k)$.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this letter we have presented the construction of explicit solutions to Type IIB supergravity invariant under the exceptional Lie superalgebra $F(4)$ on a space-time of the form $AdS_6 \times S^2$ warped over a Riemann surface $\Sigma$ with the topology of the upper half plane. We have argued that these solutions represent fully back-reacted and localized intersections of five-branes, and we have exhibited the precise match of their asymptotic behavior with $(p,q)$ five-branes. These solutions have no asymptotically enhanced supersymmetry, contrarily to the more familiar counterparts corresponding to field theory dimensions 3, 4, and 6, as is consistent with the uniqueness of the superconformal algebra in five dimensions [@D'Hoker:2008ix]. They share a remarkable similarity in structure to string-junction solutions with 8 residual supersymmetries to Type 4b supergravity in six dimensions [@Chiodaroli:2011nr]. The detailed derivations of the construction will be relayed to a longer paper [@ads6-2] in which solutions will be considered when $\Sigma$ has more complicated topology, including genus greater than zero, and more than one boundary component.
The solutions constructed here are compelling candidates for the holographic duals to the five-dimensional superconformal field theories arising as UV fixed points of non-renormalizable Yang-Mills theories, and give further support to their existence. Theories on the Coulomb branch and relevant deformations may in principle be constructed and studied.
Finally, our solutions provide a stepping stone for direct quantitative analyses, including the calculation of entanglement entropies, free energies, the spectrum of operator dimensions, and correlation functions, issues which we plan to investigate in future work.
We are very happy to thank Andreas Karch for collaboration on earlier work and many illuminating discussions. We also thank Oren Bergman and David Gieseker for very helpful discussions. The work of all three authors is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-13-13986 and PHY-16-19926.
[25]{}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 10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01215-4), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00592-5), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00279-4), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00472-0), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1126-6708/1998/01/002), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0370-2693(95)01405-5,
10.1016/0370-2693(95)01138-G), , [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00763-7), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/JHEP07(2012)171), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)032), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.141601), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)009), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/JHEP08(2016)046), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0550-3213(78)90218-3) @noop [****, ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0550-3213(83)90192-X) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0550-3213(84)90472-3) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/JHEP11(2014)099, 10.1007/JHEP05(2015)012), , [****, ()](\doibase
10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3705-1), @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/06/021), @noop [ ]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00435-3), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)141), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/047), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/JHEP12(2011)086),
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We analyze samples of nearby clusters taken from the Abell catalog and the X-ray Sample of Bright Clusters (De Grandi et al 1999) including a wide range of X-ray luminosities. Using the usually adopted background subtraction procedures, we find that galaxies in clusters selected by means of their X-ray emission show a flat luminosity function (faint end slope $\alpha \simeq -1.1$) consistent with that derived for galaxies in the field and groups. By contrast, the sample of Abell clusters that do not have an X-ray counterpart shows a galaxy luminosity function with a steep faint end ($\alpha \simeq -1.6$).
We investigate the possibility that cD halos could be formed by the disruption of galaxies in rich relaxed clusters that show an apparently flat faint end galaxy luminosity function (Lopez-Cruz et al 1997). We find that clusters dominated by a central cD galaxy (Bautz-Morgan classes I and II) show the same systematic trend: X-ray selected clusters have flatter faint end slopes than those clusters with no detected X-ray emission. Thus, it is likely the X-ray selection and not the cluster domination by central galaxies what correlates with background decontamination estimates of the galaxy luminosity function. Moreover, no significant correlation between X-ray luminosity and the galaxy LF faint end slope is found. These results do not support a scenario where flat faint end slopes are a consequence of cD formation via the disruption of faint galaxies. We argue that the clusters without X-ray emission are strongly affected by projection effects which give rise to spurious faint end slopes estimated using background subtraction procedures (Valotto et al 2001).
author:
- 'Carlos A. Valotto, Hernán Muriel, Ben Moore and Diego G. Lambas'
title: 'Faint galaxy population in clusters: X-ray emission, cD halos and projection effects.'
---
Introduction
============
Determining the galaxy luminosity function (hereafter LF) down to faint magnitudes in rich clusters has been the subject of many studies in the last years ([*e.g.*]{} Sandage, Binggeli & Tammann 1985; Driver et al. 1994, De Propris et al. 1995; Lobo et al. 1997; Lumsden et al. 1997; Lopez-Cruz et al. 1997; Valotto et el. 1997; Wilson et al. 1997; Smith et al. 1997; Trentham 1998a; Trentham 1998b; Driver et al. 1998; Garilli et al. 1999). Most of these authors show that galaxy clusters are dominated by a large population of high surface brightness dwarf galaxies, corresponding to a steep faint end slope of the luminosity function, $\alpha$ in the range -1.4 to -2.0.
The origin and evolution of this faint galaxy population has important consequences for our current understanding of galaxy formation and evolution in dense environments. For instance, Lopez-Cruz et al (1997) have suggested that the galaxy LF is flat in dynamically evolved clusters characterized by the presence of a dominant cD galaxy, high richness, symmetrical single-peaked X-ray emission, and high gas mass. On the other hand, steep faint-end slopes ($-2.0 \leq \alpha \leq -1.4$) are detected in poorer clusters. It is worth noticing the fact that the galaxy luminosity function of groups selected in redshift space is flat at faint magnitudes (Muriel, Valotto & Lambas, 1998) which shows the lack of a universal trend of the parameter $\alpha$ with system richness. More recently, Martinez et al. (2002), have obtained reliable determinations of galaxy LF in groups obtained from the 2dF galaxy redsfhit survey. Their results are consistent with a nearly universal galaxy LF with little dependence on environment which is consistent with these previous findings. Lopez-Cruz et al. (1997) suggest that cD galaxies are formed from the disruption of many faint galaxies in the cluster cores, thus resulting in a globally flat faint end slope. Indeed, dynamical processes operating in relaxed clusters are, in general, destructive. Ram pressure stripping (Gunn & Gott 1972, Abadi, Moore & Bower 1999) and gravitational tides/galaxy harassment ([*e.g.*]{} Moore et al. 1996) both tend to fade galaxies by removing gas or stripping stars. These process are most effective for smaller, less bound galaxies, and would cause a flattening of the faint end slope. However, mergers and galaxy interactions, when the cluster environment then was more like a group environment could have contributed in the opposite direction at early evolutionary stages.
Although large deep redshift surveys of clusters are not presently available, Ferguson & Sandage (1991), and Zabludoff & Mulchaey (2000) have analyzed cluster fields with redshift information and obtained faint end slopes $\alpha \sim -1.25$ to $-1.3$, which are not significantly steeper than field and group measurements in the 2dF galaxy redshift survey, Norberg et al. 2001, Martinez et al. (2002) both consistent with $\alpha \sim -1.13$. Most other estimates of galaxy luminosity functions in clusters rely critically on background subtraction and are in general consistent with significantly steeper faint end slopes ($\alpha \le -1.5$). The accuracy of this procedure depends on the statistical assumption that galaxy clusters correspond to density enhancements unbiased with respect to the distribution of foreground or background galaxies. However, significant projection effects are found in Abell clusters (e.g. Lucey 1983, Sutherland 1988, Frenk et al 1990) that can systematically bias the observed correlation function and the mass function of these systems. In fact, van Haarlem et al (1998) claim that one third of Abell clusters are not real physically bound systems but simply projections of galaxies and groups along the line of sight.
Valotto, Moore and Lambas (2001) have analyzed several sources of systematic effects present in observational determinations of the galaxy luminosity function in clusters. They used mock catalogues derived from numerical simulations of a hierarchical universe to identify clusters of galaxies in two dimensions in a similar fashion to Abell 1958 and Abell et al. 1989. Applying standard background subtraction procedures to these data gave rise to artificially steep faint end slopes since many of the clusters do not have significant counterparts in physical space. These projection effects result almost entirely from the large scale structure behind the cluster, a result that was also concluded by Adami et al (2000) from measuring $\sim 100$ redshifts for faint galaxies thought to lie in the Coma cluster. Color information (eg. b-r) is useful to improve the signal to noise in the process of background decontamination by efficiently removing red background galaxies at $z\geq0.5$. However, very unlikely contaminating structures at significantly lower redshifts would be eliminated by the use of colors. See for instance Adami et al. (2000) where a significant number of background galaxies in the field of Coma Clusters are at $0.02 < z < 0.3$.
The X-ray emission of the hot intracluster gas provides a confirmation of the presence of a bound cluster of galaxies. Thus, estimates of the galaxy luminosity function in clusters by means of background decontamination techniques restricted to an X-ray selected sample may provide a useful insight on the issues previously mentioned. In this paper we explore the nature of the faint galaxy population in clusters obtained by background decontamination techniques in X-ray and optically identified clusters of galaxies. By considering a subsample restricted to clusters dominated by a central cD galaxy we can also explore the disruption hypothesis suggested by Lopez Cruz et al (1997).
Analysis
========
Cluster samples
---------------
The sample of galaxy clusters used in our statistical analysis is taken from Abell et al (1989) cluster catalog and from the X-ray flux-limited sample of Bright X-ray Clusters (De Grandi et al 1999, hereafter BXS), an X-ray selected cluster sample based on the first analysis of the ROSAT All-Sky Survey data (RASS1). This sample is count-rate limited in the ROSAT hard band (0.5-2.0 keV) and its effective flux limits varies between $\simeq$ 3 and 4 $\times10^{-12}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
The region explored is limited to galactic latitude $b<-40\arcdeg$ and declination $-70\arcdeg<\delta <-10\arcdeg$ and the area covered by the RASS1 Bright Sample. This survey area is restricted to regions with high exposure time ($>$150s), excluding the sky areas of the Galactic plane and the Magellanic clouds to avoid incompleteness in the cluster sample. Due to the lack of homogeneity of the sky coverage of the ROSAT All-Sky Survey, we have checked the positions of those Abell clusters with no X-ray counterpart to eliminate from the statistics objects in the poorly sampled regions (see Figure 1).
=0.5
In the area considered there are 34 Abell clusters and 15 X-ray clusters with redshift $z<0.06$. Eight of these Abell clusters are identified with X-ray emission in this sample. Table 1 and table 2 list angular positions (J2000.0), mean redshifts, richness number counts and Bautz-Morgan types for the different samples analyzed here taken from Abell, Crowin & Olowin 1989. A low redshift cutoff is required in order to reach faint absolutes magnitudes which unambiguously determine the $\alpha$ parameter.
LF Determination
----------------
The Edinburgh-Durham Southern Galaxy Catalog, hereafter COSMOS Survey (Heydon-Dumbleton et al 1989), was used for the statistical assignment of galaxies to the clusters. This survey provides angular positions and photographic magnitudes in the $b_{j}$ band for over two million galaxies. We have restricted to the region $\delta <-10 \arcdeg$ given the lower quality in the photographic material in the northern hemisphere. We use a limiting apparent magnitude, $b_j=20.0$ (Valotto et al 1997), for our analysis of the COSMOS Survey which minimizes errors due to misclassification of stars, galaxies plate variations, etc. Incompleteness effects arise mainly due to star-galaxy misclassification. In the COSMOS survey the latter is expected to be lesser than 10% at m=20.5,and completeness to be greater than 99.5 % at $b_j$=19.5 (see Szapudi & Gaztañaga, 1998 for a comparison between COSMOS and APM survey statistical properties).
The counts of galaxies for each cluster are binned in equal number intervals. We subtract the corresponding mean background correction to each magnitude bin to compute the contribution from each cluster to the LF. We compute the number of galaxies brighter than a limiting absolute magnitude $M_{\lim }$ within a projected radial distance $r$ from the cluster centers. The limiting absolute magnitude used is $M_{\lim }=-16.5$. We have applied a $K-$correction term of the form $K=3z$ (Efstathiou, Ellis & Peterson 1988). The projected radius $r$ is fixed at $ 1.0$ $h^{-1}$ $Mpc$. We assume the Hubble constant is $H_0=100~h$ km $s^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, similar to that adopted in other studies. Since cluster redshifts are very small (z<0.06) we simply use the local euclidean approximation.
We define a mean local background around each cluster in order to perform a statistical background subtraction. This mean local background is defined as the number density of galaxies in the same range of apparent magnitudes in a ring at projected radii $R_{1}<r<R_{2}$. We have used $R_{1}=6$ Mpc h$^{-1}$ and $R_{2}=8$ Mpc h$^{-1}$.
According to Valotto et al. (1997) the stability of the results does not depend crucially on the projected clusters radii nor on the adopted radius for the background correction provided that the decontamination ring is well beyond the average projected radius of the clusters and small enough in order to take into account local variations of the projected galaxy density due to patchy galactic obscuration, large scale gradients in the galaxy catalog, etc.
For all samples we compute error bars in the galaxy LF through bootstrap resampling of the clusters to provide an estimate of the variations from cluster to cluster.
In order to provided suitable fits for the galaxy luminosity functions, we have adopted a Schechter function model $\phi(L)dL=C\times (L/L^*)^{\alpha}e^{-L/L^*} d (L/L^*)$, where $C$ is a constant (Schechter 1977). We have applied a maximum likelihood estimator using the $\chi^2$-estimator procedure, which minimize the difference
$$\chi^2= \sum^N_{i=1} \left[ \phi_i - \phi(L_i;C, \alpha, L^*) \over \sigma_i\right],$$ where $\phi_i$ is the relative frequency of galaxies corresponding to the $i$th bin and $\sigma_i$ is its associated uncertainty. All galaxy luminosity functions where arbitrarily normalized in order to make a proper comparison of their shapes.
Results
=======
In this section we discuss the results obtained from the analysis of our cluster samples defined above. In Figure 2 we show the galaxy LF for the sample of bright X-ray clusters. For comparison we show the LF for the sample of Abell clusters in the same area of the sky and for the same range of redshifts. The solid lines correspond to Schechter function fits with parameters $\alpha=-0.9 \pm 0.1$, $M^*=-19.0
\pm 0.2$ and $\alpha=-1.50 \pm 0.1$, $M^*=-20.3 \pm 0.2$ for the X-ray and Abell samples respectively. The X-ray defined cluster sample has a significantly flatter faint end slope than the sample of Abell clusters.
=0.5
We have also computed the galaxy LF for two subsamples of Abell clusters: those confirmed by the X-ray intracluster emission, and those with no X-ray detection. The results for these two samples are shown in Figure 3. Again we find a clear difference in the LF of clusters with and without X-ray emission. Abell clusters with no detected X-ray emission show a very steep galaxy LF faint end which contrasts with the flat behavior of the galaxy LF in X-ray confirmed clusters. The corresponding Schechter fits are $\alpha=-1.0
\pm 0.1$, $M^*=-18.9 \pm 0.2$ and $\alpha=-1.6 \pm 0.1$, $M^*=-20.6 \pm 0.2$ for the Abell clusters with and without X-ray detection respectively
=0.5
A main point in the analysis of Lopez-Cruz et al (1997) is the suggestion that cD halos could be formed by accretion and disruption of galaxies resulting in a flattening of the faint end slope of the LF. Lopez-Cruz et al (1997) have suggested a scenario where the flat faint end of the galaxy LF in relaxed clusters results from the disruption of dwarf galaxies during the early stages of cluster evolution which also may explain the halos of central cD galaxies and a substantial fraction of the intracluster medium. We have tested this hypothesis by computing the galaxy LF for a subsample of clusters with Bautz-Morgan (BM) types I and I-II characterized by the presence of a dominant cD galaxy (this restricts our analysis to Abell clusters for which BM types are available). The first subsample corresponds to clusters selected in X-rays and the second subsample to clusters with no detection of X-ray emission. The results shown in Figure 4 suggests that the BM type of the clusters does not determine the faint end galaxy LF. Clusters with no detected X-ray emission have steep galaxy LF , on the contrary, clusters with detected X-ray emission show flat galaxy LF at the faint end.
=0.5
The corresponding Schechter fits are $\alpha=-1.0 \pm 0.1$, $M^*=-19.1 \pm 0.1$ and $\alpha=1.7 \pm 0.2$, $M^*=-20.2 \pm 0.2$ for the X-ray and non x-ray subsamples respectively. This test indicate that the detection of a faint population of faint galaxies is not correlated with dominant central galaxies but with the X-ray confirmation.
In Lopez-Cruz et al. 1997 scenario, it would also be expected that the slope of the faint end LF should correlate with the X-ray luminosity, i.e. the most luminous X-ray clusters should have the flattest galaxy LF faint end slopes. We explore this possibility by dividing our X-ray cluster sample into equal numbers of clusters corresponding to high and low X-ray luminosity ($L_x >1.0 \times 10^{44}$ ergs cm$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ and $L_x <1.0 \times 10^{44}$ ergs cm$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$) which correspond to mean luminosities of 2.44 and $0.83 \times 10^{44}$ ergs cm$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ respectively.
The resulting LF’s are shown in Figure 5 and we find no differences between the two subsamples ($\alpha=-1.1 \pm
0.3$, $M^*=-18.6 \pm 0.2$ and $\alpha=-1.1 \pm 0.3$, $M^*=-18.8 \pm 0.2$ for low and high X-ray luminosity sample respectively), although the numbers of clusters in each sample is small. This result indicates that it is the detection of the intracluster medium through the X-ray emission and not its luminosity that correlates with the faint end slopes, giving support to the hypothesis of strong projection contamination in optically identified cluster samples.
=0.5
We have analyzed samples of clusters which no dominant central galaxies, i.e. BM types II, II-III and III. We confirm here that, again, X-ray detectability and not the presence or absence of dominant central galaxies correlates with the $\alpha$ parameter obtained from background decontamination.
In order to test far a possible dependence of our results on cluster radii, we have analyzed all samples within two different limiting radii, $R = 0.5 h^{-1}$ Mpc and $R = 1.0 h^{-1}$ Mpc. We find similar results for these two samples which indicates a lack of strong radial dependence (see however de Propis et al. 1995).
Table 3 summarizes all of the parameters for the Schechter function fits to the various cluster subsamples. (We find no difference in our measurements of the faint end slope when we constrain the value of $M^*$ to be the same value for each data set.)
We have also explored the ratio of dwarf to giant galaxies (D/G, D: $-18.5<B_j<-16.5$, G: $-24<B_j<-18.5$) in order to test the stability of our results when Schechter functions give poor fits to the actual LF. We have computed the D/G ratios for all samples analyzed and we show the results in table 3. As it can be seen by inspection to this table D/G and $\alpha$ are strongly correlated, all clusters with $\alpha > -1.2$ have D/G $< 4$ while samples with raising faint end slopes, $\alpha < -1.4$, have D/G $> 5$. Thus, D/G ratios provide confidence on our faint end slope estimates.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
We have analyzed the galaxy LF obtained by background decontamination techniques in samples of nearby clusters taken from Abell et al. 1989 and the Bright X-ray Cluster Catalogues (De Grandi et al. 1999). We find that X-ray selected clusters show an apparently flat luminosity function consistent with that derived for the field and groups($\alpha \simeq -1$). By contrast, clusters of galaxies identified from the projected galaxy distribution that do not have an X-ray counterpart show a galaxy luminosity function with a very significant steeper faint end ($\alpha \simeq -1.5$).
We find that for the subsample of clusters with dominant central galaxies (Bautz-Morgan type I and I-II) the shape of the faint end galaxy LF depends on the detection of the X-ray emission of the intracluster gas. In fact, we derive a steep galaxy LF for the subsample of clusters with central dominant galaxies with no detected X-ray intracluster emission. This fact argues against the hypothesis that the disruption of faint galaxies would provide the material out of which cD halos form causing a flattening of the faint end slope. A note of caution should be set here since we have used Bautz-Morgan classes as a suitable division between cD and non-cD clusters. Although some BM type I and I-II clusters may not contain bonafide cD galaxies, these clusters are strongly dominated by a central galaxy, so it is on the global, statistical sense that our analysis provide a test of Lopez-Cruz et al. hypothesis.
Our results could be influenced by the possibility that many X-ray undetected clusters could be bound systems less dynamically evolved and therefore with a large fraction of emission line galaxies which have a steeper alpha than non-emission line galaxies (Madgwick et al. 2002). Nevertheless, Martinez et al. 2002 have shown that even low mass groups ($M_{virial}\sim 10^{13}
-10^{14} M_{\odot}$) in the 2dF galaxy redshift survey are dominated by absorption line type galaxies suggesting that this is not a very serious possibility.
More likely, our results provide support to the presence of biases on the cluster galaxy LF derived by background decontamination procedures due to projection effects, as suggested by Valotto, Moore and Lambas (2001). Clusters identified from the projected galaxy distribution are biased by many spurious clumps with no physically bound system along the line of sight. The resulting luminosity functions from background decontamination procedures show steep faint end slopes and can be erroneously interpreted as the clusters being dominated by a population of dwarf galaxies. Furthermore, the fact that no significant correlation between X-ray luminosity and the galaxy LF faint end slope is found argues against processes associated to the gaseous environment causing the differences in the galaxy LF faint end slope.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank the anonymous Referee for very helpful suggestions which greatly improved the previous version of this paper. This research was supported by grants from Agencia Córdoba Ciencia, Secretaría de Ciencia y Técnica de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Fundación Antorchas, and Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica, Argentina. CV is supported by the National Science Foundation through grant \#GF-1003-00 from the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NSF cooperative agreement AST-9613625.
[99]{} Abadi, M., Moore, B. & Bower, R., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 947. Adami, C., Ulmer, M.P., Durret, F., Nichol, R.C., Mazure, A., Holden, B.P., Romer, A.K. & Savine, C. 2000, A&A, 353, 930. Abell, G.O. 1958. ApJS, 3, 211. Abell, G.O., Corwin, H.G & Olowin R.P. 1989, , 407, L49. Cole, S., Hatton, S., Weinberg, D.H. & Frenk, C.S., 1998, MNRAS, 300, 945. Cole, S., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Frenk, C.S., Navarro, J.F., Zepf, S., 1994, MNRAS, 271, 781. De Grandi, S. et al., 1999, ApJ. 514, 148.
De Propris, R., Pritchet, C.J., Harris, W.E. & McClure, R.E., 1995, ApJ, 450, 534. Driver, S.P., Phillipps, S., Davies, J.I., Morgan, I., Disney, M.J. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 393. Driver, S.P., Couch, W.J., Phillipps, S., Smith, R., 1998, MNRAS, 301,357. Driver, S.P., Couch, W.J., Phillipps, S., 1998, MNRAS, 301,369. Efstathiou, G., Ellis, R.S. & Peterson, B.A. 1988, MNRAS, 232, 431. Ferguson, H.C. & Sandage, A., 1991, , 101, 765. Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Efstathiou, G., Davis, M., 1990, ApJ, 351, 10. Kauffmann, G., White, S.D.M., Guiderdoni, B. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 201. Gaidos, E.J., A.J., 113, 117. Garilli, B., Maccagni, D., Andreon, S., 1999, A&A. 342, 408. Heydon-Dumbleton, N.H. Collins. C.A.,& MacGillivray, H.T., 1989, MNRAS, 238, 379. Lobo, C., Biviano, A., Durret, F., Gerbal, D., Le Fevre, O., Mazure, A., Slezak, E. 1997, AA, 317, 385. Lopez-Cruz, O., Yee, H.K.C., Brown, J.P., Jones, C., Forman, W., ApJ, 475, 97. Lumsden, S.L., Nichol, R.C., Collins, C.A., Guzzo, L. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 1. Lumsden, S.L., Collins, C.A., Nichol, R.C., Eke, V.R. & Guzzo, L., 1997, MNRAS, 290, 119. Maddox, S.J., Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W.J., Loveday, J., 1990a, MNRAS, 243, 692. Maddox, S.J., Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W.J., 1990b, MNRAS, 246, 433. Madgwick, D.S et al., 2002, , 336, 907. Mateo, M, 1998, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 36, 435. Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., Oemler, A., 1996, Nature, 379, 613 Muriel, H., Valotto, C.A. & Lambas, D.G., 1998, ApJ, 290, 119. Loveday, J., Peterson, B.A., Efstathiou, G. & Maddox, S.J., 1992, MNRAS, 390, 338. Sandage, P., Binggeli, B. & Tammann, G.A., 1985, MNRAS, 90, 1795. Smith, R.M., Driver, S.P., Phillipps, S. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 415. Sutherland, W.J., 1988, MNRAS 234, 159. Schechter, P., 1976, ApJ, 203, 197. Szapudi, I. & Gaztañaga, E., 1998, , 300, 493. Trentham, N., 1998, MNRAS, 294, 193. Trentham, N., 1998, MNRAS, 286, 133. Valotto, C.A., Nicotra, M.A., Muriel, H. & Lambas, D.G., 1997, ApJ, 479, 90. Valotto, C.A., Moore, B. & Lambas, D.G., 2000, ApJ, 546,157. van Haarlem, M., Frenk, C.S. & White, S.D.M., 1997, MNRAS, 287, 817 Wilson, G., Smail, I., Ellis, R.S., Couch, W.J, 1997, MNRAS, 284, 915. Zabludoff, A.I. & Mulchaey, J.S., 2000, , 539, 136. Zucca E. et al. 1997, A&A, 326, 477.
[cccccc]{} A2731 & 00 10.2 & -56 59 & 0.0312 & 39 & III\
A2806 & 00 40.2 & -56 09 & 0.0275 & 37 & I-II\
A2824 & 00 48.6 & -21 20 & 0.0486 & 46 & III\
A0114 & 00 53.7 & -21 40 & 0.0580 & 43 & -\
A2870 & 01 07.7 & -46 54 & 0.0250 & 33 &I\
A2877 & 01 09.8 & -45 54 & 0.0231 & 30 &I\
A2881 & 01 11.2 & -17 04 & 0.0445 & 36 &II\
A2882 & 01 11.4 & -17 04 & 0.0455 & 32 &II\
A2896 & 01 18.3 & -37 06 & 0.0317 & 44 &I\
A2933 & 01 40.7 & -54 33 & 0.0208 & 77 &III\
A2992 & 02 14.9 & -26 40 & 0.0584 & 30 &I\
A2995 & 02 15.2 & -24 50 & 0.0370 & 69 &I-II\
A0419 & 03 08.5 & -11 31 & 0.0410 & 32 &-\
A3093 & 03 10.9 & -47 23 & 0.0635 & 93 &I\
A3125 & 03 27.4 & -53 30 & 0.0590 & 46 &III\
A3144 & 03 37.1 & -55 01 & 0.0430 & 54 &I-II\
A3193 & 03 58.2 & -52 20 & 0.0345 & 41 &I\
A3816 & 21 50.3 & -55 17 & 0.0389 & 39&I-II\
A3782 & 21 34.5 & -62 01 & 0.0557 & 40&II\
A3851 & 22 16.7 & -52 35 & 0.0520 & 33&I-II\
A3869 & 22 21.4 & -52 34 & 0.0396 & 49&II\
A3893 & 22 38.0 & -23 54 & 0.0330 & 39 &I\
A3925 & 22 51.8 & -46 35 & 0.0510 & 38 &II\
A4012 & 23 31.8 & -33 49 & 0.0510 & 35 &II-III\
A4013 & 23 31.9 & -35 16 & 0.0500 & 51 &III\
A2660 & 23 45.3 & -25 58 & 0.0520 & 45 &-\
[ccccccc]{} A4038 & 23 47.7 & -28 08 & 0.0290 & 117 &III&1.01\
A4059 & 23 56.7 & -34 40 & 0.0470 & 66 &I& 1.79\
A3911 & 22 46.1 & -52 43 & 0.0381 & 58 &II-III& 2.43\
A3880 & 22 27.8 & -30 34 & 0.0581 & 31&II& 0.90\
A3158 & 03 42.9 & -53 38 & 0.0591 & 85 &I-II&3.36\
A0133 & 01 02.6 & -21 47 & 0.0604 & 47 & - & 2.16\
A0151 & 01 08.9 & -15 25 & 0.0536 & 72 &II& 0.77\
A2717 & 00 03.3 & -35 57 & 0.0498 & 52 &I-II &0.64\
S0041 & 00 25.6 & -33 03 & 0.0566 & & & 0.68\
0118.5-1408 & 01 21.0 & -13 51 & 0.0511 & & &1.03\
S0301 & 02 49.6 & -31 11 & 0.0223 & & &0.10\
1ES0412-382 & 04 14.0 & -38 06 & 0.0502 & & &0.84\
ESO235-G050 & 21 04.8 & -51 49 & 0.0491 & & &0.88\
ESO146-G028 & 22 29.0 & -60 54 & 0.0412 & & &0.24\
S1101 & 23 14.0 & -42 44 & 0.0580 & & &1.93\
[ccccc]{} Abell & 34 & $-1.5\pm0.1$ & $-20.3\pm0.2$ & $5.45\pm0.16$\
BXS & 15 & $-0.9\pm0.1$ & $-19.0\pm0.1$ & $3.20\pm0.16$\
Abell non-X & 26 & $-1.6\pm0.1$ & $-20.6\pm0.2$ & $6.46\pm0.22$\
Abell X & 8 & $-1.0\pm0.1$ & $-18.9\pm0.2$ & $3.94\pm0.25$\
Abell I, I-II non-X& 12 & $-1.7\pm0.1$ & $-20.2\pm0.2$ & $5.74\pm0.31$\
Abell I, I-II X & 3 & $-1.0\pm0.1$ & $-19.1\pm0.1$ & $3.87\pm0.26$\
BXS, low X & 4 & $-1.1\pm0.2$ & $-18.8\pm0.3$ & $3.34\pm0.30$\
BXS, high X & 4 & $-1.1\pm0.2$ & $-18.6\pm0.3$ & $3.84\pm0.42$\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We continue to study $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups. Essentially, we characterize the different spectrums of $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups by the spectrums of their generators. Particulary quasi-Fredholm, Kato, essentially Kato, Saphar and essentially Saphar spectrums.'
address:
- 'A. Tajmouati, M.B. Mohamed Ahmed and H. Boua Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah Univeristy, Faculty of Sciences Dhar Al Mahraz, Fez, Morocco.'
- 'A. El Bakkali Department of Mathematics University Chouaib Doukkali, Faculty of Sciences. 24000, Eljadida, Morocco.'
author:
- 'A. Tajmouati, A. El Bakkali, M.B. Mohamed Ahmed and H. Boua'
title: ' Quasi-Fredholm and Saphar spectrums for the $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups '
---
Introduction
============
Let $X$ be a complex Banach space and $\mathcal{B}(X)$ the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $X$. We denote by $D(T)$, $R(T)$, $R^\infty(T):=\cap_{n\geq 1}R(T^n)$, $N(T)$, $\rho(T)$, $\sigma(T),$ and $\sigma_p(T)$ respectively the domain, the range, the hyper range, the kernel, the resolvent and the spectrum of $T$, where $\sigma(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\,\backslash \, \lambda-T \,\mbox{is not bijective}\}$ and $\sigma_p(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\,\backslash \, \lambda-T \,\mbox{is not one to one}\}.$ The function resolvent of $T\in\mathcal{B}(X)$ is defined for all $\lambda\in\rho(T)$ by $R(\lambda,T)=(\lambda -T)^{-1}.$ An operator $T$ is called Kato, in symbol $T\in\mathcal{D}(X)$, if $R(T)$ is closed and $N(T)\subseteq R^\infty(T)$. An operator $T$ is called essentially Kato, in symbol $T\in e\mathcal{D}(X)$, if $R(T)$ is closed and $N(T)\subseteq_e R^\infty(T)$. An operator $T$ is called relatively regular if there exists $S$ such that $TST=T$.\
For the subspaces $M$ and $N$ of $X$ we write $M\subseteq_e N$ if there exists a finite-dimensional subspace $F\subseteq X$ such that $M\subseteq N +F$. We can choose $F$ satisfying $F\subseteq M$ and $F\cap N=\varnothing.$ An operator $T$ is called Saphar, in symbol $T\in\mathcal{S}(X)$, if $T$ is relatively regular and $N(T)\subseteq_e R^\infty(T)$. An operator $T$ is called essentially Saphar, in symbol $T\in e\mathcal{S}(X)$, if $T$ is relatively regular and $N(T)\subseteq_e R^\infty(T)$. The Kato, essentially Kato , Saphar and essentially Saphar spectrums are defined by $$\sigma_K(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\,\backslash\, \lambda-T\in \mathcal{D}(X)\};$$ $$\sigma_{eK}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\,\backslash\, \lambda-T\in e\mathcal{D}(X)\};$$ $$\sigma_S(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\,\backslash\, \lambda-T\in \mathcal{S}(X)\};$$ $$\sigma_{eS}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\,\backslash\, \lambda-T\in e\mathcal{S}(X)\};$$ The degree of stable iteration $dis(T)$ of an operator $T$ is defined by $$dis(T)=inf\{n\in\mathds{N}\,\backslash\,\forall m\geq n, R(T^n)\cap N(T)=R(T^m)\cap N(T)\}.$$ An operator $T$ is called quasi-Fredholm, in symbol $T\in q\Phi(X)$, if there exists $d\in\mathds{N}$ such that $R(T^n)$ and $R(T)+N(T^n)$ are closed for all $n\geq d$ and $dis(T)=d$. The quasi-Fredholm spectrum is defined by $$\sigma_{qe}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\,\backslash\, \lambda-T\notin q\Phi(X)\}.$$ Let $\alpha\geq 0$ and let $A$ be a linear operator on a Banach space $X$. We recall that $A$ is the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ on $X$ [@r.5] if $]\omega, +\infty[ \subseteq \rho(A)$ for some $\omega\in \mathds{R}$ and there exists a strongly continuous mapping $S: [0, +\infty[ \rightarrow \mathcal{B}(X)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\|S(t)\|&\leq& Me^{\omega t} \,\,\mbox{for all}\,\, t\geq 0 \,\,\mbox{ and some }\,\, M > 0;\\
R(\lambda, A)&=& \lambda^\alpha\int_0^{+\infty} e^{-\lambda t}S(t)ds \,\,\mbox{for all}\,\, \lambda> \max\{\omega, 0\},\end{aligned}$$ in this case, $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ is called an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup and the domain of its generator $A$ is defined by $$D(A)=\{x\in X\, / \,\int_0^tS(s)Axds=S(t)x-\frac{t^\alpha x}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}\},$$ where $\Gamma$ is the Euler integral giving by $$\Gamma(\alpha+1)=\int_0^{+\infty} x^\alpha e^{-x}dx.$$ We know that $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}\subseteq\mathcal{B}(X)$ is an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup if and only if $$S(t+s)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}[\int_t^{t+s}(t+s-r)^{\alpha-1}S(r)xdr-
\int_0^{s}(t+s-r)^{\alpha-1}S(r)xdr]$$ for all $x\in X$ and all $t,s\geq 0$.\
In [@r.3], the authors have studied the different spectrums of the 1-times integrated semigroups. In our paper [@r.12], we have studied descent, ascent, Drazin, Fredholm and Browder spectrums of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup. Also in [@r.13], we have investigated essential ascent and descent, upper and lower semi-Fredholm and semi-Browder spectrums of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup. In this paper, we continue to study the $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups for all $\alpha>0$. We investigate the relationships between the different spectrums of the $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups and their generators, precisely quasi-Fredholm, Kato, essentially Kato, Saphar and essentially Saphar spectrums.
Main results
============
\[l0\][@r.1 Proposition 2.4] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}\subseteq \mathcal{B}(X)$ where $\alpha \geq 0.$ Then for all $x\in D(A)$ and all $t\geq 0$ we have
1. $S(t)x\in D(A)$ and $AS(t)x=S(t)Ax.$
2. $S(t)x=\frac{t^\alpha}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}x+\int_0^t S(s)Axds.$
Moreover, for all $x\in X$ we get $\int_0^t S(s)xds\in D(A)$ and $$A\int_0^t S(s)xds=S(t)x -\frac{t^\alpha}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}x.$$
We begin by the lemmas.
\[l1\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$ and all $t\geq 0$
1. $(\lambda-A)D_\lambda(t)x=\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1} x}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)x,\,\,\forall x\in X$ where $$D_\lambda(t)x=\int_0^t e^{\lambda (t-r)}S(r)dr;$$
2. $D_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)x=\int_0^t e^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1} x}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)x,\,\,\forall x\in D(A)$.
<!-- -->
1. By Lemma \[l0\], we know that for all $x\in D(A)$ $$S(s)x=\frac{s^\alpha}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}x+\int_0^sS(r)Axdr.$$ Then, since $\Gamma(\alpha+1)=\alpha\Gamma(\alpha)$, we obtain $$S'(s)x= \frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}x+S(s)Ax.$$ Therefore, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
D_\lambda(t)Ax &=&\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}S(s)Axds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}[S'(s)x-\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}x]ds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}S'(s)xds-
\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xds\\
&=& S(t)x+\lambda D_\lambda(t)x-
\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xds
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we obtain for all $x\in D(A)$ $$D_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)x= \big[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds - S(t)\big]x.$$
2. Let $\mu\in \rho(A)$. From proof of Lemma \[l0\], we have for all $x\in X$ $$R(\mu,A)S(s)x=S(s)R(\mu,A)x.$$ Hence, for all $x\in X$ we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
R(\mu,A)D_\lambda(t)x &=& R(\mu,A)\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)xds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}R(\mu,A)S(s)xds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)R(\mu,A)xds\\
&=& D_\lambda(t)R(\mu,A)x.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain for all $x\in X$ $$\begin{aligned}
D_\lambda(t)x &=& \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)xds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)(\mu-A)R(\mu,A)xds \\
&=& \mu \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)} S(s)R(\mu,A)xds -\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)AR(\mu,A)xds \\
&=& \mu \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)} R(\mu,A)S(s)xds -\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)AR(\mu,A)xds \\
&=& \mu R(\mu,A)\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)} S(s)xds -\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)AR(\mu,A)xds \\
&=& \mu R(\mu,A)D_\lambda(t)x-D_\lambda(t)AR(\mu,A)x\\
&=& \mu R(\mu,A)D_\lambda(t)x-[S(t)R(\mu,A)x+\lambda D_\lambda(t)R(\mu,A)x-\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}R(\mu,A)xds]\\
&=& \mu R(\mu,A)D_\lambda(t)x-[R(\mu,A)S(t)x+\lambda R(\mu,A)D_\lambda(t)x-R(\mu,A)\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xds]\\ &=& R(\mu,A)\big[(\mu-\lambda)D_\lambda(t)x-S(t)x+
\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xds\big]\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for all $x\in X$ we have $D_\lambda(t)x\in D(A)$ and $$(\mu-A)D_\lambda(t)x=(\mu-\lambda) D_\lambda(t)x+\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xds -
S(t)x.$$ Finally, for all $x\in X$ and all $\lambda\in \mathds{C}$ we obtain $$(\lambda-A)D_\lambda(t)x=\big[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds -
S(t)\big]x.$$
\[l2\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$, all $t\geq 0$ and all $x\in X$
1. We have the identity $$\,\,(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)+\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)=\phi_\lambda(t)I,$$ where $L_\lambda(t)=\int_0^t e^{-\lambda s }D_\lambda(s)ds,\, \varphi_\lambda(t)=e^{\lambda t}\,\mbox{and}\, \phi_\lambda(t)=\int_0^t\int_0^\tau e^{-\lambda r}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}drd\tau.$\
Moreover, the operator $L_\lambda(t)$ is commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$and $(\lambda-A)$.
2. For all $n\in\mathds{N}^*,$ there exists an $L_{\lambda,n}(t)\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ such that $$(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t)+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n[D_\lambda(t)]^n=
[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI.$$ Moreover, the operator $L_{\lambda,n}(t)$ is commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$ and $\lambda-A$.
3. For all $n\in\mathds{N}^*,$ there exists an operator $D_{\lambda,n}(t)\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ such that $$(\lambda-A)^n[L_\lambda(t)]^n+D_{\lambda,n}(t)D_\lambda(t)=[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI.$$ Moreover, the operator $D_{\lambda,n}(t)$ is commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$, $L_\lambda(t)$ and $\lambda-A$.
4. For all $n\in\mathds{N}^*,$ there exists an operator $K_{\lambda,n}(t)\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ such that $$(\lambda-A)^nK_{\lambda,n}(t)+[D_\lambda(t)]^n[D_{\lambda,n}(t)]^n =[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n^2}I,$$ Moreover, the operator $K_{\lambda,n}(t)$ is commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$, $D_{\lambda,n}(t)$ and $\lambda-A$.
<!-- -->
1. Let $\mu\in \rho(A)$. By Lemma \[l1\], for all $x\in X$ we have $D_\lambda(s)x\in D(A)$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
L_\lambda(t)x &=& \int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)xds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{-\lambda s}R(\mu,A)(\mu-A)D_\lambda(s)xds\\
&=& R(\mu,A)[\mu\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)xds-\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds]\\
&=& R(\mu,A)[\mu L_\lambda(t)x-\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds]\end{aligned}$$ Therefore for all $x\in X$, we have $L_\lambda(t)x\in D(A)$ and $$(\mu-A)L_\lambda(t)x=\mu L_\lambda(t)x-\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds.$$ Thus $$AL_\lambda(t)x=\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds.$$ Hence, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)x&=&\lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds\\
&=&\lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}\big[\lambda D_\lambda(s)x-\int_0^s e^{\lambda(s-r)}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xdr +
S(s)x\big]ds\\
&=&\lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\lambda\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)x ds +\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}\int_0^s e^{\lambda(s-r)}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xdrds -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}
S(s)xds\\
&=&\lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\lambda L_\lambda(t)x +\int_0^t\int_0^s e^{-\lambda r}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xdrds -e^{-\lambda t}\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)xds \\
&=&\int_0^t\int_0^s e^{-\lambda r}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xdrds -e^{-\lambda t}D_\lambda (t)x \\
&=& \big[\phi_\lambda(t)I-\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)\big]x,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_\lambda(t)=\int_0^t\int_0^s e^{-\lambda r}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}drds$ and $\varphi_\lambda(t)=e^{-\lambda t}.$\
Therefore, we obtain $$(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)+\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)=\phi_\lambda(t)I.$$ Since $S(s)S(t)=S(t)S(s)$ for all $s,t\geq 0$, then $D_\lambda(s)S(t)=S(t)D_\lambda(s).$\
Hence $$\begin{aligned}
D_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(s) &=& \int_0^te^{\lambda(t-r)}S(r)D_\lambda(s)dr\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda(t-r)}S(r)D_\lambda(s)dr\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda(t-r)}D_\lambda(s)S(r)dr\\
&=& D_\lambda(s)\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-r)}S(r)dr\\
&=& D_\lambda(s)D_\lambda(t).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
D_\lambda(t)L_\lambda(t) &=& D_\lambda(t)\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)ds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(s)ds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)D_\lambda(t)ds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)dsD_\lambda(t)\\
&=& L_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t).\end{aligned}$$ Since for all $x\in X$ $AL_\lambda(t)x=\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds$ and for all $x\in D(A)$ $AD_\lambda(s)x=D_\lambda(s)Ax,$ then we obtain for all $x\in D(A)$ $$\begin{aligned}
(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)x &=& \lambda L_\lambda(t)x-AL_\lambda(t)x\\
&=& \lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds\\
&=& \lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds\\
&=&\lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)Axds\\
&=& \lambda L_\lambda(t)x- L_\lambda(t)Ax\\
&=& L_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)x.\end{aligned}$$
2. Since $(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)+\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)=\phi_\lambda(t)I$, then for all $n\in \mathds{N}^*$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
[\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)]^n &=&[\phi_\lambda(t)I-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)]^n\\
&=&\sum_{i=0}^n C_n^i[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)]^i\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI -(\lambda-A)\sum_{i=1}^n C_n^i[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[-(\lambda-A)]^{i-1}[L_\lambda(t)]^i\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI -(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $$L_{\lambda,n}(t)=\sum_{i=1}^nC_n^i [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[-(\lambda-A)]^{i-1}[L_\lambda(t)]^i.$$ Therefore, we have $$(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t)+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n[D_\lambda(t)]^n =[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI.$$ Finally, for commutativity, it is clear that $L_{\lambda,n}(t)$ commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$ and $\lambda-A$.
3. For all $n\in \mathds{N}^*$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
[(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)]^n &=&[\phi_\lambda(t)I-\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)]^n\\
&=&\sum_{i=0}^n C_n^i[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[-\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)]^i\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI -D_\lambda(t)\sum_{i=1}^nC_n^i [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^{i}[-D_\lambda(t)]^{i-1}\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI -D_\lambda(t)D_{\lambda,n}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $$D_{\lambda,n}(t)=\sum_{i=1}^n C_n^i [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^{i}[-D_\lambda(t)]^{i-1}.$$ Therefore, we have $$(\lambda-A)^n[L_\lambda(t)]^n+D_\lambda(t)D_{\lambda,n}(t)=[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI.$$ Finally, for commutativity, it is clear that $D_{\lambda,n}(t)$ commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$, $L_\lambda(t)$ and $\lambda-A$.
4. Since we have $D_\lambda(t)D_{\lambda,n}(t)=[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI-(\lambda-A)^n[L_\lambda(t)]^n,$ then for all $n\in \mathds{N}$ $$\begin{aligned}
[D_\lambda(t)D_{\lambda,n}(t)]^n &=& \big[[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI-(\lambda-A)^n[L_\lambda(t)]^n\big]^n\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n^2}I-\sum_{i=1}^n C_n^i \big[[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n}\big]^{n-i}\big[(\lambda-A)^n[L_\lambda(t)]^n\big]^i\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n^2}I-(\lambda-A)^n\sum_{i=1}^nC_n^i \big[[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n(n-i)}(\lambda-A)^{n(i-1)}[L_\lambda(t)]^{ni}\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n^2}I-(\lambda-A)^nK_{\lambda,n}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{\lambda,n}(t)=\sum_{i=1}^nC_n^i
[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n(n-i)}(\lambda-A)^{n(i-1)}[L_\lambda(t)]^{ni}.$ Hence we obtain $$[D_\lambda(t)]^n[D_{\lambda,n}(t)]^n +(\lambda-A)^nK_{\lambda,n}(t) =[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n^2}I.$$ Finally, the commutativity is clear.
Now, we prove this result.
\[p1\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. For all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$ and all $t\geq 0$, if $R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^n$ is closed, then $R(\lambda-A)^n$ is also closed.
Let $(y_n)_{n\in\mathds{N}}\subseteq X$ such that $y_n\rightarrow y\in X$ and there exists $(x_n)_{n\in\mathds{N}}\subseteq D(A)$ satisfying $$(\lambda-A)^mx_n=y_n.$$ By Lemma \[l2\], we obtain $$(\lambda-A)^m[L_\lambda(t)]^my_n+G_{\lambda,m}(t)D_\lambda(t)y_n=[\phi_\lambda(t)]^my_n.$$ Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^mG_{\lambda,m}(t)x_n
&=& [D_\lambda(t)]^m(\lambda -A)^mG_{\lambda,m}(t)x_n;\\
&=& G_{\lambda,m}(t)[D_\lambda(t)]^m(\lambda -A)^mx_n;\\
&=& G_{\lambda,m}(t)[D_\lambda(t)]^my_n;\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^my_n-(\lambda-A)^m[L_\lambda(t)]^my_n.\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$[\phi_\lambda(t)]^my_n-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)y_n \in R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m.$$ Since $R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m$ is closed, hence $G_{\lambda,m}(t)$ is bounded linear and $[\phi_\lambda(t)]^my_n-(\lambda-A)^m[L_\lambda(t)]^my_n$ converges to $[\phi_\lambda(t)]^my-(\lambda-A)^m[L_\lambda(t)]^my$.\
Therefore, we conclude that $$[\phi_\lambda(t)]^my-(\lambda-A)^m[L_\lambda(t)]^my\in R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m.$$ Then, there exists $z\in X$ such that $$[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^mz=
[\phi_\lambda(t)]^my-(\lambda-A)^m[L_\lambda(t)]^my.$$ Hence for all $t\neq 0$, we have $\phi_\lambda(t)\neq 0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
y &=& \frac{1}{[\phi_\lambda(t)]^m}[[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^mz+(\lambda-A)^m[L_\lambda(t)]^my]\\
&=&\frac{1}{[\phi_\lambda(t)]^m}[(\lambda-A)^m[D_\lambda(t)]^mz+(\lambda-A)^m[L_\lambda(t)]^my]\\
&=& \frac{1}{[\phi_\lambda(t)]^m}(\lambda-A)^m[[D_\lambda(t)]^mz+[L_\lambda(t)]^my].\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we obtain $$y\in R(\lambda-A)^m.$$
\[p2\]Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$ and all $t\geq 0,$ we have
1. If $\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)$ is relatively regular, then $\lambda-A$ is also;
2. If $N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]\subseteq R^\infty[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)],$ then $$N(\lambda-A)\subseteq R^\infty(\lambda-A).$$
3. If $N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]\subseteq_e R^\infty[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)],$ then $$N(\lambda-A)\subseteq_e R^\infty(\lambda-A).$$
<!-- -->
1. Suppose that $$[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]T(t)[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]=$$ $$[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)].$$ Using Lemma \[l2\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A) &=& [(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)+G_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)](\lambda-A);\\
&=& (\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)+\psi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A);\\
&=& (\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)+\psi_\lambda(t)[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)];\\
&=& (\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)\\
&+&\psi_\lambda(t)[[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]T(t)[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]];\\
&=& (\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)+
\psi_\lambda(t)\big[[\lambda-A)D_\lambda(t)]T(t)[D_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)]\big];\\
&=& (\lambda-A)[L_\lambda(t)+\psi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)T(t)D_\lambda(t)](\lambda-A).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\lambda-A$ is relatively regular.
2. It is automatic by $$\begin{aligned}
N(\lambda-A) &\subseteq& N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)];\\
&\subseteq & R^\infty[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)];\\
&\subseteq & R^\infty(\lambda-A).\end{aligned}$$
3. It is automatic by $$\begin{aligned}
N(\lambda-A) &\subseteq& N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)];\\
&\subseteq_e & R^\infty[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)];\\
&\subseteq & R^\infty(\lambda-A).\end{aligned}$$
The following result discusses the Kato and Saphar spectrum.
Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $t\geq 0$
1. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{K}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{K}(S(t));$
2. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{S}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{S}(S(t));$
3. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{eK}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{eK}(S(t));$
4. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{eS}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{eS}(S(t)).$
<!-- -->
1. Suppose that $\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin\sigma_K(S(t))$, then we have\
$R[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]$ is closed and $$N[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]\subseteq R^\infty[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)].$$ Thus by Propositions \[p1\] and \[p2\], we obtain $R(\lambda-A)$ is closed and $$N(\lambda-A)\subseteq R^\infty(\lambda-A).$$ Therefore $\lambda-A$ is Kato and hence $$\lambda\notin\sigma_K(A).$$
2. Suppose that $\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin\sigma_S(S(t))$, then we have\
$\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)$ is relatively regular and $$N[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]\subseteq R^\infty[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)].$$ Thus by Propositions \[p1\] and \[p2\], we obtain $\lambda-A$ is relatively regular and $$N(\lambda-A)\subseteq R^\infty(\lambda-A).$$ Therefore $\lambda-A$ is Saphar and hence $$\lambda\notin\sigma_S(A).$$
3. Suppose that $\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin\sigma_{eK}(S(t))$, then we have\
$R[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]$ is closed and $$N[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]\subseteq_e R^\infty[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)].$$ Thus by Propositions \[p1\] and \[p2\], we obtain $R(\lambda-A)$ is closed and $$N(\lambda-A)\subseteq_e R^\infty(\lambda-A).$$ Therefore $\lambda-A$ is essentially Kato and hence $$\lambda\notin\sigma_{eK}(A).$$
4. Suppose that $\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin\sigma_{eS}(S(t))$, then we have\
$\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)$ is relatively regular and $$N[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]\subseteq_e R^\infty[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)].$$ Thus by Propositions \[p1\] and \[p2\], we obtain $\lambda-A$ is relatively regular and $$N(\lambda-A)\subseteq_e R^\infty(\lambda-A).$$ Therefore $\lambda-A$ is essentially Saphar and hence $$\lambda\notin\sigma_{eS}(A).$$
\[p4\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$ and all $t\geq 0$, we have\
$dis[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]=n,$ then $dis(A-\lambda)\leq n.$
Since $dis[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]=n$, then for all $m\geq n$, we have\
$$R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m\cap N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]=$$ $$\quad\quad\quad\quad R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^n\cap N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)].$$ Let $m\geq n$ and $y\in R(\lambda-A)^m\cap N(\lambda-A)$, then there exists $x\in X$ such that $$y=(\lambda-A)^mx.$$ Using Lemma \[l2\] and since $y\in N(\lambda-A)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
[\phi_\lambda(t)]^my &=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^my\\
&=&(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,m}(t)y+
[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^m[D_\lambda(t)]^my\\
&=&L_{\lambda,m}(t)(\lambda-A)y+
[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^m[D_\lambda(t)]^m(\lambda-A)^mx\\
&=& [\varphi_\lambda(t)]^m[D_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)]^mx\\
&=& [\varphi_\lambda(t)]^m[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^mx\\
&=& [\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^mx.
\end{aligned}$$ Then $$y\in R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m.$$ Hence, since $y\in N(\lambda-A)\subseteq N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)],$ then $$y\in R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m\cap N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)].$$ Therefore $$y\in R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^n\cap N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)].$$ Then there exists $z\in X$ satisfying $$y=[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^nz=(\lambda-A)^n[D_\lambda(t)]^nz.$$ So $y\in R(\lambda-A)^n,$ and therefore $$dis(\lambda-A)\leq n.$$
\[p5\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. For all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$ and all $t\geq 0$, if $R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]+N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^n$ is closed, then $R(\lambda-A)+N(\lambda-A)^n$ is also.
Let $(y_n)_{n\in\mathds{N}}\subseteq X$ such that $y_n\rightarrow y\in X$ and there exist $(x_n)_{n\in\mathds{N}}\subseteq D(A)$ and $(z_n)_{n\in\mathds{N}}\subseteq N(\lambda-A)^m$ satisfying $$y_n=(\lambda-A)x_n+z_n.$$ By Lemma \[l2\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
[D_\lambda(t)]^my_n &=& [D_\lambda(t)]^m(\lambda-A)x_n+[D_\lambda(t)]^mz_n;\\
&=& [\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)][D_\lambda(t)]^{m-1}x_n+
[D_\lambda(t)]^mz_n;\\\end{aligned}$$ Since $$[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m[D_\lambda(t)]^mz_n=
[D_\lambda(t)]^m[D_\lambda(t)]^m(\lambda-A)^mz_n=0,$$ we conclude that $$[D_\lambda(t)]^my_n\in R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]+N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m.$$ Moreover, we have $$R[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]+N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m$$ is closed and $[D_\lambda(t)]^my_n$ converges to $[D_\lambda(t)]^my$, then there exist $x\in X$ and $z\in N[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^m$ such that $$[D_\lambda(t)]^my=[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]x+z.$$ Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
[D_\lambda(t)]^{2m}y &=& [D_\lambda(t)]^m[D_\lambda(t)]^my;\\
&=& [D_\lambda(t)]^m[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]x+[D_\lambda(t)]^mz,\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, using Lemma \[l2\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{2m}y &=& (\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,2m}(t)y+
[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{2m}[\varphi_{\lambda}(t)]^{2m}[D_{\lambda}(t)]^{2m}y;\\
&=& (\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,2m}(t)y+
[\varphi_{\lambda}(t)]^{2m}[[D_\lambda(t)]^m[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]x+[D_\lambda(t)]^mz];\\
&=& (\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,2m}(t)y+[\varphi_{\lambda}(t)]^{2m}
[[D_\lambda(t)]^mD_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)x+[D_\lambda(t)]^mz];\\
&=& (\lambda-A)[L_{\lambda,2m}(t)y+
[\varphi_{\lambda}(t)]^{2m}
[D_\lambda(t)]^{m+1}x]+\varphi_{\lambda}(t)]^{2m}[D_\lambda(t)]^mz.\end{aligned}$$ Since $$(\lambda-A)^m[\varphi_{\lambda}(t)^{2m}[D_\lambda(t)]^mz]=\varphi_{\lambda}(t)^{2m}[\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^mz=0,$$ we deduce that $$y\in R(\lambda-A)+N(\lambda-A)^m.$$
The following theorem examines the quasi-Fredholm spectrum.
Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $t\geq 0$, we have $$\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{qe}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{qe}(S(t)).$$
Suppose that $$\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin \sigma_{qe}(S(t)).$$ Then there exists $d\in\mathds{N}$ such that for all $n\geq d$ $R[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^n$ and $R[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]+N[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]^n$ are closed and $$dis[\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]=d.$$ Using Propositions \[p1\], \[p4\] and \[p5\], we obtain for all $n\geq d$ $R[\lambda-A]^n$ and $R[\lambda-A]+N[\lambda-A]^n$ are closed and $dis(\lambda-A)\leq d$. Therefore, $\lambda-A$ is quasi-Fredholm and hence $$\lambda\notin\sigma_{qe}(A).$$
[99]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P. Aiena,</span> *Fredholm and Local Spectral Theory with Applications to Multipliers,* Kluwer. Acad. Press, 2004. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">W. Arendt,</span> *Vector-valued Laplace Transforms and Cauchy Problems,* Israel J. Math, 59 (3) (1987), 327-352. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Elkoutri and M. A. Taoudi,</span> *Spectral Inclusions and stability results for strongly continuous semigroups,* Int. J. of Math. and Mathematical Sciences, 37 (2003), 2379-2387. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Heiber,</span> *Laplace transforms and $\alpha-$times integrated semigroups,* Forum Math. 3 (1991), 595-612. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. Kaiser,</span> *Integrated semigroups and linear partial differential equations with delay,* J. Math Anal and Appl. 292 (2) (2004), 328-339. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.J. Koliha and T.D. Tran,</span> *The Drazin inverse for closed linear operators and asymptotic convergence of $C_0$-semigroups,* J.Oper.Theory. 46 (2001), 323–336. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. Miao Li and W. Quan Zheng,</span> *$\alpha$-times integrated semigroups: local and global,* Studia Mathematica 154 (3) (2003), 243-252. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">V. Müller,</span> *Spectral theory of linear operators and spectral systems in Banach algebras 2nd edition,* Oper.Theo.Adva.Appl, 139 (2007). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Pazy,</span> *Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications to Partial Differential Equations,* Applied Mathematical Sciences, Springer-Verlag, New York 1983. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Tajmouati, A. El Bakkali and M.B. Mohamed Ahmed,</span> *Spectral inclusions between $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups and their generators,* Submitted. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Tajmouati, A. El Bakkali and M.B. Mohamed Ahmed,</span> *Semi-Fredholm and semi-Browder spectrums for the $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups,* Submitted. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Tajmouati and H. Boua,</span> *Spectral theory for integrated semigroups,* Inter Journal of Pure and Appl Math, 104 (4) (2016), 847-860. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A.E. Taylar and D.C. Lay,</span> *Introduction to Functional Analysis,* 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The bound state spectra of the doublet states in three-electron atomic systems are investigated. By using different variational expansions we determine various bound state properties in these systems. Such properties include the electron-nucleus and electron-electron delta-functions and cusp values. The general structure of the bound state spectra in several three-electron atomic systems (Li, Be$^{+}$, C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$) is investigated with the use of the Hylleraas-Configuration Interaction and the Configuration Interaction wave functions. The advantage of our Configuration Interaction based procedure is that it provides high numerical accuracy for all rotationally excited states, including the bound states with $L \ge 7$.'
author:
- 'Alexei M. Frolov'
- María Belén Ruiz
- 'David M. Wardlaw'
title: 'Bound state spectra and properties of the doublet states in three-electron atomic systems'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
In this study we investigate the bound doublet states in the three-electron atoms and ions by using a few different variational expansions written in the relative coordinates, or interparticle distances $r_{ij} = \mid {\bf r}_i -
{\bf r}_j \mid = r_{ji}$, where ${\bf r}_i$ ($i$ = 1, 2, 3) are the Cartesian coordinates of the three electrons, while ${\bf r}_4$ are the Cartesian coordinates of the positively charged nucleus. Another our goal is to determine the bound state properties of some of these bound (doublet) states and discuss problems arising during this procedure. By calculating these properties we want to correct mistakes which have been made in earlier papers and continue to propagate in the modern scientific literature.
As is well known in the lowest-order approximation upon the fine structure constant $\alpha (= \frac{e^2}{\hbar c}$) an arbitrary three-electron atom/ion is described by the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation $H \Psi = E \Psi$, where $E <
0$ and the bound state wave function $\Psi$ has the unit norm. The non-relativistic Hamiltonian $H$ of the three-electron atom/ion is (see, e.g., [@LLQ]) $$\begin{aligned}
H = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_e} \Bigl[\nabla^2_1 + \nabla^2_2 + \nabla^2_3 + \frac{m_e}{M} \nabla^2_4
\Bigr] - \frac{Q e^2}{r_{14}} - \frac{Q e^2}{r_{24}} - \frac{Q e^2}{r_{34}} + \frac{e^2}{r_{12}}
+ \frac{e^2}{r_{13}} + \frac{e^2}{r_{23}} \label{Hamil}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hbar = \frac{h}{2 \pi}$ is the reduced Planck constant, $m_e$ is the electron mass and $e$ is the electric charge of an electron. In this equation and everywhere below in this study the subscripts 1, 2, 3 designate the three electrons $e^-$, while the subscript 4 denotes the heavy nucleus with mass $M$ ($M \gg m_e$) and positive electric (nuclear) charge $Q e$. The notations $r_{ij} = \mid {\bf r}_i - {\bf r}_j \mid = r_{ji}$ stand for the six interparticle distances (= relative coordinates) defined above. In Eq.(\[Hamil\]) and everywhere below in this work we shall assume that $(ij)$ = $(ji)$ = (12), (13), (14), (23), (24), (34). Below only atomic units $\hbar = 1, \mid e \mid = 1, m_e = 1$ are employed. In these units the explicit form of the Hamiltonian $H$, Eq.(\[Hamil\]), is simplified $$\begin{aligned}
H = -\frac12 \Bigl[ {\bf p}^2_1 + {\bf p}^2_2 + {\bf p}^2_3 + \frac{1}{M} {\bf p}^2_N \Bigr] - \frac{Q}{r_{14}} -
\frac{Q}{r_{24}} - \frac{Q}{r_{34}} + \frac{1}{r_{12}} + \frac{1}{r_{13}} + \frac{1}{r_{23}} \label{Hamil1}\end{aligned}$$ where the notations ${\bf p}_i$ designate the momenta of the electrons ($i$ = 1, 2, 3) and the nucleus ($i$ = 4, or $i = N$). In atomic units we have ${\bf p}^{2}_{i} = p^{2}_{i} = -\nabla^{2}_{i}$.
For last fifty years (since the paper [@Lars] was published) the problem of highly accurate calculations of the bound states in three-electron atomic systems has attracted a significant attention. A very nice review of the three-electron atomic problem can be found in [@McW] which also contains all references prior to 1969. Recently, impressive calculations have been achieved for the low-lying states of three-electron systems using Hylleraas-type wave functions [@Ho; @Clary; @Sims; @YD]. Such calculations are the result of developments in the methods of evaluation of the three-electron integrals. The integral methods used to perform the calculations of this work are described in Refs. [@Sims3e; @Ruiz3e; @Fro2003]. The rotationally excited states or Rydberg states of three-electron systems have attracted considerable attention and calculations have been done using theoretical methods to describe the core two-electron ion and the weakly bound excited electron [@Bhatia; @Chen]. A great theoretical interest in three-electron atomic systems can be explained by a number of facts known for such systems. First, three-electron atomic systems are very convenient objects for the study of the overall and relative contributions of the electron-electron correlations. It follows from the fact that the potential energy in the Hamiltonian, Eq.(\[Hamil\]), is represented by two sums each of which contains equal number of terms: electron-nucleus attractions and electron-electron repulsions. Therefore, by varying only one parameter $Q$ in Eq.(\[Hamil\]) we can study electron-electron correlations in such systems and relations between electron-electron and electron-nucleus correlations. Second, all three-electron atoms and ions are well known subjects in atomic physics. On the other hand, the overall accuracy of bound state computations achieved for three-electron atoms and ions is still substantially lower than analogous accuracy known for two-electron atomic systems. Therefore, the development of new, rapidly converging variational expansions and effective, fast computational methods is of paramount importance for the future of highly accurate calculations of three-electron atoms and ions. Third, despite a rapidly increasing stream of computational publications on three-electron atomic systems some fundamental aspects of such systems have not been discussed yet. For instance, the quality of the wave function constructed for an arbitrary Coulomb few- and many-body system can be tested by comparing the computed and expected cusp values, or cusps, for short. However, it appears that neither the electron-nucleus, nor electron-electron cusps were ever determined for three-electron atoms and ions. Another well known problem is related to an incorrect definition of some electron-nucleus and electron-electron properties accepted in quite a few earlier works performed for three-electron atoms and ions. Furthermore, it was found that the expectation values of some bound state properties computed with the use of different variational expansions deviate from each other. In a few cases such deviations are relatively large and may lead to contradictions with the known experimental results.
In our analysis below we re-consider all these problems by performing highly accurate calculations of some bound states in three-electron atomic systems. This work has the following structure. In the next Section we discuss the semi-exponential variational expansion in relative coordinates [@Fro2010]. This very compact and accurate variational expansion was introduced in [@Fro2010]. In this study this expansion is applied to determine various bound state properties in the ground $2^2S-$state(s) of the three-electron Li-atom and Be$^{+}$ and B$^{2+}$ ions. The computed expectation values include electron-nucleus and electron-electron delta-functions and cusp-values. In Section III we consider a number of bound (doublet) ${}^2S-$states in different three-electron atoms and ions by using another variational expansion of the wave functions. Here all wave functions are approximated by expansions in six-dimensional gaussoids [@KT]. Note that analytical formulas for all matrix elements which arise in variational calculations of arbitrary $A-$body system in the basis of multi-dimensional gaussoids, where $A \ge 2$ is an arbitrary integer, have been derived in the mid-1970’s (see [@KT] and earlier references therein). Subsequently this variational expansion was successfully applied for bound state computations in many hundreds of nuclear, atomic and molecular systems. In Section III we use this variational expansion to determine the total energies and other bound state properties of some excited states in the Li-atom. The results obtained in Section III can also be used to correct a few mistakes and misprints made in earlier studies of three-electron atomic systems. In Section IV by using the Hylleraas-Configuration Interaction (Hy-CI) and Configuration Interaction (CI) variational expansions of the wave functions we investigate the general structure of the bound state spectra (or optical spectra, for short) of three-electron (or Li-like) atoms and ions. Section IV also contains a brief discussion of the ‘scaling’ procedure which can be used to study the electron-electron correlations in three-electron atomic systems. Concluding remarks can be found in the last Section.
Semi-exponential variational expansion
======================================
A semi-exponential variational expansion for three-electron wave functions was developed a few years ago [@Fro2010] in order to modify the traditional Hylleraas variational expansion which has been used for three-electron atomic systems since Larsson’s work [@Lars]. Recently it became clear that the Hylleraas variational expansion of the three-electron wave functions has a very slow convergence rate. Our main idea in [@Fro2010] was to increase the total number of varied, non-linear parameters in each basis function included from the variational expansion. Finally, we developed a very effective variational expansion for three-electron atoms and ions which can now be used to construct very compact and accurate wave functions for arbitrary three-electron atom and/or ion. For simplicity, below we consider only the doublet $2^{2}S(L = 0)$-states in the three-electron Li atom and similar Be$^{+}$ and B$^{2+}$ ions. By using our semi-exponential variational expansion we determine bound state properties of these three-electron atomic systems. It should be mentioned that some of these properties have never been determined in earlier studies.
The variational wave function of the doublet $S(L = 0)$-states of the three-electron atom/ion is written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{L=0} = \psi_{L=0}(A; \bigl\{ r_{ij} \bigr\}) (\alpha \beta \alpha - \beta \alpha \alpha) + \phi_{L=0}(B; \bigl\{
r_{ij} \bigr\}) (2 \alpha \alpha \beta - \beta \alpha \alpha - \alpha \beta \alpha) \label{psi}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_{L=0}(A; \bigl\{ r_{ij} \bigr\})$ and $\phi_{L=0}(B; \bigl\{ r_{ij} \bigr\})$ are the two independent spatial parts (also called the radial parts, or radial functions) of the total wave function. Each of these two radial functions is, in fact, a radial factor (for states with $L = 0$) in front of the corresponding three-electron spin functions $\chi_1 = \alpha \beta
\alpha - \beta \alpha \alpha$ and $\chi_2 = 2 \alpha \alpha \beta - \beta \alpha \alpha - \alpha \beta \alpha$. Here the notations $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the one-electron spin-up and spin-down functions, respectively (their definition can be found, e.g., in [@Dir]). The notations $A$ and $B$ in Eq.(\[psi\]) mean that the two sets of non-linear parameters associated with radial functions $\psi$ and $\phi$ can be optimized independently. In the general case, each of the radial basis functions explicitly depends upon all six interparticle (relative) coordinates $r_{12}, r_{13}, r_{23}, r_{14}, r_{24}, r_{34}$. It is clear that in actual bound state calculations only one spin function, e.g., the $\chi_1$ function, can be used. Note also that when the corresponding radial function has been constructed, then one can use an artifice called the ‘doubling’ of the wave function (see, e.g., [@Fro2011]). This trick is based on the use of the same set of non-linear parameters in the two radial functions in Eq.(\[psi\]). Obviously, this is not an optimal choice of the non-linear parameters in the wave function, but in many cases this simple handling leads to a substantial improvement of the answer.
The semi-exponential variational expansion of the radial function $\psi_{L=0}(A; \bigl\{ r_{ij} \bigr\})$ from Eq.(\[psi\]) is written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{L=0}(A; \bigl\{ r_{ij} \bigr\}) = \sum^N_{k=1} C_k r^{n_1(k)}_{23} r^{n_2(k)}_{13} r^{n_3(k)}_{12} r^{m_1(k)}_{14}
r^{m_2(k)}_{24} r^{m_3(k)}_{34} exp(-\alpha_{k} r_{14} -\beta_{k} r_{24} -\gamma_{k} r_{34}) \label{semexp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_k, \beta_k, \gamma_k$ ($k = 1, 2, \ldots, N$) are the varied non-linear parameters. The presence of the varied non-linear parameters in Eq.(\[semexp\]) is the main and very important difference with the traditional Hylleraas variational expansion (see, e.g., [@Lars]). In the last case in Eq.(\[semexp\]) we have $\alpha_1 = \ldots = \alpha_N, \beta_1 = \ldots = \beta_N$ and $\gamma_1 =
\ldots = \gamma_N$. Note that all matrix elements of the Hamiltonian, Eq.(\[Hamil\]), and overlap matrix needed in computations with the use of the semi-exponential basis, Eq.(\[semexp\]), contain the same three-electron integrals which arise for the usual Hylleraas expansion (for more detail, see discussion in [@Fro2010]). In other words, numerical calculation of all matrix elements with semi-exponential functions is not a more difficult task than for the traditional Hylleraas radial functions. This also simplifies numerical computations of the bound state properties (i.e. expectation values) in the semi-exponential basis set. In particular, our algorithms used in calculations of all required matrix elements is based on the old Perkins formula for three-electron integrals [@Per] in relative coordinates. The explicit symmetrizaton of the wave function upon all permutations of identical particles (electron) is discussed in detail in our earlier works (see, e.g., [@Fro2010] and references therein). Note also that all calculations in this work have been performed with the use of standard quadruple precision accuracy (30 decimal digits per computer word). In our calculations we have used variational wave functions for the Li atom, Be$^{+}$ and B$^{3+}$ ions with 60 terms. To construct these wave functions we follow the procedure described in detail in [@Fro2011].
As mentioned above in this study we consider the doublet $2^2S(L = 0)$-states in the three-electron Li atom and in analogous Be$^{+}$ and B$^{2+}$ ions. The corresponding expectation values (or properties) can be found in Table I (in atomic units $\hbar = 1, e = 1, m_e = 1$). For most of the properties mentioned in Table I their meaning is clear from the notation used. Therefore, here we can restrict ourselves to a few following remarks. All electron-nucleus properties are designated below with the use of a general index $eN$ (electron-nucleus), while the notation $ee$ stands for electron-electron properties. For instance, the notations $\langle r_{eN} \rangle$ and $\langle r_{ee} \rangle$ mean the electron-nucleus and electron-electron distances, respectively. The total energies obtained with these 60-term wave functions are: $E$ = -7.47805 86794 4751 $a.u.$ (Li atom), $E$ = -14.32475 2251 4351 $a.u.$ (Be$^{+}$ ion) and $E$ = -23.42457 46190 439 $a.u.$ (B$^{2+}$ ion), respectively.
The expectation values of the electron-nucleus and electron-electron delta-functions, i.e. $\langle \delta_{eN} \rangle$ and $\langle \delta_{ee}
\rangle$ are of great interest in various applications. Therefore, it is important to be sure that these values have been determined correctly. For atomic and molecular systems with the Coulomb interaction between each pair of particles there is a very effective test which can be used to estimate the actual accuracy of the expectation values of all two-particle delta-functions $\langle \delta({\bf r}_{ij}) \rangle$. This test is based on accurate numerical evaluation of the electron-nucleus and elecron-electron cusp values. In general, the cusp value between two point particles $a$ and $b$ with electrical charges $q_a$ and $q_b$ and masses $m_a$ and $m_b$ (in atomic units) is: $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\nu}_{ab} = q_a q_b \frac{m_a m_b}{m_a + m_b} \label{cuspe}\end{aligned}$$ This is the expected (or ‘classical’) numerical value of the cusp between the electrically charged particles $a$ and $b$. In general, the cusp is defined by the equation (see, e.g., [@cusp]) $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{ab} = \frac{\langle \delta({\bf r}_{ab}) \frac{\partial}{\partial r_{ab}} \rangle}{\langle \delta({\bf r}_{ab}) \rangle} \label{cusp}.\end{aligned}$$ Numerical coincidence of the $\nu_{ab}$ and $\overline{\nu}_{ab}$ values is a good test for the overall quality of the wave functions constructed for different atomic and molecular systems.
It should be mentioned that the ‘classical’ definition of the cusp (or cusp-condition) given by Eq.(\[cusp\]) can be generalized to quantum mechanics in a number of different ways. To explain this let us introduce the following cusp-operator $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\nu}_{ab} = \frac{1}{\langle \delta({\bf r}_{ab}) \rangle} \delta({\bf r}_{ab}) \frac{\partial}{\partial r_{ab}} \label{cusp2}\end{aligned}$$ For the expectation values one finds $\nu_{ab} = \langle \Psi \mid \hat{\nu}_{ab} \mid \Psi \rangle$. Formally, we can consider the quantity $\langle \Psi_i
\mid \hat{\nu}_{ab} \mid \Psi_j \rangle$, where $\Psi_i$ and $\Psi_j$ are the two different wave functions from the bound state spectrum. The last expression, however, is not symmetric upon the $i \leftrightarrow j$ substitution. Such a symmetry can be restored with the following redefinition of the cusp operator, Eq.(\[cusp2\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\nu}_{ab} = \frac{1}{2 \langle \delta({\bf r}_{ab}) \rangle} \Bigl[ {}_{\leftarrow}\Bigl( \frac{\partial}{\partial r_{ab}}\Bigr) \delta({\bf r}_{ab})
+ \delta({\bf r}_{ab}) \Bigl(\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{ab}}\Bigr)_{\rightarrow} \Bigr] \label{cusp3}\end{aligned}$$ where the differential operator with the index ‘$\rightarrow$’ acts on its right, while analogous operator with the index ‘$\leftarrow$’ acts on its left. The definition of the cusp operator based on Eq.(\[cusp3\]) has a number of advantages in applications. In particular, it allows one to obtain more accurate values of the electron-nucleus and electron-electron cusps with the use of relatively short wave functions. In this study to determine the numerical values of all cusps mentioned in this Section we used the cusp operators written in the form of Eq.(\[cusp3\]).
Basis of six-dimensional gaussoids
==================================
For three-electron atoms and ions there is another variational expansion which can be effective to perform accurate computations of low-lying bound states, e.g., the low-lying bound $S(L = 0)$- and $P(L = 1)$-states. The high efficiency of such an expansion for bound state computations is based on very simple and numerically stable formulas for all matrix elements needed in computations of the total energies of these states. This variational expansion was developed in the mid-1970 by Kolesnikov and his group (see, e.g., [@KT] and references therein). In general, this expansion is also represented in the form of Eq.(\[psi\]), but only radial functions are represented as linear combinations of the six-dimensional gaussoids, e.g., for $\psi_{L=0}(A; \bigl\{ r_{ij} \bigr\})$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{L=0}(A; \bigl\{ r_{ij} \bigr\}) = \sum^N_{k=1} C_k exp(-\alpha^{(k)}_{12} r^2_{12} -\alpha^{(k)}_{13} r^2_{13} -\alpha^{(k)}_{23} r^2_{23}
-\alpha^{(k)}_{14} r^2_{14} -\alpha^{(k)}_{24} r^2_{24} -\alpha^{(k)}_{34} r^2_{34}) \label{gauss}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_k$ are the linear coefficients (or linear variational parameters), and $\alpha^{(k)}_{ij}$ are the varied non-linear parameters. It is clear that for Coulomb systems each of the basis functions in Eq.(\[gauss\]) does not provide the correct long-range asymptotic between particles. Indeed, for the $i$ and $j$ particles the leading term in the asymptotics of the actual atomic wave function must be represented in the form $r^{K}_{ij} \exp(-\beta r_{ij})$. Additional terms for Coulomb (or atomic) systems may include different powers of $log r_{ij}, log \mid log r_{ij} \mid$ and other similar factors. This follows from the general theory of bound states in the few-body Coulomb systems (see, e.g., [@Fock1954] and references therein). It is clear that such terms cannot be derived from the approximate wave function Eq.(\[gauss\]). Based on this conclusion we can predict a number of different bound state properties with the use of variational expansion, Eq.(\[gauss\]). In reality, the variational expansion, Eq.(\[gauss\]), can be used for approximate evaluations of the bound state properties in atomic systems.
Formally, this means that the expectation values determined with the use of multi-dimensional gaussoids can be used as a one-sided approximation to the actual bound state properties of atomic systems. The procedure works in the following way. By using relatively large numbers of multi-dimensional gaussoids with carefully optimized non-linear parameters $\alpha^{(k)}_{ij}$ in Eq.(\[gauss\]) we can obtain accurate numerical values of the total energies. Then we continue optimization of the non-linear parameters $\alpha^{(k)}_{ij}$ in Eq.(\[gauss\]). The total energies continue to converge to their limiting values. However, the expectation values of many bound state properties rapidly improve during such an additional optimization. The principal question here is to evaluate the convergence rate of the variational expansion, Eq.(\[gauss\]). In our calculations we have found that the actual convergence rate for the total energies is relatively fast and already for $N = 700 - 1000$ in Eq.(\[gauss\]) we obtain results which can be considered as accurate, or even highly accurate.
The total energies of the ground $2^2S(L = 0)$ and some excited $n^2S(L = 0)$-states ($n \ge 3$) in some three-electron atoms and ions can be found in Table II (in atomic units). Table III contains the bound state properties determined with the use of our best variational wave functions. In such calculations we have used only 700 basis functions (six-dimensional gaussoids) with carefully optimized non-linear parameters. It should be mentioned here that highly accurate wave functions can be constructed with the use of 2000 (or more) basis functions (six-dimensional gaussoids) with carefully optimized non-linear parameters. The explicit construction of such accurate wave functions with 2000 terms (or more) does not require excessive computational resources, but in calculations performed for this study we restrict ourselves to bound state wave functions with $N = 700$ terms only. There are two reasons for this. First, we compare our bound state properties with analogous properties computed in earlier papers (see, e.g., [@King91] and references therein) where the total number of basis functions used was $\approx 500 - 800$, which is comparable to 700. Second, many differences between accurate bound state properties obtained with $N = 700$ basis functions in Eq.(\[gauss\]) and highly accurate values determined with $N = 2000$ basis functions in Eq.(\[gauss\]) are of interest for some special purposes only. The overall accuracy of our computed bound state properties is sufficient to predict the results of various experiments performed for three-electron atomic systems. Moreover, our results obtained for the three-electron atomic systems presented in Tables I and III can be used as a basis for more accurate calculations of bound state properties in the future. Note that the expectation values of the two-particle cusps cannot be evaluated with the use of the KT-expansion, Eq.(\[gauss\]). Formally, for these values one always finds zero, if the variational KT-expansion is used in the cusp definitions, Eqs.(\[cusp\]) - (\[cusp3\]). Theoretically, these expectation values can be corrected, e.g., by using different representations of the wave functions at the short interparticle distances. The linear coefficients in such a ‘new’ representation of the wave function are determined from the known KT-expansions in some ‘intermediate’ areas. In reality, very often this procedure does not lead to the accurate cusp values. Furthermore, the answer substantially depends upon the size of this ‘intermediate’ area. Therefore, the comparison of the ‘expected’ and actual cusp values can be made only approximately, i.e. the original sense of the cusp condition as a simple (but effective) criterion for the wave functions is essentially lost.
To conclude this Section we note that there is another fundamental question about accurate calculations of bound state properties. In general, the physical meaning of each property is clear only for those few-body systems where any group of particles do not form any closed shells, or cluster structures. Otherwise, the meaning of the computed properties rapidly became unclear when the total number of identical particles increases. For instance, for highly excited ${}^{2}S(L =
0)$-states in the Li atom (see Tables II and III) one of the three electrons is moving as almost free particle. In old atomic physics such a motion was considered as the pre-dissociation. This means that the electron-nucleus distance for that electron is extremely large in comparison to the analogous distances determined for two other electrons which occupy the closed $1s^2$-shell. To calculate the expectation value $\langle r_{eN} \rangle$ we need to sum up all three electron-nucleus distances (two relatively short and one very large $r_{eN}$ distances) and divide the arising sum by three. Finally, we obtain the expectation value $\langle
r_{eN} \rangle$ which, in fact, gives us no useful information. It is similar to the mean patient temperature measured over the ‘whole hospital’. The same is true for other bound state properties, including all electron-nucleus and electron-electron properties. Formally, in such cases we need to assume that some originally identical particles becomes ‘less-identical’, or even ‘non-identical’ for highly excited states. If such an assumption has been made, then the expectation values of different properties provide us with useful information which has a direct physical sense. However, at this moment we do not have reliable recipes for calculations of such values, since $a$ $priori$ the ‘power of non-identity’ for the outer most electron is no clear, e.g., in the $4^2S-, 5^2S-$ and $6^2S-$state (see Tables II and III). The power of ‘non-identity’ increases with the excitation, i.e. with the principal quantum number $n$.
On general structure of the bound state spectra
===============================================
The general structure of the bound state spectra in three-electron atoms and ions was considered in our earlier paper [@Bel1]. In this paper by using the energy values obtained in [@Bel1] for the Li atom and the Be$^+$ ion we have drawn the spectral diagrams of these species. For this study we slightly improved numerical values of the total energies and draw the spectral diagrams for the doublet series of the Li atom and the Be$^+$ ion (see Figs. 1 and 2). In particular, the spectra of the Li atom is identical to the experimental spectra given in the classical book [@Kik]. In this work we would like to continue our theoretical analysis of the bound state spectra in three-electron atoms and ions. The analysis of the bound state spectra in similar atomic systems is based on the use of fast-convergent variational expansions which provide high numerical accuracy not only for the ground and some low-lying rotationally excited states, but for all excited states in few-electron atom(s) and ions. This expansion is the Hylleraas-Configuration Interaction (Hy-CI) wave function, proposed by Sims and Hagstrom [@SH1; @SH2], which we have used to determine the $S$-, $P$-, $D$-states of the C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ ions and the Configuration Interaction (CI) wave function with Slater orbitals and $LS$ configurations for the states of higher symmetry $F$, $G$, $H$, $I$, $K$, $L$, $M$, $N$ and states with $L=20$. Note that the Hy-CI is general for any symmetry. At the moment in our computer program the kinetic energy integrals are restricted to $l = 3$, work is in progress to generalize our code for $l \ge 3$. Nevertheless, the CI wave function leads to very good results for states with quantum number $L \ge 3$. The Hy-CI and CI wave functions can be summarized in the following expression: $$\Psi =\sum_{p=1}^NC_p\Phi _p,\qquad \Phi _p=\hat{O}(\hat{L}^2)\hat{\mathcal{A}}\psi _p\chi$$ $N$ is the number of configurations $\Phi_p$, and $C_p$ a variational coefficient. All configurations are symmetry-adapted (this is expressed in the last equation with the operator $\hat{O}(\hat{L}^2)$). The operator $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ is the antisymmetrization operator and $\chi$ is the spin eigenfunction: $$\chi =\left[ (\alpha \beta -\beta \alpha )\alpha \right].$$ The Hartree products are multiplied by up to one interelectronic coordinate $r_{ij}$ $$\psi _p=r_{ij}^\nu \prod_{k=1}^n\phi _k(r_k,\theta _k,\varphi _k),$$ where the choice $\nu = 0$ corresponds to the CI wave function, while for $\nu = 1$ we have the Hy-CI wave function. To calculate the bound (doublet) states in the C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ ions we have optimized the exponents of the wave function expansions for the Li and Be$^{+}$ atoms of Ref.[@Bel1] for the nuclear charges $Z = 6$ and $Z = 9$. The Hy-CI calculations have been conducted using quadruple precision arithmetic and we have employed $\approx$ 1000 configurations, while in the CI calculations double precision has been used and we have employed between 1000 and 1500 configurations. The construction of the configurations is described in [@Bel1]. The configurations of the newly calculated states in this work are similar to the ones of [@Bel1] employing higher $l$ quantum number for the outer electron. The CI procedure is very stable for calculations with high quantum number L. This is based in the very stable two-electron integral algorithms used in the calculations. These algorithms have been described in detail by Eqs. (A.33-A.35) of Ref. [@Ruiz2e]. The accuracy of the CI calculations is $\approx 1$ mhartree ($1\times 10^{-3} a.u.$). The obtained energies are listed in Table IV. We can compare the energy values of the $S$-states obtained by the gaussoids expansion in Table II with the ones by the Hy-CI method. All the energy values are very close, the differences are in the order of few microhartrees ($1\times 10^{-6} a.u.$). The ground state energies of the Li atom and Li-like ions are slightly better by using the Gaussoids expansion, while the low-lying excited $P$-states are better by using the Hy-CI method. For the Li atom and Be$^+$ ion we compared the energies of low-lying states of $S$-, $P$- and $D$-symmetry in [@Bel1] obtaining differences in the order of few microhartrees. In this work we have calculated higher states of the Li atom and Be$^{+}$ ion using the CI method. For the ions, the literature is very scarce. We were able to compare the ground and lowest $P$-symmetry states of the C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ ions with Hylleraas-type calculations [@YTD], see Table V. Note that the Hy-CI energy values of the $P$-states are very accurate, showing that the Hy-CI wave function is very advantageous for the calculation of states with non-zero angular momentum. With this method the accuracy of higher excited states of the lowest symmetries (like it is the case of $8P$, $8D$ which are not listed in Table IV) is lower than the accuracy of low-lying excited states of higher symmetry, i.e. $8F$, $8G$, …, $8K$. The reason is the state $8K$ is the first solution of the eigenvalue equation for a wave function of K-symmetry, while i.e. $8P$ is the seventh solution of its corresponding Schrödinger equation. In this respect, one can observe innacuracies in the obtained energy of the weakly bound Rydberg states.
With the data of Table IV we have drawn the spectral diagrams of these ions, see Figs. 3 and 4. We have scaled these diagrams taking for every one the ground state energy level as lowest point and the limit of inonization as highest point, and calculating the position of the states with respect to this interval. Therefore we can compare the relative position or contraction of the energy levels of every specie with respect to its ground state. Our theoretical distribution of energy levels agrees completely with the experimental results [@NIST]. In addition we have determined in this work atomic levels which experimental values have not been yet reported, like states with $ L \ge 4$ in Li atom, $L \ge 6$ of Be$^+$ ion, $L \ge 7$ of C$^{3+}$ and $L \ge 4$ of F$^{6+}$ ion. Using theoretical and experimental results we can conclude that the order of the energy levels in the duplet states of the neutral atom and isoelectronic ions is $S < P < D < F < G < H < I < K < L < M < N < \dots $
As is well known from basics of atomic spectroscopy (see, e.g., [@Sob]) all three-electron atoms and ions are observed in the two series of states: (a) doublet states with $S_e = \frac12$, and (b) quartet states with $S_e = \frac32$, where $S_e$ designates the total electron spin. The quartet states in these atomic systems are non-stable, i.e. they decay for relatively short times. Thus, the only bound states which are observed in actual spectroscopy of three-electron atomic systems are the doublet states. Therefore, below in this Section we restrict ourselves to the consideration of the doublet (bound) states only. As mentioned in the Introduction the atomic Hamiltonian, Eq.(\[Hamil\]), contains equal numbers of electron-nucleus and electron-electron terms. Indeed, in Eq.(\[Hamil\]) one finds three terms which describe electron-nucleus attraction and three other terms which describe electron-electron repulsion. The first four terms in Eq.(\[Hamil\]) represent the kinetic energy of the four particles (three electrons and one nucleus). This means that by varying the electric charge of the central nucleus $Q$ we can study the role of electron-electron correlations in three-electron atomic systems. It is clear that by increasing $Q$ we can reduce the overall role of electron-electron repulsions in three-electron ions. There are three electron-nucleus terms and three electron-electron terms in the potential energy of the Hamiltonian, Eq.(\[Hamil\]). This means that by varying $Q$ we change relations between each electron-nucleus and electron-electron terms. On the other hand, an analogous relation between the total sum of the three electron-nucleus terms and the total sum of the three electron-electron terms changes in the same proportion.
The electronic structure of the ground (bound) doublet $2^2S$-state of the three-electron Li atom is $1s^2 2s^1$, while all excited states have a similar structure where the two electrons occupy the $1s^2$-electron shell (its excitation energy is extremely large), while the third electron can occupy any free electron orbital in the atom. Formally, we can say that the third electron is located in one of the $n\ell$-shells, where $\ell \ge 0$, $n = k + \ell + 1$ and $k \ge 0$ (all these numbers are integer). Possible excitations of the Li atom always mean the excitation of the third electron, which sometimes is considered as an ‘optical’ electron. Any excitation of the central electron $1s^2$-shell leads to the complete dissociation of the whole atom. In the lowest-order approximation we can say that the optical spectrum of the Li-atom is similar to the well known spectrum of the hydrogen atom. However, the actual similarities in optical spectra can be found only for highly excited bound states in the Li atom which are often called the Rydberg states.
As follows from the general theory of atomic spectra the total energies of weakly-bound Rydberg states in any neutral atom must be represented by a formula which is similar to the well known formula for the hydrogen-like atoms. Let us discuss such a formula in detail. First, note that the dissociation threshold for the neutral Li-atom corresponds to the formation of the two-electron Li$^{+}$ ion in its ground $1^1S$-state (singlet). The non-relativistic energy of this state is $E_{{}^{\infty}{\rm Li}^{+}}$ $\approx$ -7.279913 412669 305964 91895(15) $a.u.$ [@Fro2014]. This dissociation threshold corresponds to the following ionization process for the neutral Li atom $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Li} = {\rm Li}^{+}(1^1S) + e^{-} \label{Rydb0}\end{aligned}$$ where the symbol Li$^{+}(1^1S)$ means that the final two-electron Li$^{+}$ ion is in its ground (singlet) $1^1S$-state. Now, we can write the following expression for the total energies of the weakly-bound states, i.e. for the states which are close to the dissociation threshold of the Li atom (in atomic units): $$\begin{aligned}
E({\rm Li}; n L) = E({\rm Li}^{+}; 1^1S) - \frac{m_e e^4}{2 \hbar^2} \frac{1 - \epsilon_{\ell}}{(n + \Delta_{\ell})^2} =
-7.279913 412669 305\ldots - \frac{1 - \epsilon_{\ell}}{2 (n + \Delta_{\ell})^2} \label{Rydb}\end{aligned}$$ where $L = \ell$ (in this case), $n$ is the principal quantum number of the $n L$ state ($L$ is the angular quantum number) of the Li atom, while $\epsilon_{\ell}$ and $\Delta_{\ell}$ are the Rydberg corrections ($\Delta_{\ell}$ is also called the ‘quantum defect’) which explicitly depends upon $\ell$ (angular momentum of the outer most electron) and the total electron spin of this atomic state. It can be shown that both Rydberg corrections rapidly vanish when $\ell$ increases (for given $n$ and $L$). Moreover, these two corrections also decrease when the principal quantum number $n$ grows. The formula, Eq.(\[Rydb\]), can be used to approximate the total energies of weakly-bound Rydberg states in the Li atom. In reality, by using a few accurate (or highly accurate) results from numerical calculations of some excited (bound) states in the Li atom one finds the approximate values for the $\epsilon_{\ell}$ and $\Delta_{\ell}$ constants in Eq.(\[Rydb\]). Analogous formulas can be derived to describe the total energies of the excited bound states in three-electron ions, e.g., in the Be$^{+}$, C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ ions. However, after neon the validity of the non-relativistic approximation for three-electron ions rapidly diminishes as the parameter $Q$ in Eq.(\[Hamil\]) continue to grow. In the lowest-order approximation the leading relativistic corrections can directly be introduced into Eq.(\[Rydb\]), but in this paper we do not discuss this problem. Note only that the numerical values of the quantum defect $\Delta_{\ell}$ are uniformly related to the short-range (or non-Coulomb) component of the phase shifts of elastic scattering of single-electron scattering by the two-electron positively charged ions [@Burke]. This directly follows from the unitarity of the $S-$matrix (see, e.g., [@Peier], [@Baz]).
By using our computational results for the large number of bound states in the three-electron Li atom and in analogous Be$^{+}$, C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ ions (see Table IV) we were able to draw the energy levels of all computed doublet (bound) states in these atomic systems as functions of angular momentum $L$ of these states (see, Figs. 1 - 4). Note that the total energies of all states shown on these Figures are lower than the corresponding threshold energies for these systems. We were able to calculate states with angular momentum L=20, see Table IV, whose energies are slightly lower than the estimated ionization limits. These threshold energies (or ionization limit) coincide with the total, non-relativistic energies of the two-electron ions: $E_{{}^{\infty}{\rm Li}^{+}}$ $\approx$ -7.279913 412669 305964 91895(15) $a.u.$, $E_{{}^{\infty}{\rm Be}^{2+}}$ $\approx$ -13.65556 623842 358670 208085(55) $a.u.$, $E_{{}^{\infty}{\rm C}^{4+}}$ $\approx$ -32.40624 660189 853031 055785(45) $a.u.$ and $E_{{}^{\infty}{\rm F}^{7+}}$ $\approx$ -75.53171 236395 949115(3) $a.u.$ In old books on atomic spectroscopy such pictures $E(L)$ (or diagrams) were called ‘spectral diagrams’. In the general case, the spectral diagram also depends upon the total electron spin of the atom/ion, i.e. $E = E(L,S)$. Spectral diagrams are very useful tools to study various effects related with the electron density distribution in different bound $LS$-states of the atomic systems which contain the same number of electrons. Note that such spectral diagrams can be drawn for the neutral atoms as well as for various positively charged ions, e.g., for the Be atom and B$^{2+}$, N$^{4+}$ and other similar three-electron ions. The bound state spectra of the negatively charged ions, e.g., the Li$^{-}$ ion) contain only a very few bound states (usually one bound state [@Fro99]) and the corresponding spectral diagrams are very simple and not informative.
Let us discuss the spectral diagrams of the three-electron atomic systems shown on Figs. 1 - 4. As follows from these pictures the increase of the nuclear charge $Q$ in these systems leads to the ‘hydrogenization’ of the optical spectrum along the line: Li $\rightarrow$ Be$^{+}$ $\rightarrow$ C$^{3+}$ $\rightarrow$ F$^{6+}$. The energy levels are re-grouping (when $Q$ increases) into clusters which contain the energy levels with the same principal quantum number $n$. In other words, the differences between energies of levels with the same principal quantum number $n$ become much smaller than analogous differences between two energy levels with different principal quantum numbers $n$ and $n^{\prime}$. As one can see from our pictures such a clusterization rule is applied even to the energy levels with $n = 2$ and $n = 3$. Based on this observation we can predict that in the limit $Q \rightarrow \infty$ the bound state spectrum of three-electron ions looks like the bound state spectrum (or optical spectrum, for short) of a typical hydrogen-like ion in which, however, the ground state (or $1S^2-$state) is missing. Briefly, we can say that the ‘optical’ spectrum of the doublet bound states in three-electron ions converges (at $Q \rightarrow \infty$) to the doublet spectrum of a hydrogen-like atomic system, where the ground $1s^2S-$state is missing. This explains why the traditional classification scheme used for bound state spectra in atomic spectroscopy is correct. For all atoms from the second row the ground state(s) must have the fundamental quantum number $n = 2$ (not $n = 1$, or $n = 3$). It is clear that changes in the optical spectra of the three-electron atomic systems: Li, Be$^{+}$, C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ are directly related with the $Q-$dependent balance between the electron-nucleus attractions and electron-electron repulsions. Another observation when comparing the spectral diagrams of the three-electron systems is the larger relative stabilization or contraction of the 2$^2P$ level when growing the nuclear charge, while other low-lying levels are only slightly contracted. There are many other observations which follow from Figs. 1 - 4, which shall stimulate future research.
Similarity between spectra of bound doublet ${}^{2}S-$states in different three-electron atomic systems can be seen from comparison of Figs.1 - 4 with each other. However, if we compare the same spectra reduced to the unit scale, then the observed agreement improves drastically. The procedure of reduction can be described as follows. First, for each three-electron atomic system with the nuclear charge $Q$ one needs to know the corresponding threshold energy $E_{tr}$. Usually, such an energy coincides with the total energy of the ground $1^1S-$state of the two-electron ion which is formed from the incident three-electron atomic system after single-electron ionization. Second, the total energy of the ground $2^2S-$state $E_{gr}$ must be determined (i.e. measured and/or calculated) to the maximal numerical accuracy. The total energies of other bound doublet states are recalculated with the use of the formula: $\tilde{E}_n = \frac{E_n - E_{tr}}{E_{gr} - E_{tr}}$. Finally, we have the new ‘energy’ spectrum $\tilde{E}_{n}$. All eigenvalues from this spectrum are bounded between 0 and 1. Furthermore, there is only one limiting point for the spectrum of bound states $\tilde{E}_n$ and it coincides with 0 (or $E_{tr}$ in the original units). Briefly, we can say that all bound states $\tilde{E}_n$ can converge only to this ‘limiting’ point. Since the threshold state is an actual state of any three-electron atomic system then the wave functions of bound states do not form a complete system of functions (for more detail, see, e.g., [@Fro99]). The energy spectra $\tilde{E}_n$ of different three-electron atoms and ions (doublet states) once reduced to the same energy scale can be compared with each other directly.
Conclusion
==========
We have considered bound state spectra and properties of the doublet states in three-electron atomic systems. In this study we applied four different variational expansions for the bound state wave functions: (a) semi-exponential expansion in the relative coordinates, (b) expansion written in six-dimensional gaussoids, and (c) Hy-CI expansion for the low-lying $S$-, $P$-, and $D$-states of C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ ions, and (d) CI expansion for the $L \ge 3$ states. Very compact wave functions constructed with the use of the semi-exponential expansion in the relative coordinates allow one to determine a large number of bound state properties, including the expectation values of electron-nucleus and electron-electron delta-functions and cusp values. The observed coincidence of the computed cusp values with the predicted cusps (for Coulomb systems) is sufficient to recognize our trial wave functions accurate for numerical computations of all bound state properties. Variational expansion in six-dimensional gaussoids is used to perform fast and accurate calculations of some excited states in three-electron atomic systems (atoms and ions). Results of such calculations include not only the total energies, but also a large number of other bound state properties. Moreover, numerical results of our calculations presented in Tables I and III allows us to correct a few mistakes/misprints made in earlier works in definition of these properties and/or in their numerical values. Our variational Hy-CI and CI wave function expansions are used to determine the total energies of various ‘rotationally’ and ‘vibrationally’ excited states in three-electron atoms and ions. In our calculations we consider a large number of the $S(L = 0)$-, $P(L = 1)$-, $D(L = 2)$-, $F(L = 3)$-, $G(L = 4)$-, $H(L = 5)$-, $I(L = 6)$-, $K(L = 7)$-, $L(L = 8)$-, $M(L = 9)$-, and $N(L = 10)$-states. Accurate results for highly excited rotational states have been determined in this study for the first time. The coincidence of our theoretically predicted spectrum (or computational spectrum) with the known optical spectrum of the three-electron Li atom is absolute [@Kik], [@NIST] since we correctly predicted the actual order of different energy levels (or bound states) in this spectrum and evaluated the energy distances between different levels (to very good numerical accuracy). The order of the duplet energy levels in three-electron systems is $S < P < D < F < G < H < I < K < L < M < N < \dots $
Our main goal in this study was to consider the bound state spectra and properties of the doublet states in three-electron atomic systems: Li atom, Be$^{+}$, C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ ions. The general structure of the bound state spectra in these three-electron atomic systems has been determined from the results of accurate numerical computations performed with the use of the Hy-CI and CI variational expansions. By varying the nuclear electric charge $Q$ we investigated changes in the bound state spectra of such systems. The overall and partial contributions of the electron-electron correlations in the total energies of bound (doublet) states have been evaluated to high numerical accuracy. Formally, it is the first theoretical study in which a large number of bound states in a few three-electron atoms/ions are determined in highly accurate computations. In contrast with many modern studies we considered not one, or two bound states in three-electron atoms/ions, but essentially a whole bound state spectrum for each of the systems mentioned in this study. At the post Hartree-Fock level of accuracy for the doublet (bound) states in three-electron atoms and ions this was made for the first time. In the future, we are planning to study some other aspects of physics of three-electron atomic systems.
[10]{}
L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, *Quantum Mechanics. Non-Relativistic Theory*, (3rd. ed., Oxford, England, Pergamon Press (1977)).
S. Larsson, Phys. Rev. **169**, 49 (1968).
R. McWeeny and B.T. Satcliffe, *Methods of Molecular Quantum Mechanics*, (New York: Academic Press, 1969), Chp. 7.
Y.K. Ho, Int. J. Quantum Chem. **20**, 1077 (1981).
D.C. Clary and N.C. Handy, Chem. Phys. Lett. **51**, 483 (1977).
J.S. Sims and S.A. Hagstrom, Phys. Rev. A **80**, 052507 (2009).
L.M. Wang, Z.-C. Yan, H.X. Qiao, and G.W.F. Drake, Phys. Rev. A **85** 052513 (2012).
J. S. Sims and S. A. Hagstrom, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. **37**, 1519 (2004).
M. B. Ruiz, J. Math. Chem. **46**, 24 (2009).
A.M. Frolov and D.H. Bailey, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. **36**, 1857 (2003) (Corrigendum: J. Phys. B **37**, 1857 (2004)).
R.J. Drachman, A.K. Bhatia, Phys. Rev. A **51**, 2926 (1995).
C. Chen, Phys. Scr. **88**, 045303 (2013).
A.M. Frolov, Phys. Lett. A **374**, 2361 (2010).
N.N. Kolesnikov and V.I. Tarasov, Yad. Phys. **35**, 609 (1982) \[Sov. Phys. Nucl. Phys. **35**, 354 (1982)\].
P.A.M. Dirac, *The Principles of Quantum Mechanics* (4th ed., Oxford at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, (1958)).
A.M. Frolov, Europ. Phys. J. D **61**, 571 (2011).
J.F. Perkins, J. Chem. Phys. **48**, 1985 (1968).
D.P. Chong and D.M. Schrader, Mol. Phys. **16**, 137 (1969).
V.A. Fock, Izv. Acad. Nauk USSR (Ser. Fiz.) **18**, 161 (1954).
F.W. King, Phys. Rev. **40**, 1735 (1989).
M.B. Ruiz, J.T. Margraf, and A.M. Frolov, Phys. Rev. A, [**88**]{}, 012505 (2013).
*Handbook. Tables of Physical Quantities* (Ed. I.K. Kikoin, Moscow, Atomizdat, (1974)), p.654 (in Russian).
J.S. Sims and S.A. Hagstrom, J. Chem. Phys. **55**, 4699 (1971).
J.S. Sims and S.A. Hagstrom, Phys. Rev. A **4**, 908 (1971).
M.B. Ruiz, J. Math. Chem. **49**, 2457 (2011).
Z.-C. Yan, M. Tambasco, and G.W.F. Drake, Phys. Rev. A **57** 1652 (1998).
A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader and NIST ASD Team (2013). NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.1), \[Online\]. Available: http://physics.nist.gov/asd \[2014, March 17\]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
I.I. Sobelman, [*Theory of Atomic Spectra*]{}, (Alpha Science International Ltd., 2006), Chp. 2.
A.M. Frolov and D.M. Wardlaw, [*On the isotopic shifts in light two-electron ions*]{}, ArXiv:1212.6768v7 \[phys.atom-ph\] (2012).
P.G. Burke and C.J. Joachain, [*Theory of Electron-Atom Collisions: Part One: Potential Scattering*]{}, (New York: Plenum Press, 1995).
P.L. Kapur and R.L. Peierls, Proc. Roy. Soc. (Londond) A **166**, 277 (1938).
A.I. Baz, Ya.B. Zeldovich and A.M. Perelomov, [*Scattering, Reactions and Decays in the Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechenics*]{}, (2nd ed., Moscow: Science, 1973). (in Russian).
A.M. Frolov, Phys. Rev. A **59**, 4270 (1999).
(sublevel) at (0, 8pt);
at (-0.25,10.0) [n]{}; at (0.5, 10.5)[$^2$S]{}; at (2.5, 10.5)[$^2$P]{}; at (4.5, 10.5)[$^2$D]{}; at (6.5, 10.5)[$^2$F]{}; at (8.5, 10.5)[$^2$G]{}; at (10.5, 10.5)[$^2$H]{}; at (12.5, 10.5)[$^2$I]{}; at (14.5, 10.5)[$^2$K]{}; at (16.5, 10.5)[$^2$L]{}; at (18.5, 10.5)[$^2$M]{}; at (20.5, 10.5)[$^2$N]{};
at (0.5,-0.20) [$2s$]{}; at (0.5, 6.12) [$3s$]{}; at (0.5, 7.91) [$4s$]{}; at (0.5, 8.66) [$5s$]{};
(S00) at (0, 0.00); (S10) at (0, 6.32); (S20) at (0, 8.11); (S30) at (0, 8.86); (S40) at (0, 9.20); (S50) at (0, 9.45);
/in [ 00/2, 10/3, 20/4, 30/5, 40/6, 50/7]{} (S) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (2.5,3.33)[$2p$]{}; at (2.5,6.96)[$3p$]{}; at (2.5,8.21)[$4p$]{}; at (2.5,8.80)[$5p$]{}; (P00) at (2, 3.53); (P10) at (2, 7.16); (P20) at (2, 8.41); (P30) at (2, 9.00); (P40) at (2, 9.30); (P50) at (2, 9.50);
/in [00/2, 10/3, 20/4, 30/5, 40/6, 50/7]{} (P) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (4.5,7.06)[$3d$]{}; at (4.5,8.26)[$4d$]{}; at (4.5,8.85)[$5d$]{};
(D00) at (4, 7.26); (D10) at (4, 8.46); (D20) at (4, 9.05); (D30) at (4, 9.30); (D40) at (4, 9.50);
/in [00/3, 10/4, 20/5, 30/6, 40/7]{} (D) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (6.5,8.31)[$4f$]{}; at (6.5,8.80)[$5f$]{}; at (6.5,9.15)[$6f$]{};
(F00) at (6, 8.51); (F10) at (6, 9.00); (F20) at (6, 9.35); (F30) at (6, 9.55);
/in [00/4, 10/5, 20/6, 30/7]{} (F) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (8.5,8.80)[$5g$]{}; at (8.5,9.13)[$6g$]{}; (G00) at (8,9.00); (G10) at (8,9.33); (G20) at (8,9.51);
/in [00/5, 10/6, 20/7]{} (G) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (10.5,9.12)[$6h$]{}; (H00) at (10,9.32); (H10) at (10,9.51);
/in [00/6, 10/7]{} (H) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (12.5,9.31) [$7i$]{}; (I00) at (12,9.51);
/in [00/7]{} (I) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (14.5,9.43)[$8k$]{}; (K00) at (14,9.63);
/in [00/8]{} (K) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (16.5,9.45)[$9l$]{}; (L00) at (16,9.65);
/in [00/9]{} (L) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (18.5,9.47)[$10m$]{}; (M00) at (18,9.67);
/in [00/10]{} (M) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (20.5,9.49)[$11n$]{}; (N00) at (20,9.69);
/in [00/11]{} (N) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
(0, 10.0) node\[left=20pt\] [E(${\rm Li}^+$)]{}– +( 21.0, 0);
(0,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (0,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(2,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (2,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(4,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (4,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(6,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (6,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(8,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (8,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(10,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (10,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(12,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (12,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(14,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (14,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(16,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (16,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(18,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (18,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(20,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (20,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(sublevel) at (0, 8pt);
at (-0.25,10.0) [n]{}; at (0.5, 10.5) [$^2$S]{}; at (2.5, 10.5) [$^2$P]{}; at (4.5, 10.5) [$^2$D]{}; at (6.5, 10.5) [$^2$F]{}; at (8.5, 10.5) [$^2$G]{}; at (10.5, 10.5) [$^2$H]{}; at (12.5, 10.5) [$^2$I]{}; at (14.5, 10.5) [$^2$K]{}; at (16.5, 10.5)[$^2$L]{}; at (18.5, 10.5)[$^2$M]{}; at (20.5, 10.5)[$^2$N]{};
at (0.5,-0.20) [$2s$]{}; at (0.5, 5.80) [$3s$]{}; at (0.5, 7.66) [$4s$]{}; at (0.5, 8.47) [$5s$]{}; at (0.5, 8.90) [$6s$]{}; (S00) at (0, 0.00); (S10) at (0, 6.00); (S20) at (0, 7.86); (S30) at (0, 8.67); (S40) at (0, 9.10); (S50) at (0, 9.34);
/in [ 00/2, 10/3, 20/4, 30/5, 40/6, 50/7]{} (S) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (2.5,1.87) [$2p$]{}; at (2.5,6.37) [$3p$]{}; at (2.5,7.90) [$4p$]{}; at (2.5,8.59) [$5p$]{}; at (2.5,8.96) [$6p$]{}; (P00) at (2, 2.17); (P10) at (2, 6.57); (P20) at (2, 8.10); (P30) at (2, 8.79); (P40) at (2, 9.16); (P50) at (2, 9.40);
/in [00/2, 10/3, 20/4, 30/5, 40/6, 50/7]{} (P) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (4.5,6.48) [$3d$]{}; at (4.5,7.93) [$4d$]{}; at (4.5,8.62) [$5d$]{}; at (4.5,9.01) [$6d$]{};
(D00) at (4, 6.68); (D10) at (4, 8.13); (D20) at (4, 8.82); (D30) at (4, 9.21); (D40) at (4, 9.42);
/in [00/3, 10/4, 20/5, 30/6, 40/7]{} (D) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (6.5,7.97) [$4f$]{}; at (6.5,8.62) [$5f$]{}; at (6.5,8.98) [$6f$]{}; (F00) at (6, 8.17); (F10) at (6, 8.82); (F20) at (6, 9.18); (F30) at (6, 9.40);
/in [00/4, 10/5, 20/6, 30/7]{} (F) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (8.5,8.62) [$5g$]{}; at (8.5,8.99) [$6g$]{}; (G00) at (8,8.82); (G10) at (8,9.19); (G20) at (8,9.40);
/in [00/5, 10/6, 20/7]{} (G) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (10.5,8.99) [$6h$]{}; (H00) at (10,9.19); (H10) at (10,9.40);
/in [00/6, 10/7]{} (H) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (12.5,9.20) [$7i$]{}; (I00) at (12,9.40);
/in [00/7]{} (I) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (14.5,9.28) [$8k$]{}; (K00) at (14,9.48);
/in [00/8]{} (K) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (16.5,9.30)[$9l$]{}; (L00) at (16,9.50);
/in [00/9]{} (L) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (18.5,9.32)[$10m$]{}; (M00) at (18,9.52);
/in [00/10]{} (M) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (20.5,9.34)[$11n$]{}; (N00) at (20,9.54);
/in [00/11]{} (N) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
(0, 10.0) node\[left=20pt\] [E(${\rm Be}^{2+}$)]{}– +( 21.0, 0);
(0,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (0,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (0,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(2,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (2,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (2,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(4,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (4,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (4,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(6,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (6,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (6,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(8,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (8,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (8,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(10,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (10,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (10,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(12,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (12,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (12,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(14,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (14,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (14,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(16,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (16,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (16,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(18,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (18,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (18,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(20,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (20,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (20,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(sublevel) at (0, 8pt);
at (-0.25,10.0) [n]{}; at (0.5, 10.5) [$^2$S]{}; at (2.5, 10.5) [$^2$P]{}; at (4.5, 10.5) [$^2$D]{}; at (6.5, 10.5) [$^2$F]{}; at (8.5, 10.5) [$^2$G]{}; at (10.5, 10.5) [$^2$H]{}; at (12.5, 10.5) [$^2$I]{}; at (14.5, 10.5) [$^2$K]{}; at (16.5, 10.5)[$^2$L]{}; at (18.5, 10.5)[$^2$M]{}; at (20.5, 10.5)[$^2$N]{};
at (0.5,-0.20) [$2s$]{}; at (0.5, 5.62) [$3s$]{}; at (0.5, 7.52) [$4s$]{}; at (0.5, 8.37) [$5s$]{}; at (0.5, 8.81) [$6s$]{}; (S00) at (0, 0.00); (S10) at (0, 5.82); (S20) at (0, 7.72); (S30) at (0, 8.57); (S40) at (0, 9.01); (S50) at (0, 9.28); (S60) at (0, 9.46);
/in [ 00/2, 10/3, 20/4, 30/5, 40/6, 50/7]{} (S) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (2.5,1.04) [$2p$]{}; at (2.5,5.95) [$3p$]{}; at (2.5,7.65) [$4p$]{}; at (2.5,8.43) [$5p$]{}; at (2.5,8.85) [$6p$]{}; (P00) at (2, 1.24); (P10) at (2, 6.15); (P20) at (2, 7.85); (P30) at (2, 8.63); (P40) at (2, 9.05); (P50) at (2, 9.31); /in [00/2, 10/3, 20/4, 30/5, 40/6, 50/7]{} (P) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (4.5,6.04) [$3d$]{}; at (4.5,7.69) [$4d$]{}; at (4.5,8.25) [$5d$]{}; at (4.5,8.92) [$6d$]{}; (D00) at (4, 6.24); (D10) at (4, 7.89); (D20) at (4, 8.65); (D30) at (4, 9.12); (D40) at (4, 9.32); (D50) at (4, 9.62);
/in [00/3, 10/4, 20/5, 30/6, 40/7]{} (D) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (6.5,7.69) [$4f$]{}; at (6.5,8.45) [$5f$]{}; at (6.5,8.87) [$6f$]{}; (F00) at (6, 7.89); (F10) at (6, 8.65); (F20) at (6, 9.07); (F30) at (6, 9.32); (F40) at (6, 9.48);
/in [00/4, 10/5, 20/6, 30/7]{} (F) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (8.5,8.45) [$5g$]{}; at (8.5,8.92) [$6g$]{}; (G00) at (8,8.65); (G10) at (8,9.12); (G20) at (8,9.31); (G30) at (8,9.48);
/in [00/5, 10/6, 20/7]{} (G) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (10.5,8.86) [$6h$]{}; (H00) at (10,9.06); (H10) at (10,9.31); (H20) at (10,9.48);
/in [00/6, 10/7]{} (H) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (12.5,9.11) [$7i$]{}; (I00) at (12,9.31); (I10) at (12,9.48);
/in [00/7]{} (I) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (14.5,9.28) [$8k$]{}; (K00) at (14,9.48);
/in [00/8]{} (K) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (16.5,9.30)[$9l$]{}; (L00) at (16,9.50) ;
/in [00/9]{} (L) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (18.5,9.32)[$10m$]{}; (M00) at (18,9.52);
/in [00/10]{} (M) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (20.5,9.34)[$11n$]{}; (N00) at (20,9.54);
/in [00/11]{} (N) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
(0, 10.0) node\[left=20pt\] [E(${\rm C}^{4+}$)]{}– +( 21.0, 0);
(0,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (0,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (0,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(2,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (2,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (2,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(4,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (4,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (4,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(6,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (6,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (6,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(8,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (8,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (8,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(10,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (10,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (10,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(12,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (12,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (12,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(14,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (14,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (14,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(16,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (16,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (16,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(18,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (18,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (18,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(20,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (20,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (20,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(sublevel) at (0, 8pt);
at (-0.25,10.0) [n]{}; at (0.5, 10.5) [$^2$S]{}; at (2.5, 10.5) [$^2$P]{}; at (4.5, 10.5) [$^2$D]{}; at (6.5, 10.5) [$^2$F]{}; at (8.5, 10.5) [$^2$G]{}; at (10.5, 10.5) [$^2$H]{}; at (12.5, 10.5) [$^2$I]{}; at (14.5, 10.5) [$^2$K]{}; at (16.5, 10.5)[$^2$L]{}; at (18.5, 10.5)[$^2$M]{}; at (20.5, 10.5)[$^2$N]{};
at (0.5,-0.20) [$2s$]{}; at (0.5, 5.52) [$3s$]{}; at (0.5, 7.43) [$4s$]{}; at (0.5, 8.31) [$5s$]{}; at (0.5, 8.77) [$6s$]{}; (S00) at (0, 0.00); (S10) at (0, 5.72); (S20) at (0, 7.63); (S30) at (0, 8.51); (S40) at (0, 8.97); (S50) at (0, 9.25); (S60) at (0, 9.43);
/in [ 00/2, 10/3, 20/4, 30/5, 40/6, 50/7]{} (S) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (2.5,0.55) [$2p$]{}; at (2.5,5.73) [$3p$]{}; at (2.5,7.52) [$4p$]{}; at (2.5,8.34) [$5p$]{}; at (2.5,8.79) [$6p$]{}; (P00) at (2, 0.75); (P10) at (2, 5.93); (P20) at (2, 7.72); (P30) at (2, 8.54); (P40) at (2, 8.99); (P50) at (2, 9.33); (P60) at (2, 9.43);
/in [00/2, 10/3, 20/4, 30/5, 40/6, 50/7]{} (P) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (4.5,5.79) [$3d$]{}; at (4.5,7.55) [$4d$]{}; at (4.5,8.36) [$5d$]{}; at (4.5,8.79) [$6d$]{}; (D00) at (4, 5.99); (D10) at (4, 7.75); (D20) at (4, 8.56); (D30) at (4, 8.99); (D40) at (4, 9.30); (D50) at (4, 9.44);
/in [00/3, 10/4, 20/5, 30/6, 40/7]{} (D) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (6.5,7.55) [$4f$]{}; at (6.5,8.36) [$5f$]{}; at (6.5,8.79) [$6f$]{};
(F00) at (6, 7.75); (F10) at (6, 8.56); (F20) at (6, 8.99); (F30) at (6, 9.27); (F40) at (6, 9.44);
/in [00/4, 10/5, 20/6, 30/7]{} (F) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (8.5,8.36) [$5g$]{}; at (8.5,8.79) [$6g$]{}; (G00) at (8,8.56); (G10) at (8,8.99); (G20) at (8,9.27); (G30) at (8,9.44);
/in [00/5, 10/6, 20/7]{} (G) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (10.5,8.79) [$6h$]{}; (H00) at (10,8.99); (H10) at (10,9.27); (H20) at (10,9.44);
/in [00/6, 10/7]{} (H) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (12.5,9.07) [$7i$]{}; (I00) at (12,9.27); (I10) at (12,9.44); /in [00/7]{} (I) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (14.5,9.24) [$8k$]{}; (K00) at (14,9.44); /in [00/7]{} (K) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (16.5,9.26)[$9l$]{}; (L00) at (16,9.46);
/in [00/9]{} (L) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (18.5,9.28)[$10m$]{}; (M00) at (18,9.48);
/in [00/10]{} (M) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
at (20.5,9.30)[$11n$]{}; (N00) at (20,9.50);
/in [00/11]{} (N) node\[left=20pt\] node\[left\] – +(1.0, 0);
(0, 10.0) node\[left=20pt\] [E(${\rm F}^{7+}$)]{}– +( 21.0, 0);
(0,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (0,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (0,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(2,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (2,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (2,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(4,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (4,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (4,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(6,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (6,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (6,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(8,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (8,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (8,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(10,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (10,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (10,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(12,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (12,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (12,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(14,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (14,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (14,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(16,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (16,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (16,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(18,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (18,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (18,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
(20,9.7) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (20,9.8) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0); (20,9.9) node\[left=20pt\] – +(1.0, 0);
atom/ion state $\langle r^{-1}_{eN} \rangle$ $\langle r_{eN} \rangle$ $\langle r^2_{eN} \rangle$ $\langle r^3_{eN} \rangle$ $\langle r^4_{eN} \rangle$
---------- -------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------
Li $2^2S$ 1.906 035 791 1.663 195 075 6.118 405 34 30.869 167 183.374 94
Be$^{+}$ $2^2S$ 2.657 954 038 1.033 837 514 2.169 559 41 6.230 124 0 21.078 833
B$^{2+}$ $2^2S$ 3.408 499 326 0.760 963 580 1.132 751 15 2.301 051 6 5.509 837 4
atom/ion state $\langle r^{-1}_{ee} \rangle$ $\langle r_{ee} \rangle$ $\langle r^2_{ee} \rangle$ $\langle r^3_{ee} \rangle$ $\langle r^4_{ee} \rangle$
Li $2^2S$ 0.732 736 059 2.889 506 202 12.283 005 19 64.032 401 8 385.287 08
Be$^{+}$ $2^2S$ 1.082 004 350 1.755 762 092 4.358 489 915 13.143 659 0 45.476 089
B$^{2+}$ $2^2S$ 1.426 153 105 1.278 851 329 2.275 177 620 4.895 786 45 12.056 833
atom/ion state $\langle \frac12 p^2_{e} \rangle$ $\langle \delta_{eN} \rangle$ $\nu^{(a)}_{eN}$ $\langle \delta_{ee} \rangle$ $\nu^{(a)}_{ee}$
Li $2^2S$ 2.492 685 087 4.614 201 2 -2.999 79 0.181 553 0.498 0
Be$^{+}$ $2^2S$ 4.774 894 384 11.701 015 -3.997 59 0.528 005 0.485 2
B$^{2+}$ $2^2S$ 7.808 151 989 23.828 655 -5.012 87 1.162 541 0.475 7
: Calculation of properties by using the semi-exponential variational expansion. The expectation values of a number of electron-nuclear ($en$) and electron-electron ($ee$) properties of the ground $2^2S-$states of the ${}^{\infty}$Li atom and in the ${}^{\infty}$Be$^{+}$ and ${}^{\infty}$B$^{2+}$ ions (in atomic units). The notations $\langle V \rangle$ and $\langle T \rangle$ stand for the expectation values of the potential and kinetic energy, respectively.
The expected value of the electron-nucleus cusp $\overline{\nu}_{eN}$ for these atomic systems are -3.0, -4.0 and -5.0, respectively. The expected value of the electron-electron cusp equals 0.5 for all systems.
atom ( state ) $E$ ion (state) $E$
------------------ ------------------ ------------------------- -----------------
Li($2^2S$-state) -7.478 059 458 7 Be$^{+}$ ($2^2S$-state) -14.324 762 515
Li($3^2S$-state) -7.354 097 071 4 B$^{2+}$ ($2^2S$-state) -23.424 605 665
Li($4^2S$-state) -7.318 370 721 7 C$^{3+}$ ($2^2S$-state) -34.775 510 611
Li($5^2S$-state) -7.303 255 727 0 N$^{4+}$ ($2^2S$-state) -48.376 895 985
Li($6^2S$-state) -7.294 895 144 5 O$^{5+}$ ($2^2S$-state) -64.228 536 815
: The total energies $E$ (in atomic units) of some bound ${}^{2}S(L = 0)-$states of three-electron atomic systems calculated with the use of six-dimensional gaussoids.
atom/ion state $\langle r^{-2}_{eN} \rangle$ $\langle r^{-1}_{eN} \rangle$ $\langle r_{eN} \rangle$ $\langle r^2_{eN} \rangle$ $\langle r^3_{eN} \rangle$ $\langle r^4_{eN} \rangle$
---------- -------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
Li $2^2S$ 10.080 300 60 1.906 039 33 1.663 121 31 6.117 329 34 30.8544 183.163
Li $3^2S$ 9.981 911 41 1.837 281 71 3.762 215 05 39.369 603 494.5408 6765.5
Li $4^2S$ 9.963 898 91 1.816 606 44 6.774 635 06 138.026 11 3172.75 76948.0
Li $5^2S$ 9.958 334 21 1.807 613 45 10.78 694 9 363.470 48 13448.4 519573.
Li $6^2S$ 9.959 661 84 1.804 788 25 14.688 387 704.528 1 37165.4 $\approx$ 2054280.
Be$^{+}$ $2^2S$ 18.998 594 7 2.657 962 911 1.033 794 655 2.169 285 0 6.228 678 0 21.071 451
B$^{2+}$ $2^2S$ 30.753 962 5 3.408 508 336 0.760 947 632 1.132 688 0 2.300 819 5 5.5088 155
C$^{3+}$ $2^2S$ 45.344 328 9 4.158 733 353 0.604 265 284 0.699 598 0 1.103 077 7 2.050 513
atom/ion state $\langle r^{-2}_{ee} \rangle$ $\langle r^{-1}_{ee} \rangle$ $\langle r_{ee} \rangle$ $\langle r^2_{ee} \rangle$ $\langle r^3_{ee} \rangle$ $\langle r^4_{ee} \rangle$
Li $2^2S$ 1.460 399 80 0.732 740 96 2.889 359 31 12.280 848 13 64.0027 384.859
Li $3^2S$ 1.384 490 26 0.609 100 81 7.062 975 7 78.736 745 89 995.118 13650.0
Li $4^2S$ 1.370 249 96 0.570 069 68 13.080 897 276.071 50 6356.9 154310.
Li $5^2S$ 1.366 046 05 0.552 577 36 21.102 651 726.956 5 26915. 1040300.
Li $6^2S$ 1.365 389 62 0.546 446 79 28.904 765 1409.07 74356. 4110650.
Be$^{+}$ $2^2S$ 2.965 647 81 1.082 010 036 1.755 676 045 4.357 936 84 13.140 717 45.460 84
B$^{2+}$ $2^2S$ 5.003 262 87 1.426 139 236 1.278 829 713 2.275 086 36 4.895 417 0 12.054 932
C$^{3+}$ $2^2S$ 7.573 737 42 1.768 726 776 1.009 280 701 1.404 717 30 2.358 789 1 4.526 4953
atom/ion state $\langle \frac12 p^2_{e} \rangle$ $\langle \frac12 p^2_{N} \rangle$ $\langle \delta_{eN} \rangle$ $\langle \delta_{ee} \rangle$
Li $2^2S$ 2.492 690 62 7.779 909 06 4.606 397 0.181 679
Li $3^2S$ 2.451 380 14 7.646 130 68 4.561 635 0.179 148
Li $4^2S$ 2.440 297 94 7.610 871 32 4.539 129 0.178 976
Li $5^2S$ 2.435 882 57 7.594 940 22 4.509 019 0.179 340
Li $6^2S$ 2.434 383 16 7.591 249 73 4.503 630 0.178 076
Be$^{+}$ $2^2S$ 4.774 920 780 14.777 678 465 11.675 957 0.527 406
B$^{2+}$ $2^2S$ 7.808 200 841 24.030 676 084 23.764 692 1.159 936
C$^{3+}$ $2^2S$ 11.591 836 456 35.535 670 475 42.252 507 2.166 278
: Calculation of properties using the six-dimensional gaussoids. The expectation values of a number of electron-nuclear ($en$) and electron-electron ($ee$) properties of some $n^3S-$states of the ${}^{\infty}$Li atom (in atomic units).
State Energy (Li)$^a$ [@Bel1] Energy (Be$^{+}$)$^b$ [@Bel1] Energy (C$^{3+}$)$^c$ Energy (F$^{6+}$)$^d$
-------- ------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
2$^2$S -7.478 058 969 -14.324 761 678 -34.775 407 123 -82.330 336 543
2$^2$P -7.410 149 407 -14.179 327 999 -34.482 061 251 -81.820 872 700
3$^2$S -7.354 093 706 -13.922 784 968 -33.396 193 013 -78.441 024 591
3$^2$P -7.337 113 114 -13.885 115 345 -33.317 932 151 -78.300 897 021
3$^2$D -7.335 512 623 -13.878 041 021 -33.296 030 365 -78.255 989 200
4$^2$S -7.318 517 759 -13.798 706 849 -32.947 562 660 -77.139 946 952
4$^2$P -7.311 811 529 -13.783 574 124 -32.915 327 522 -77.083 158 097
4$^2$D -7.311 211 047 -13.780 663 883 -32.906 635 904 -77.063 937 284
4$^2$F -7.310 610 -13.779 946 -32.905 543 -77.062 191
5$^2$S -7.303 512 964 -13.744 580 355 -32.746 301 042 -76.542 595 063
5$^2$P -7.300 137 068 -13.736 854 458 -32.730 766 119 -76.521 194 900
5$^2$D -7.299 889 424 -13.735 539 056 -32.725 744 797 -76.512 144 229
5$^2$F -7.299 460 -13.735 055 -32.725 670 -76.511 079
5$^2$G -7.299 430 -13.734 968 -32.725 629 -76.511 030
6$^2$S -7.295 739 603 -13.716 223 859 -32.640 301 515 -76.234 472 428
6$^2$P -7.293 967 122 -13.711 935 268 -32.631 103 514 -76.217 166 129
6$^2$D -7.293 697 654 -13.710 5 -32.627 8 -76.211 61
6$^2$F -7.293 323 -13.710 6 -32.627 9 -76.211 61
6$^2$G -7.293 32 -13.710 6 -32.627 6 -76.138 16
6$^2$H -7.293 32 -13.710 6 -32.627 9 -76.211 6
7$^2$S -7.291 231 582 -13.699 298 491 -32.576 281 553 -76.044 227 651
7$^2$P -7.289 814 402 -13.696 36 -32.570 511 575 -76.033 783 122
7$^2$D -7.289 8 -13.695 4 -32.568 5 -76.030 6
7$^2$F -7.289 6 -13.695 8 -32.568 9 -76.031 0
7$^2$G -7.289 6 -13.695 7 -32.568 7 -75.929 0
7$^2$H -7.289 6 -13.695 8 -32.568 9 -76.031 0
7$^2$I -7.289 6 -13.695 8 -32.568 9 -76.031 0
: Calculated Hy-CI / CI energies of the ground S-state and low-lying S-, P-, D-, F-, G-, H-, I-, K-, L-, M-, and N-excited states of the C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ ions.
[**Continuation Table IV**]{} Calculated Hy-CI / CI energies of the ground S-state and low-lying S-, P-, D-, F-, G-, H-, I-, K-, L-, M-, and N-excited states of the C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ ions.\
State Energy (Li)$^a$ [@Bel1] Energy (Be$^{+}$)$^b$ [@Bel1] Energy (C$^{3+}$)$^c$ Energy (F$^{6+}$)$^d$
--------- ------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
8$^2$S -7.288 393 829 -13.688 174 464 -32.534 198 075 -75.918 879 780
8$^2$F -7.287 0 -13.685 9 -32.530 4 -75.913 6
8$^2$G -7.287 2 -13.686 2 -32.530 6 -75.913 6
8$^2$H -7.287 2 -13.685 2 -32.530 5 -75.913 7
8$^2$I -7.287 2 -13.686 2 -32.530 5 -75.913 7
8$^2$K -7.287 2 -13.686 3 -32.530 6 -75.913 9
9$^2$L -7.285 6 -13.679 7 -32.504 4 -75.833 5
10$^2$M -7.284 4 -13.675 0 -32.485 6 -75.776 0
11$^2$N -7.283 6 -13.671 6 -32.471 7 -75.733 5
L=20 -7.280 6 -13.659 6 -32.423 8 -75.585 6
Ion State This work Ref. [@YTD]
---------- -------- ----------------- ------------------------- --
C$^{3+}$ 2$^2S$ -34.775 407 123 -34.775 511 275 626(12)
C$^{3+}$ 2$^2P$ -34.482 061 251 -34.482 103 179 278(33)
F$^{6+}$ 2$^2S$ -82.330 336 543 -82.330 338 097 298(12)
F$^{6+}$ 2$^2P$ -81.820 872 700 -81.820 880 913 294(30)
: Comparison of the energies of the 2$^2S$ ground and first 2$^2P$ excited states of the C$^{3+}$ and F$^{6+}$ ions calculated by the Hy-CI in this work and by Hy method [@YTD]. Energies in a.u.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We explore the problem of tunneling through disorderd nanowires, comprised of a random distribution of metallic grains, by means of a many-body model that captures the essential physics of the system. The random configuration of grains gives rise to a smooth band-like set of states, which mediates current flow through the nanowire. Analytical and numerical calculations show the characteristic signature of this unusual band-like transport to be a quadratic variation of the current as a function of the applied voltage (i.e. $I\sim V^2$), a variation that is clearly observed in experimental studies of Pt/C composite nanowires.'
author:
- 'J. Fransson'
- 'J.-F. Lin'
- 'L. Rotkina'
- 'J. P. Bird'
- 'P. A. Bennett'
title: 'Signatures of band-like tunnelling in granular nanowires'
---
In spite of the vast literature that has appeared over more than fifty years, interest in the problem of conduction in granular systems remains as high as ever, in large part because these systems provide a unique opportunity to study transport under conditions where many-body interactions and disorder both exert a non-perturbative influence on carrier conduction. Recent work on this problem continues to result in predictions of novel phenomena, such as single-electron charge soliton propagation in one-dimensional arrays of metallic grains,[@altland2004] and coherent electron tunneling over large distances in systems with large intergranular conductance.[@beloborodov2003; @efetov2003] Experimental studies have revealed interesting effects, such as intergranular superconductivity[@gerber1997] that can lead to global superconductivity, or perfect insulating behavior, depending on the strength of the intergranular Josephson coupling, and spin-dependent tunneling in self-assembled superlattices of magnetic nanoparticles.[@black2000]
This paper explores the problem of tunneling through a disordered system, comprised of a large number of metallic grains with a random distribution of sizes, and inter-grain separations, under conditions where hopping via the grains is dominated by single-electron tunneling, and the Coulomb repulsion between neighbouring grains is strong. A theoretical analysis of this system shows that its random configuration smears out any features due to tunneling via the individual grains, and gives rise instead to a smooth band-like set of states through which the current flow is mediated. Analytical calculations (and numerical simulations), reveal the characteristic signature of this unusual band-like transport to be a quadratic variation of the current as a function of the applied voltage (i.e. $I\sim V^2$), without any well-defined threshold for the onset of conduction. Clear evidence for this behavior is found in experimental studies of Pt/C nanowires, which show a quadratic variation of their current for the entire range of voltage studied. We also investigate the temperature dependence of the current in these nanowires, and show that the observed behavior can be accounted for by allowing for a temperature-dependent hopping rate between the grains.
Since the fabrication and basic electrical characterization of the nanowires that we study was described in detail in Ref. , for further details we refer the reader to this publication. The nanowires are formed by the technique of electron-beam induced deposition, which yields uniform structures with a typical diameter of $\sim50$ nm. The nanowires are actually comprised of a Pt/C composite, however, with Pt crystallites a few nm in size that are embedded in an amorphous C matrix. To study the electrical properties of the nanowires, we deposit Ti/Au electrodes by electron-beam, and optical, lithography, and make two-terminal measurements of the $I-V$ characteristics of nanowire segments a few $\mu$m in length.[@rotkina2003]
The motivation for our theoretical studies is provided by our recent investigations of the electrical characteristics of Pt/C composite nanowires, realized by the process of Electron-Beam-Induced Deposition (EBID). The fabrication of these nanowires has been described in detail in Ref. , where we also reported preliminary measurements of their current-voltage characteristics. While the EBID process yields uniform structures several microns long, with a typical diameter of 50 nm, as we illustrate in the upper inset to Fig. \[fig-jv\], the nanowires are actually comprised of a Pt/C composite, with Pt crystallites a few nm in size that are embedded in an amorphous C matrix. For theoretical modeling of the nanowires, we consider a one-dimensional array of quantum wells (QWs) separated by tunnel barriers that model the insulating C matrix (see Fig. \[fig-array\]). The QWs are characterised by their widths $\mu^{QW}_i,\ i=1,\dots,N$, where $N$ is the total number of QWs in the array. Due to the finite distance between the grains in the Pt/C wire, the QWs are separated by tunnel barriers of the widths $\mu^{TB}_{ij},\ 1\leq i<j\leq N$. In the experimental structure, the sizes of the Pt grains and the distance between them are random numbers, hence the parameters $\mu^{QW}_i$ and $\mu^{TB}_{ij}$ are generated from Normal distributions $N(\mu^{QW},\sigma^{QW})$ and $N(\mu^{TB},\sigma^{TB})$, respectively, where $\mu^{QW/TB}$ and $\sigma^{QW/TB}$ are the corresponding expectation value and standard deviation. This is motivated by the large amount of Pt grains in the nanowire. Physically, the one-dimensional array of wells describe a single chain of Pt grains in the nano-wire. Since the interactions between the different chains merely extends the set of conductive states in the system, this model provides a reasonable account of the transport properties.
![Comparison of experimental and theoretical (lines) currents for measurements between contacts 1-2 (rings), 1-4 (dots), and 3-4 (squares), given $t_0\sim0.05$ eV and $\Gamma_0\sim0.3$ eV (see text), at $T=4.2$ K.[]{data-label="fig-jv"}](figure1.eps){width="6.5cm"}
![Upper panel: One-dimensional array of quantum wells separated by tunnel barriers, connected to the left/right ($L/R$) reservoirs. Lower panel: Transition energies of the QW array in increasing order constituting the band-like set of conductive states.[]{data-label="fig-array"}](figure2.eps){width="6.5cm"}
The largest energy scales in the model are the on-site and intergranular Coulomb interactions (on-site charging energy $U\sim1$ eV and intergranular Coulomb interaction $U_{ij}\gtrsim0.3$ eV[@delft2001]). Thus, it is motivated to transfer the model into diagonal form by introducing the many-body operators $\ket{p}\bra{q}$,[@hubbard1963] which describe transitions from the state $\ket{q}$ to $\ket{p}$. Diagonalization of the model also gives a complete freedom in the choice of parameters $U_i,\ U_{ij}, t_{ij}$, where $t_{ij}$ is the intergranular hopping. Experimental work has shown a strong gating effect on the $I-V$ characteristics of the nanowire,[@rotkina2003] suggesting that the transport through them is of single electron character. Hence it is only necessary to account for the energy separation between states like $\ket{N',n}$ and $\ket{N'\pm1,n'}$, where $N'$ is the equilibrium ground state number of electrons in the nanowire whereas $n,n'$, are state labels. The energy difference between the states $\ket{N',n}$ and $\ket{N'-1,n'}$, denoted by $\Delta_{1nn'}$, corresponds to the energy of the removed electron, whereas the difference between $\ket{N'+1,n}$ and $\ket{N',n'}$, denoted by $\Delta_{2nn'}$, and $\Delta_{3nn'}=\Delta_{1nn'}+U$, corresponds to the energy of the added electron plus the intergranular charging energy. Hence, written in terms of the many-body eigenbasis, the model for the Pt/C nanowire becomes $$\Hamil_{Pt/C}=\sum_{m=0,\pm1}\sum_nE_n^{N'+m}\ket{N'+m,n}\bra{N'+m,n},$$ where $E_n^{N+m}$ is the energy for the corresponding states. In the experimental set-up, the Pt/C nanowire is coupled to external contact reservoirs, here modelled by free electron-like particles. Hence the Hamiltonian for the nanowire and the reservoirs is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\Hamil=\sum_{k\sigma\in L,R}\dote{k}\cdagger{k}\c{k}
+\Hamil_{Pt/C}
}
\nonumber\\&&\hspace{-0.5cm}
+\sum_{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle k\sigma,nn'}}{m=0,-1}}
(v_k\cdagger{k}\ket{N'+m,n'}\bra{N'+m+1,n}+H.c.)
\label{eq-hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ where $\cdagger{k}\ (\c{k})$ creates (annihilates) an electron in the left/right ($L/R$) reservoir at the energy $\leade{k}$, and the hybridisation $v_k$ between states in the reservoirs and the Pt/C nanowire are assumed to be $k$-independent.
In the Hubbard I approximation (HIA),[@hubbard1963; @franssonPRL2002] the Green function (GF) for the transition $\ket{N',n}\bra{N'\pm,n}$ is given in this model by $$G_{nn'}(i\omega)=\frac{P_{\gamma nn'}}
{i\omega-\Delta_{\gamma nn'}-P_{\gamma nn'}\Gamma/2},
\label{eq-GF}$$ where $\gamma=1,2,3$, depending on whether an electron is removed or added to the nanowire, whereas $\Gamma=\Gamma^L+\Gamma^R$, and $\Gamma^{L/R}$ is the coupling to the left/right reservoir. The spectral weight $P_{\gamma nn'}$, depending on the bias voltage and the temperature, appears due to the non-trivial anti-commutation relations between the Hubbard operators.[@franssonPRL2002] It should be noticed that the GFs for the conducting transitions have to be self-consistently solved for each temperature and bias voltage applied to the system.
By employing the given approximation of the GF to the formula for the current through the system derived in Refs. , we end up at the expression $$\begin{aligned}
I&=&\frac{e}{h}\sum_{\gamma=1,2}\sum_{nn'}
\int\frac{\Gamma^L\Gamma^R}
{(\omega-\Delta_{\gamma nn'})^2+(P_{\gamma nn'}\Gamma/2)^2}
\nonumber\\&&
\times P_{\gamma nn'}^2[f_L(\omega)-f_R(\omega)]d\omega,
\label{eq-current}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{L/R}(\omega)=f(\omega-\mu_{L/R})$ is the Fermi function at the chemical potential $\mu_{L/R}$ of the left/right reservoir. From this expression for the current, we proceed with analytical calculations by putting the temperature to zero. Thus, the integral in Eq. (\[eq-current\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mu_R}^{\mu_L}\frac{1}
{(\omega-\Delta_{\gamma nn'})^2+(P_{\gamma nn'}\Gamma/2)^2}d\omega\sim
\nonumber\\
\sim\arctan{\frac{\mu_L-\Delta_{\gamma nn'}}{P_{\gamma nn'}\Gamma/2}}
-\arctan{\frac{\mu_R-\Delta_{\gamma nn'}}{P_{\gamma nn'}\Gamma/2}}.
\label{eq-integral}\end{aligned}$$
The large number of Pt grains in the nanowire, suggests to replace the sum over $n,n'$ by an integral. For the sake of argument, we assume a rectangular distribution of the transition energies $\Delta_{\gamma nn'}\in[\Delta_\gamma^{\min{}},\Delta_\gamma^{\max{}}]$, thus $$\sum_{nn'}\arctan{\frac{\mu-\Delta_{\gamma nn'}}{P_{\gamma nn'}\Gamma/2}}
\rightarrow
\int_{\Delta_\gamma^{\min{}}}^{\Delta_\gamma^{\max{}}}
\arctan{\frac{\mu-\Delta_\gamma}{P_\gamma\Gamma/2}}d\Delta_\gamma,$$ This integral is analytically solvable and gives $$\begin{aligned}
h(x)=\int\arctan{x_\gamma}d\Delta_\gamma=
-x\arctan{x}+\frac{1}{2}\log{\biggl(1+x^2\biggr)},\end{aligned}$$ where $x=(\mu-\Delta)/(P\Gamma/2)$. For $|x|<1$, that is, for states close to the chemical potential, we may Taylor expand this function, giving (letting $\mu_L\rightarrow eV,\ \mu_R\rightarrow0$) $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
h(x_L)-h(x_R)=-\frac{x_L^2}{2}+\frac{x_L^4}{12}
+\frac{x^2_R}{2}-\frac{x_R^4}{12}+\ldots\approx
}
\\&&
\approx
\frac{2\Delta}{P\Gamma}\biggl(eV-\frac{(eV)^2}{2\Delta}\biggr)
-\frac{4}{3}\biggl(\frac{\Delta}{P\Gamma}\biggr)^3
\biggl(eV-\frac{3(eV)^2}{2\Delta}\biggr).\end{aligned}$$ Here, the behaviour is dominated by the second term since $P\Gamma<1$, showing that the current varies as a quadratic polynomial of the bias voltage. The function in Eq. (\[eq-integral\]) indicates a staircase like current for each conductive transition. Hence, a smooth character of the total current will arise when the transition energies are smoothly spread out in the energy interval corresponding to the bias voltage applied, with only a few state around the equilibrium chemical potential. This suggests that the transition energy spacing is $\gtrsim0.8$ eV,[@transition] for small intergranular hopping.
In Fig. \[fig-jv\], we plot the measured variation of the current in several different nanowire segments (indicated), as a function of the square of the bias voltage, and see that the resulting data indeed fall closely on a straight line, just as suggested by the above analysis. In particular, there is no clear evidence for a threshold for conduction, with the quadratic variation being observed over the entire voltage range.
While the quadratic variation of the current in Fig. \[fig-jv\] is strongly suggestive of the band-like transport mechanism that we have discussed, we have also performed numerical calculations of the current from Eq. (\[eq-current\]), and these provide further support for this mechanism. The lines through the experimental data of Fig. \[fig-jv\] represent the results of these numerical fits, and agree very well with the experimental data. The numerical calculations have been performed with just two free parameters ($t_0$ and $\Gamma_0$). The construction of the one-dimensional array of QWs separated by tunnel barriers, enables an estimation of the hopping parameters $t_{ij}=t_0\exp{(-\mu^{TB}_{ij})}$, where $t_0$ is a parameter that is equal for all tunnel barriers and for all calculations.[@hopping] The solution of the resulting eigenvalue system yields the (transition) energies $\Delta_{\gamma nn'}$, see Fig. \[fig-array\]. Finally, the amplitude of the calculated current in Fig. \[fig-jv\] has been fitted to the experimental result by means of the coupling $\Gamma=\Gamma_0N^{-1/3}\ (\Gamma^{L/R}=\Gamma/2)$, where $\Gamma_0$ is a fixed parameter accounting for the sum of all chains of Pt grains in the nano-wire.
The temperature dependence of the current can to good agreement be found partly through the spectral weights, $P_{\gamma nn'}(T)=1-\kappa\exp{(-\nu/[\beta\Delta_{\gamma nn'})]}$, where $\beta^{-1}=k_BT$, from self-consistent calculations of the GFs for finite temperatures, and partly by imposing that the hopping parameter goes like $t_0(T)\sim1+T/T_0$. The latter behaviour is reasonable since the tunnel barriers between the Pt grains in the C matrix become effectively more transparent for higher temperatures. In Fig. \[fig-jv\_temp\], we display a typical comparison between our experimental and theoretical (solid lines) results for the temperature dependence of the $I-V$ characteristics. For $T>175$ K, leakage currents through the substrate layer are expected to be significant in the experiment, thus we have omitted any calculations for such temperatures. Nevertheless, it can be seen in Fig. \[fig-jv\_temp\] that the theoretical results are in general good agreement with the experimental.
![Theoretical (lines) vs. experimental (symbols) temperature dependence of the $I-V$ characteristics (measured between contacts 1-4), with $\kappa\sim0.75$ and $\nu\sim0.7$.[]{data-label="fig-jv_temp"}](figure3.eps){width="6.5cm"}
The use of the many-body states in the present model, suggests that we consider the entire Pt/C nanowire as an effective interaction region where electrons can be removed or added via the transitions $\ket{N',n'}\bra{N'\pm1,n}$ at the corresponding energies $\Delta_{\gamma nn'}$. However, the band-like transition energies should not be regarded as energy bands in the usual sense, where an electron at a given energy can propagate freely through the nanowire due to the extension of the energy band throughout the region. Rather, addition/subtraction of an electron to/from the interaction region is followed by a redistribution of the initial state such that the energy for the transition between the initial and final state not exceeds the potential drop over the nanowire given by the bias voltage applied.
In implementing our theoretical model, we have made use of a few approximations in order to obtain the excellent agreement with experiment. The transport properties of the conductive states in the nanowire have been treated using mean-field theory, i.e. within the HIA. This is motivated by the large number of Pt grains that contribute to transport through the nanowires. As transmission electron microscopy has demonstrated, the grains are arranged closely together, although not in thermal contact, and the hopping of electrons between them should tend to smear out the individual character of each grain. Hence, possible charge fluctuations of the individual grains are negligible. Although the transition energies should be renormalized due to strong electron-electron interactions in the grains, such a shift can be included into the mean-field treatement [@franssonPRL2002] and will not cause any qualitative change in the nanowire transport properties.
Treating the temperature dependence of the hopping in linear order is motivated by the separation of the energy “bands” ($\gtrsim0.4$ eV), which is much larger than the thermal energy at the temperatures considered here. A more elaborate functional dependence on temperature would possibly alter our results quantitatively, but would not change the general character of the current.
In conclusion, we have explored the problem of tunnelling through disordered nanowires, comprised of a random distribution of metallic grains, by means of a many-body model that captures the essential physics of the system; strong on-site and intergranular electron-electron interactions. Our analysis shows that the random configuration of the grains smears out any features due to tunnelling via the individual grains, and gives rise instead to a smooth band-like set of states through which the current flow is mediated. Analytical calculations (and numerical simulations, involving only a small number of parameters), reveal the characteristic signature of this unusual band-like transport to be a quadratic variation of the current as a function of the applied voltage (i.e. $I\sim V^2$), without any threshold for the onset of conduction. Clear evidence for this behaviour is found in experimental studies of Pt/C nanowires, which show a quadratic variation of their current for the entire range of voltage studied. By imposing a linear dependence of the intergranular hopping strength on temperature, we have been able to obtain a temperature-dependent variation of the nanowire current that is very close to that found in experiment.
J.F. acknowledges helpful comments from O. Eriksson, and support from the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) and Göran Gustafsson’s foundation.
[20]{} A. Altland, L. I. Glazman, and A. Kamenev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 26801 (2004). I. S. Beloborodov, K. B. Efetov, A. V. Lopatin, and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 246801 (2003). K. B. Efetov and A. Tschersich, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 174205 (2003). G. Gerber, A. Milner, G. Deutscher, M. Karpovsky, and A. Gladkikh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4277 (1997). C. T. Black, C. B. Murray, R. L. Sandstrom, and S. Sun, Science [**290**]{}, 1131 (2000). L. Rotkina, J.-F. Lin, and J. P. Bird, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4426 (2003). J. von Delft and D. C. Ralph, Phys. Rep. [**345**]{}, 61 (2001). J. Hubbard, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A [**276**]{}, 238 (1963); [**277**]{}, 237 (1963). J. Fransson, O. Eriksson, and I. Sandalov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 226601 (2002). A.-P. Jauho, N. S. Wingreen, and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. B, [**50**]{}, 5528 (1994). J. Fransson, O. Eriksson, and I. Sandalov, Phys. Rev. B, [**66**]{}, 195319 (2002). Although the band-like set of transitions depicted in Fig. \[fig-array\] does not represent all the possible transitions in the nanowire, these are expected to give the major contribution to the conduction. The expansion $\d{i\sigma}=\sum_{pq}\bra{p}\d{i\sigma}\ket{q}\ket{p}\bra{q}$, where $\d{i\sigma}$ annihilates an electron in the $i$th QW, and $\ket{p},\ket{q}$, are eigenstates of the interacting region, contains the transition matrix elements $\bra{p}\d{i\sigma}\ket{q}$ of which a large number have a negligible probability amplitude. The exponential decay justifies a simplification of the model to nearest-neighbour interactions in the intergranular hopping. For better accuracy, however, we have used up to the fourth nearest neighbour hopping in our calculations.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The ATLAS muon spectrometer is designed to measure muon momenta with a resolution of 4% @ 100 GeV/c rising to 10% @ 1 TeV/c track momentum. The spectrometer consists of precision tracking and trigger chambers embedded in a 2T magnetic field generated by three large air-core superconducting toroids. The precision detectors provide 50 $\mu$m tracking resolution to a pseudo-rapidity of 2.7. The system also includes an optical monitoring system which measures detector positions with 40 $\mu$m precision. This paper reports on the calibration and performance of the ATLAS muon spectrometer.'
author:
- 'E. Diehl on behalf of ATLAS'
title: Calibration and Performance of the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer
---
Introduction
============
The ATLAS experiment[@atlas_paper] is one of two general purpose collider detectors for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. The ATLAS detector consists of an inner detector employing silicon pixel, strip, and transition radiation tracking detectors, all in a solenoidal magnetic field of 2 Tesla; electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters using liquid argon and scintillator tile detectors; and a muon spectrometer. The muon spectrometer consists of a large air-core barrel and endcap toroid magnets with a $B \cdot dl$ between 2-6 $T
\cdot m$, and four types of trigger and precision tracking detectors, described below. The muon spectrometer is designed to measure the transverse momentum ($\pt$) of muons with $\pt > 3$ GeV with a resolution of 4% up to $\pt$ of 100 GeV and increasing to 10% @ 1 TeV.
The ATLAS muon spectrometer consists of Monitored Drift Tubes (MDTs) for precision tracking in the spectrometer bending plane, Resistive Plate Chambers (RPCs) and Thin Gap Chambers (TGCs) for triggering in barrel and endcap, respectively, and Cathode Strip Chambers (CSCs) for precision measurements in the high-rate endcap inner layer where MDTs would have occupancy problems.
The magnet system consists of 3 sets of air-core toroids, each with 8 coils, 1 for the barrel, and 1 for each endcap. The barrel toroids coils are each 25m $\times$ 7m and the endcap coils are 9m $\times$ 4m. The magnetic field provides an approximately 1T field at the center of each coils, but is non-uniform, especially in the barrel-endcap transition region. For track reconstruction, the field is mapped using a computer model of the field which is normalized to measurements from 1850 Hall sensors mounted on spectrometer chambers.
Alignment measurements of the spectrometer are also critical for momentum determination and are accomplished with an optical alignment system of 12k sensors. Measurements from these sensors allow a 3-dimensional reconstruction of chamber positions accurate to better than 50 $\mu$m. In addition, the optical alignment system is complemented by alignment done with tracks.
Table \[table:muon\_spectrometer\] gives a summary of the muon spectrometer detector components and Fig. \[fig:layout\] shows the layout.
**Type** **Purpose** **location** **$\eta$ coverage** **Channels**
---------- ------------- ---------------- --------------------- --------------
MDT Tracking barrel+endcap $0.0 < \eta < 2.7$ 354k
CSC Tracking endcap layer 1 $2.0 < \eta < 2.7$ 30.7k
RPC Trigger barrel $0.0 < \eta < 1.0$ 373k
TGC Trigger endcap $1.0 < \eta < 2.4$ 318k
: ATLAS Muon Spectrometer.
\[table:muon\_spectrometer\]
![Left: Layout of the muon spectrometer; Right: Expected resolution of the ATLAS muon spectrometer.[]{data-label="fig:layout"}](MuonSystem_d3.png "fig:"){width="80mm"} ![Left: Layout of the muon spectrometer; Right: Expected resolution of the ATLAS muon spectrometer.[]{data-label="fig:layout"}](muon_resolution_contributions.png "fig:"){width="80mm"}
The spectrometer is designed so that muons cross three layers of MDT chambers for the sagitta measurement. The track coordinate in the bending plane of the spectrometer is measured by the precision chambers with a resolution of 40 $\mu$m. In comparison, the sagitta of a 1 TeV muon will be about 500 $\mu$m. The trigger chambers are placed on opposite sides of the middle MDT layer. The trigger chambers provide a trigger based on muon momentum in addition to identifying the bunch crossing time of the muon. The also provide the second coordinate measurement (non-bending plane) accurate to 5-10 cm.
Figure \[fig:layout\] shows the expected resolution of the muon spectrometer. For $\pt < 100$ GeV/c multiple scattering is the dominant contributor to the resolution. Above 100 GeV/c calibration and alignment of the spectrometer become the most significant factors in momentum resolution. ATLAS muon reconstruction is done using momentum measurements from both the inner detector spectrometer and the muon spectrometer. The two spectrometers nicely complement each other as inner detector measurements are better below 100 GeV/c above which the muon spectrometer resolution is superior. High $\pt$ measurements with the muon spectrometer require very accurate MDT and alignment calibrations which will become particularly important in a few years when LHC reaches 7 TeV energy per beam and higher luminosities.
This paper shows a mix of results from 2010 and 2011 using the most up-to-date plots whenever possible. Not all plots are available for 2011 so in some cases 2010 plots are used.
Monitored Drift Tube Calibrations
=================================
There are three calibrations required for the MDTs: timing offsets ($\T0$); time-space ($\RT$) functions; and drift tube resolution functions[@calib_paper]. In order to obtain high quality calibrations for the MDTs a special high statistics calibration data stream is extracted second-level trigger processors and sent for processing at three calibration centers at Michigan, Rome, and Munich. This calibration stream provides 10-100X the rate of single muon tracks compared to regular ATLAS data. With this stream it is possible to do daily calibrations of the monitored drift tubes as well as detailed data quality monitoring.
Timing Offset Calibrations
--------------------------
A timing offset represents the minimum measured drift time. i.e. the time of a muon passing at the wire of the drift tube. This time is not zero due to cables and other delays in the data acquisition system. Figure \[fig:drifttime\] shows a typical time spectrum from an MDT. The $\T0$ fit is shown in blue, and the $\T0$ is defined as the half-way point of the rising edge. The falling edge represents hits at the tube wall. Figure \[fig:drifttime\] shows statistical error on $\T0$ fits as a function of number hits in the time spectrum. We require at least 10000 hits for the fits yielding a typical error of 0.5 ns. The average drift speed is 20 $\mu$m/ns so this error corresponds to a 10 $\mu$m error due to the $\T0$ measurement.
![Left: An MDT drift time spectrum with $\T0$ fit shown in blue; Right: The statistical error on $\T0$ fits as a function of number hits in the time spectrum. []{data-label="fig:drifttime"}](drifttime_onlyt0fit.png "fig:"){width="80mm"} ![Left: An MDT drift time spectrum with $\T0$ fit shown in blue; Right: The statistical error on $\T0$ fits as a function of number hits in the time spectrum. []{data-label="fig:drifttime"}](t0error.png "fig:"){width="80mm"}
![Left: The difference between $\T0$s for all MDT chambers over a 2-month period in 2010. Right: Tracking residuals from the middle layer of MDT chambers. []{data-label="fig:t0diff"}](167776_All_DeltaT0.png "fig:"){width="89mm"} ![Left: The difference between $\T0$s for all MDT chambers over a 2-month period in 2010. Right: Tracking residuals from the middle layer of MDT chambers. []{data-label="fig:t0diff"}](residuals_EMA.png "fig:"){width="71mm"}
Figure \[fig:t0diff\] shows the distribution of the change in $\T0$ for all MDT chambers over a 2 month period from 2010. There is small global drift of a fraction of a nanosecond, but the overall width is close to the typical statistical error of 0.5 ns. Hence, the T0s are quite stable.
$\RT$ function calibration
--------------------------
The other main calibration is the time-to-space or $\RT$ function. This function gives the drift radius (impact parameter) of the hit based on the drift time. An example of an $\RT$ function is shown in Fig. \[fig:rtfun\]. The function is non-linear since ATLAS uses a non-linear drift gas, $\rm ArCO_2$ due to its better aging characteristics in high-radiation environments.
The $\RT$ function is determined by an iterative procedure looping over tubes hits and minimizing the tracking residuals of track segments reconstructed with hits within a single MDT chamber which have either 6 or 8 layers of MDT tubes. Tracking residuals are the differences between the drift radii from the drift time and the radius from the track fit. Typically 10000 tracks segments are used in the calibration of a single chamber. Figure \[fig:rtfun\] shows the difference between $\RT$ functions for several chambers in the barrel. The differences in $\RT$ functions are due primarily to the temperature gradient within the ATLAS cavern (about $20 ^{\circ}C$ from top to bottom), as well as due differences in magnetic field within chambers.
![Left: A typical $\RT$ function; Right: differences between $\RT$ functions for several barrel chambers.[]{data-label="fig:rtfun"}](muon-RT-function.png "fig:"){width="65mm"} ![Left: A typical $\RT$ function; Right: differences between $\RT$ functions for several barrel chambers.[]{data-label="fig:rtfun"}](BMLpub_rtdiff.png "fig:"){width="99mm"}
The precision of the $\RT$ function is shown by Fig. \[fig:resvr\] which shows the mean of the tracking residuals as a function of the MDT tube radius. Except for the region close to the wire, the mean residuals are within 20 $\mu$m. Tracking residuals from the middle layer of endcap chambers are shown in Fig. \[fig:t0diff\]. The residual width of 96 $\mu$m is typical for all chambers in ATLAS.
![Left: MDT tube residuals mean as a function of tube radius; Right: MDT hit resolution as a function of tube radius.[]{data-label="fig:resvr"}](residuals_vs_radius_BA.png "fig:"){width="90mm"} ![Left: MDT tube residuals mean as a function of tube radius; Right: MDT hit resolution as a function of tube radius.[]{data-label="fig:resvr"}](MDT_hit_resolution.png "fig:"){width="70mm"}
Figure \[fig:resvr\] shows the single tube resolution as a function of drift tube radius. The resolution is determined from the tracking residuals width with the fit errors subtracted. We see that the resolution is close to the 80 $\mu$m for large radii. Near the wire the resolution degrades to faster drift speed and fewer drift electrons. This plot was made with 2010 data. We expect improvements in the future by applying some addition timing corrections such as a hit-level magnetic field correction and by using tube-level $\T0$s.
Muon Spectrometer Alignment
===========================
The alignment system system is designed to track chamber positions with a 40 $\mu$m precision. The monitoring is done with optical sensors which is cross-checked by doing alignment with straight tracks from magnet-off runs. The barrel and endcap have separate alignment systems.
Figure \[fig:alignment\] shows measurements from the mean value of the “false” sagitta measured with straight tracks from magnet-off runs. Straight tracks should have a sagitta of zero and hence this sagitta measurement gives the precision of the alignment system. The plot shows the sagitta as a function of $\eta$ with the black points for the barrel and the red and blue corresponding with to the endcap. The barrel achieves a resolution of 50 $\mu$m, close to the design goal, whereas the endcap gives a resolution of around 110 $\mu$m indicting that further improvements are necessary.
![Alignment resolution of $\phi$ sector 7 of the muon spectrometer.[]{data-label="fig:alignment"}](alignment_sector7.png){width="80mm"}
Trigger Performance
===================
Figure \[fig:triggerocc\] shows the an occupancy plot for the barrel from collision data. As can be seen the coverage is quite uniform except for dead regions due to the support feet of the ATLAS detector. The geometric acceptance is about 80%. Figure \[fig:triggereff\] shows the trigger efficiency as a function of $\pt$ and $\eta$, respectively. The triggers are very efficient within geometric coverage of the trigger. The data show a slightly higher efficiency than monte carlo due to some analysis improvements in the data analysis which have not yet been introduced to the monte carlo code.
![Trigger occupancy for the barrel as a function of $\phi$ and $\eta$.[]{data-label="fig:triggerocc"}](trigger_occupancy.png){width="80mm"}
![Left: Trigger efficiency as a function of $\pt$; Right: Trigger efficiency as a function $\eta$.[]{data-label="fig:triggereff"}](EFmu18MGSF_pt.png "fig:"){width="80mm"} ![Left: Trigger efficiency as a function of $\pt$; Right: Trigger efficiency as a function $\eta$.[]{data-label="fig:triggereff"}](EFmu18MGSF_eta.png "fig:"){width="80mm"}
Momentum Resolution
===================
Figure \[fig:momresb\] shows the momentum resolution as a function of muon $\pt$ in the barrel region of ATLAS. The momentum resolution is derived from the width of the reconstructed Z mass as well as by comparing single muons reconstructed by both the inner detector and muon spectrometer. Monte carlo and inner detector measurements are used to derive the contributions of momentum resolution from energy loss in calorimeters, multiple scattering, and the intrinsic resolution of the spectrometer. The measured resolution is somewhat worse than the simulation. This result is from the preliminary calibrations for 2010 data, so we expect improvement from more refined calibrations in the future.
![Momentum resolution of the ATLAS muon spectrometer barrel region.[]{data-label="fig:momresb"}](atlas_momentum2.png){width="80mm"}
Conclusions
===========
The ATLAS muon spectrometer is working well with a high trigger efficiency and tracking resolution near design specifications. Calibrations of the drift tubes are done daily using a high statistics data stream from the level-2 trigger processors. Alignment is working well in barrel, but needs some improvement in the endcap. Momentum resolution is near design specifications. We expect improvements from better calibrations and statistics from 2011 data.
[9]{} “The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, The ATLAS Collaboration, G Aad [*et al*]{} 2008 JINST [**3**]{} S08003, http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-0221/3/08/S08003 “Calibration model for the MDT chambers of the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer”, P. Bagnaia [*et al*]{}, ATLAS Note ATL-MUON-PUB-2008-004, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1089868
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Micha[ł]{} Hapka'
- 'Micha[ł]{} Przybytek'
- Katarzyna Pernal
nocite:
- '[@Pernal:14b]'
- '[@Pastorczak:18a]'
- '[@Pastorczak:18]'
- '[@Hesselmann:05]'
- '[@Hesselmann:05]'
- '[@Hapka:19]'
- '[@Hapka:19]'
- '[@Pastorczak:19a]'
- '[@Hapka:19]'
- '[@Hapka:19]'
- '[@Hapka:19]'
- '[@Hapka:19]'
title: 'Second-order exchange-dispersion energy based on multireference description of monomers'
---
Introduction
============
Decomposition of the intermolecular interaction energy into physically meaningful contributions requires partitioning of the system into fragments, the mutual interaction of which may be described either with variational of perturbational methods.[@Stone:97; @Gordon:12] In symmetry-adapted perturbation theory (SAPT)[@Jeziorski:94; @Szalewicz:05] the interaction energy is expanded in the intermolecular interaction operator and the proper permutational symmetry of the total wave function is imposed by the use of antisymmetrizer operators in each order. Symmetry forcing leads to the emergence of exchange energy corrections which are vital for the correct description of the short-range repulsion.
In contrast to the supermolecular method, in SAPT one computes the interaction energy directly, based solely on monomer properties. Since the dimer calculation is never performed, one avoids the basis set superposition error. Over the last four decades, SAPT has been developed into a practical and effective tool for calculation of noncovalent interactions and their interpretation. [@Hohenstein:12; @Szalewicz:12; @Jansen:14] In spite of the growing popularity of the method, the existing many-electron formulations are limited to the single-reference description of the monomers. This work addresses the problem of extending SAPT to interactions between molecules which feature significant static correlation effects and cannot be described by a single Slater determinant. We introduce and discuss a new multireference approach to obtain the second-order exchange energy contribution responsible for damping of the dispersion energy.
In the second order of SAPT it is natural to distinguish exchange-induction and exchange-dispersion contributions. At the van der Waals minimum the exchange-induction energy dampens a substantial part of its induction counterpart, while the exchange-dispersion component quenches only up to 15% of the dispersion energy. In spite of that, exchange-dispersion component cannot be neglected if a quantitative description of a dimer is needed. Semiclassical and nonlocal models of the dispersion interaction represent the exchange-dispersion contribution using a model damping function, e.g., of the Tang-Toennis form. [@Grimme:16; @Tkatchenko:17; @Shahbaz:19] In many-body aggregates the nonadditive, three-body part of exchange-dispersion energy plays an important role, as it may be comparable to or even larger than the three-body dispersion contribution. [@Podeszwa:07; @Deible:14; @Hapka:17] An illustrative example is the argon crystal where nonadditive exchange-dispersion effects differentiate between the face-centered cubic and hexagonal closed-packed structures. [@Lotrich:97]
First direct calculations of the exchange-dispersion energy were performed for the ion[@Chalbie:73a; @Chipman:73] and for the helium dimer. [@Chalbie:76] In 1977 Cha[ł]{}asi[ń]{}ski and Jeziorski[@Chalbie:77b] derived the explicit many-electron formula for the interaction of closed-shell monomers in terms of pair functions (the orbital version was given later by Rybak *et al*.[@Rybak:91]). Since the pioneering work on the Be-Be dimer, [@Chalbie:77b] many-body SAPT (MB-SAPT)[@Szalewicz:12] calculations of the exchange-dispersion correction routinely invoke several important approximations. First, electron correlation effects within the noninteracting monomers are neglected which is equivalent to the Hartree-Fock-based SAPT (HF-SAPT) approach. Second, calculations are usually performed at the uncoupled level of theory, i.e., without accounting for the change of monomer orbitals due to the perturbation field of the interacting partner. Finally, only terms up to the second order in the intermonomer overlap are kept in the exchange energy expression, which is referred to as the single-exchange or the $S^2$ approximation. [@Murrell:65]
Inclusion of intramonomer correlation effects in the exchange-dispersion contribution is currently possible in two different SAPT flavors. DFT-SAPT[@Hesselmann:05] and the equivalent SAPT(DFT)[@Misquitta:05] approaches combine Kohn-Sham description of the interacting monomers with response properties from time-dependent Kohn-Sham (TD-KS) equations. Although one-electron reduced density matrices required in SAPT exchange energy calculations cannot be accurately reproduced at the Kohn-Sham level of theory even in the exact exchange-correlation functional limit, [@Jansen:01] numerical experience has proven that their use provides exchange energy components which closely match available benchmarks for single-reference systems. [@Korona:09; @Korona:13] Open-shell exchange-dispersion formulas valid for both Kohn-Sham and Hartree-Fock treatment of high-spin systems also exist in the literature. [@PZuch:08; @Hapka:12; @Gonthier:16] An alternative way to account for intramonomer correlation is the SAPT(CC) method [@Korona:08a; @Korona:08b; @Korona:09] developed by Korona. SAPT(CC) is based on coupled cluster monomer wave functions limited to single and double excitations (CCSD) and response properties obtained from time-independent CCSD[@Moszynski:05] calculations. In her work on the exchange-dispersion component, [@Korona:09] Korona introduced a new expression in terms of monomer density-matrix susceptibilities and density matrices. This allowed her not only to derive the SAPT(CC) variant, but also to give theoretical background for the coupled approach. The latter had been proposed earlier by Hesselmann and co-authors[@Hesselmann:05] in the DFT-SAPT context, yet rigorous derivation had been missing. In general, the quality of exchange-dispersion energies based on transition density matrices from coupled Kohn-Sham or coupled Hartree-Fock calculations is significantly better when compared to the uncoupled result. [@Korona:09]
Second-order exchange energies correct through all orders in intermolecular overlap may be obtained for single-determinant ground-state wave functions following the approach by Sch[ä]{}ffer and Jansen. [@Schaffer:12; @Schaffer:13] Their DFT-SAPT results showed that the $S^2$ approximation tends to slightly overestimate the exchange-dispersion energy for intermediate distances and breaks down at short intermonomer separation, where this contribution may become negative. [@Schaffer:13]
One of the ongoing challenges for SAPT is the extension towards many-electron molecules which demand a multireference treatment. Recently, we have described a method for calculating second-order dispersion energy in such systems. [@Hapka:19] The proposed approach is based on response properties from extended random phase approximation (ERPA)[@Pernal:12; @Pernal:14b] equations. In this work we adopt the ERPA framework to derive an expression for the second-order SAPT exchange-dispersion energy. We present a spin-summed natural-orbital formula in the $S^2$ approximation applicable to both ground- and excited states of the monomers in singlet spin states. Our ERPA-based expression scales with the sixth-power of the size of the system and may be applied with any multireference method which provides one- and two-electron reduced density matrices. We consider wave functions of two kinds: the complete active space (CAS) reference and generalized valence bond perfect pairing (GVB) ansatz. Both coupled and uncoupled approximations are compared and discussed.
Another important step in the direction of a multireference SAPT formulation has recently been made by Patkowski and co-workers[@Patkowski:18; @Waldrop:19] who devised a spin-flip variant of SAPT (SF-SAPT) to calculate first-order exchange energy correction for an arbitrary spin state of the dimer. In their method a multireference low-spin state of the complex is approached starting from high-spin restricted open-shell Hartree-Fock (ROHF) monomer wave functions. The original SF-SAPT paper[@Patkowski:18] presented a first-order exchange formula limited to single-exchange of electrons. Subsequently, Waldrop and Patkowski[@Waldrop:19] were able to move beyond the $S^2$ limit and introduced a milder and more accurate single-spin-flip approximation based on the ideas of Sch[ä]{}fer and Jansen.
The outline of the paper is as follows: In Section \[sec:th\] the exchange-dispersion energy is expressed in terms of one- and two-electron reduced density matrices from ERPA calculations. Both the scaling behavior of the introduced multireference variant as well as its relation to the single reference case are briefly discussed. Section \[sec:compdet\] contains the relevant details regarding our implementation and computations. Numerical demonstration for representative multi- and single-reference-dominated dimers is given in Section \[sec:res\]. Section \[sec:concl\] concludes our study.
Theory \[sec:th\]
=================
We consider interaction of two monomers A and B in states $\ket{\Psi^A_I}$ and $\ket{\Psi^B_J}$, respectively, with the corresponding energies $E^A_I$ and $E^B_J$. Consequently the zeroth-order wave function of a dimer reads $\ket{\Psi^{(0)}}=\ket{\Psi^A_I\Psi^B_J}$. Indices $I$ and $J$ do not necessarily correspond to ground states, i.e., one or both of the monomers may be in electronically excited state. The only assumption in the presented formalism is that $\ket{\Psi^{(0)}}$ is nondegenerate.
The general expression for the second-order exchange-dispersion term in the symmetrized Rayleigh-Schr[ö]{}dinger theory (SRS) takes the following form: $$\begin{split}
E^{(2)}_{\rm exch-disp} &=
\frac{\langle \Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B | \left( \hat{V} - E^{(1)}_{\rm SRS} \right) \hat{\mathcal{A}} \Psi^{(1)}_{\rm disp} \rangle}{\braket{\Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B|\hat{\mathcal{A}}\Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B}} \\
&- \braket{\Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B|\hat{V}\Psi^{(1)}_{\rm disp}} \ \ \ ,
\end{split}
\label{eq:exdF}$$ where the intermolecular interaction operator $\hat{V}$ represents all Coulomb interactions between electrons and nuclei of the two monomers, $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ is the antisymmetrizer that exchanges electrons between the monomers, $E^{(1)}_{\rm SRS}$ denotes the first-order energy in SRS, and $\ket{\Psi^{(1)}_{\rm disp}}$ is the first-order dispersion wave function $$\Psi^{(1)}_{\rm disp} = \sum_{\mu \neq I, \nu\neq J } \frac{\ket{\Psi^A_\mu\Psi^B_\nu}\braket{\Psi^A_\mu\Psi^B_\nu|\hat{V}|\Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B}}{E_I^A + E_J^B - E_\mu^A - E_\nu^B} \ \ \ ,
\label{eq:disp1}$$ so the last term in Eq. denotes the second-order dispersion energy $E^{(2)}_{\rm disp}=\braket{\Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B|\hat{V}\Psi^{(1)}_{\rm disp}}$. Greek indices used in Eq. and throughout the paper pertain to electronic states of monomers.
In the $S^2$ approximation[@Murrell:65] one restricts the antisymmetrizer in Eq. to single-exchange of electrons between the monomers: $\hat{\mathcal{A}} \approx \hat{1} + \hat{P}_1$, with $\hat{P}_1$ being the sum of all permutations, $\hat{P}_{ij}$, interchanging the coordinates of electrons $i$ and $j$ $$\hat{P}_1 = -\sum_{i=1}^{N_A}\sum_{j=1+N_A}^{N_A+N_B} \hat{P}_{ij} \ \ \ ,$$ $N_A$ and $N_B$ denoting the number of electrons in pertinent monomers. The exchange-dispersion energy in this approximation reads:[@Chalbie:77a; @Chalbie:77b] $$\begin{split}
E^{(2)}_{\rm exch-disp} &= \langle \Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B | \hat{V}\hat{P}_1 \Psi^{(1)}_{\rm disp} \rangle \\
&- E^{(1)}_{\rm elst}\langle \Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B | \hat{P}_1 \Psi^{(1)}_{\rm disp} \rangle \\
&- E^{(2)}_{\rm disp}\langle \Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B | \hat{P}_1 \Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B \rangle \ \ \ ,
\label{eq:exds2}
\end{split}$$ where $E^{(1)}_{\rm elst}=\braket{\Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B|\hat{V}|\Psi_I^A\Psi_J^B}$ is the first-order electrostatic energy.
Evaluation of Eq. requires access to one- and two-electron transition reduced density matrices of the monomers (1-TRDMs and 2-TRDMs, respectively). In this work we focus on multireference description of the system and explore the possibility to obtain the necessary response properties from Rowe’s equation of motion (REOM) theory[@Rowe:68] in the extended random phase approximation. [@Pernal:12] The 1-TRDM connecting a state of interest $\ket{\Psi}$ with a higher- or lower state $\ket{\Psi_\nu}$, $$\gamma_{pq}^{\nu}=\braket{\Psi|\hat{a}_q^{\dagger}\hat{a}_p|\Psi_{\nu}} \ \ \ ,
\label{eq:def1trdm}$$ has the following form in the REOM-ERPA framework: [@Pernal:12; @Pernal:14] $$\begin{aligned}
\forall_{p>q}\ \ \ \gamma_{pq}^{\nu} & =-(n_{p}-n_{q})\left[ \mathbf{X}_{\nu
}\right]_{pq} \ \ \ , \\
\forall_{p<q}\ \ \ \gamma_{pq}^{\nu} & =-(n_{p}-n_{q})\left[ \mathbf{Y}_{\nu
}\right]_{qp}\ \ \ ,
\label{eq:1trdm}\end{aligned}$$ where we assumed natural spinorbital representation of the wave function $\ket{\Psi}$. Throughout the text the indices $pqrs$ pertain to natural orbitals of monomers. The formalism is developed for monomers in singlet states so the natural occupation numbers for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ spin-blocks of one-electron reduced density matrix (1-RDM) are equal and $\forall_p \ \ 0 \le n_p \le 1$, the occupation numbers sum up to half a number of electrons, $\sum_p n_p = N/2$. Vectors $\left[ \mathbf{X}_{\nu}, \mathbf{Y}_{\nu} \right]$ correspond to solutions of the the generalized ERPA eigenproblem: [@Pernal:14] $$\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}\mathbf{\mathcal{A}} & \mathbf{\mathcal{B}}\\
\mathbf{\mathcal{B}} & \mathbf{\mathcal{A}}\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\mathbf{X}_{\nu}\\
\mathbf{Y}_{\nu}\end{array}
\right) =\omega_{\nu}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}-\mathbf{\mathcal{N}} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{\mathcal{N}}\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\mathbf{X}_{\nu}\\
\mathbf{Y}_{\nu}\end{array}
\right) \ \ \ ,\label{ERPA}$$ with the metric matrix expressed through the natural occupation numbers $\left\{ n_{p}\right\}$: $$\forall_{\substack{p>q\\r>s}} \ \ \ \mathcal{N}_{pq,rs}=(n_{p}-n_{q})\delta_{pr}\delta_{qs}\ \ \ .
\label{eq7}$$ Eigenvalues $\{\omega_\nu\}$ provide approximations to electronic excitation energies of a system. The ERPA equations are solved independently for each of the monomers (in Eq. - the monomer index was dropped for convenience). For a given monomer Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ and a reference wave function $\ket{\Psi}$ the matrices $\mathbf{\mathcal{A}}$ and $\mathbf{\mathcal{B}}$ are defined as $\left[ \mathbf{\mathcal{A}} \right]_{pqrs}=\left[\mathbf{\mathcal{B}} \right]_{pqsr}=
\left\langle \Psi |[\hat{a}_{p}^{\dag}\hat{a}_{q},[\hat
{H},\hat{a}_{s}^{\dag}\hat{a}_{r}]] | \Psi \right\rangle$ and are expressed exclusively in terms of one- and two-electron reduced density matrices of the system (for their explicit GVB- and CAS-based forms see Refs. [ ]{} and [ ]{}, respectively). The reference wavefunction of a monomer pertains to a state of interest $I$. In a special case when $\ket{\Psi}$ is a single determinant the ERPA equations turn into those of TD-HF.
If the monomer is in the ground state, it is convenient to formulate ERPA equations as a half-sized real-value symmetric eigenproblem making use of the fact the $\mathcal{A}+\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{A}-\mathcal{B}$ matrices (the electronic Hessian matrices) are positive definite. When the monomer wave function represents a system in the excited state, we solve a nonsymmetric real-value eigenproblem, as described in Ref. [ ]{}.
Application of the ERPA approach together with a CAS or GVB multireference wave function involves partitioning the orbital space into three disjoint subsets denoted $s_1$, $s_2$ and $s_3$ [@Hapka:19]. In the case of a CAS reference $s_1$, $s_2$ and $s_3$ correspond to the inactive, active and virtual orbitals, respectively. For the GVB wave function, the $s_1$ set contains orbitals with occupation numbers $n_p > 0.992$. The $s_2$ set includes orbitals which satisfy the $0.992 \geq n_p \geq 0.5$ condition together with their “weakly” occupied partners which are coupled to form geminals. The $s_3$ set hosts the remaining orbitals with occupation numbers $n_p < 0.5$. The $p, q$ indices of the ERPA matrices belong to the following subspaces: $$\begin{matrix}
p \in s_2 \wedge q \in s_1 \\
p \in s_3 \wedge q \in s_1 \\
p \in s_2 \wedge q \in s_2 \\
p \in s_3 \wedge q \in s_2, \\
\end{matrix}$$ with $r, s$ indices spanning the equivalent range. In the following we will use $M_{s_1}$, $M_{s_2}$ and $M_{s_3}$ symbols to represent the cardinalities of the orbital subsets.
In all derivations we assume spin-preserving adaptation of the ERPA excitation operator, which is equivalent to imposing the $[\mathbf{X}_{\nu}]_{p_{\alpha}q_{\alpha}}$ = $[\mathbf{X}_{\nu}]_{p_{\beta}q_{\beta}}$ and $[\mathbf{X}_{\nu}]_{p_{\alpha}q_{\beta}}$ = $[\mathbf{X}_{\nu}]_{p_{\beta}q_{\alpha}}$ = 0 restrictions on eigenvectors (same holds for $[\mathbf{Y_{\nu}}]$). Consequently, only the $\alpha\alpha$ and $\beta\beta$ blocks of the 1-TRDM are nonzero. Additionally, for singlet states $\alpha\alpha$ and $\beta\beta$ blocks are equal: $\gamma^{\nu}_{p_{\alpha}q_{\alpha}}$ = $\gamma^{\nu}_{p_{\beta}q_{\beta}}$ = $\gamma^{\nu}_{pq}$.
An important step in deriving the expression for the exchange-dispersion energy is finding the ERPA form of the 2-TRDM defined as $$\Gamma^{\nu}_{pqrs}=\braket{\Psi|\hat{a}_r^{\dagger}\hat{a}_s^{\dagger}\hat{a}_q\hat{a}_p|\Psi_{\nu}} \ \ \ .$$ This can be achieved within the REOM theory, in which transition matrix elements of a given operator $\hat{F}$ are accessed as expectation values of a commutator of $\hat{F}$ and the excitation operator $\hat{O}^{\dagger}_\nu$: $$\langle \Psi | \hat{F} | \Psi_{\nu} \rangle = \langle \Psi | \big[ \hat{F}, \hat{O}^{\dagger}_{\nu} \big] | \Psi \rangle \ \ \ ,
\label{eq:comm}$$ and it is assumed that the excitation operator creates $\ket{\Psi_\nu}$ as $\hat{O}^{\dagger}_\nu \ket{\Psi} = \ket{\Psi_\nu}$, while the deexcitation operator $\hat{O}_{\nu}$ satisfies the condition $\hat{O}_\nu\ket{\Psi} = 0$. The combination of ERPA excitation operator truncated to single excitations $$\hat{O}_{\nu}^{\dag}=\sum_{p>q}\left[ \mathbf{X}_{\nu}\right] _{pq}\hat
{a}_{p}^{\dag}\hat{a}_{q}+\sum_{p>q}\left[ \mathbf{Y}_{\nu}\right] _{pq}\hat{a}_{q}^{\dag}\hat{a}_{p} \ \ \ ,$$ with $\hat{F}=\hat{a}_r^{\dagger}\hat{a}_s^{\dagger}\hat{a}_q\hat{a}_p$ leads to the half of spin-summed expression for 2-TRDM: $$\begin{split}
\bar{\Gamma}^{\nu}_{pqrs} &= \Gamma^{\nu}_{p_{\alpha}q_{\alpha}r_{\alpha}s_{\alpha}} +
\Gamma^{\nu}_{p_{\beta}q_{\alpha}r_{\beta}s_{\alpha}} \\
& =\sum_{t<p}[\mathbf{X}_\nu]_{pt}\bar{\Gamma}_{tqrs} + \sum_{t<q}[\mathbf{X}_\nu]_{qt}\bar{\Gamma}_{ptrs} \\
& - \sum_{t>r}[\mathbf{X}_\nu]_{tr}\bar{\Gamma}_{pqts} - \sum_{t>s} [\mathbf{X}_\nu]_{ts}\bar{\Gamma}_{pqrt} \\
& + \sum_{t>p}[\mathbf{Y}_\nu]_{tp}\bar{\Gamma}_{tqrs} + \sum_{t>q} [\mathbf{Y}_\nu]_{tq}\bar{\Gamma}_{ptrs} \\
& - \sum_{t<r}[\mathbf{Y}_\nu]_{rt}\bar{\Gamma}_{pqts} - \sum_{t<s} [\mathbf{Y}_\nu]_{st}\bar{\Gamma}_{pqrt} \ \ \ , \\
\end{split}
\label{eq:2trdm}$$ where $\bar{\Gamma}_{pqrs}$ is the half of the spin-summed 2-RDM, $\Gamma_{pqrs}=\braket{\Psi|\hat{a}^{\dagger}_r\hat{a}^{\dagger}_s \hat{a}_q\hat{a}_p|\Psi}$, i.e., $\bar{\Gamma}_{pqrs} = \Gamma_{p_{\alpha}q_{\alpha}r_{\alpha}s_{\alpha}} + \Gamma_{p_{\beta}q_{\alpha}r_{\beta}s_{\alpha}}$. Analogous expression holds for the $\beta\beta\beta\beta + \alpha\beta\alpha\beta$ component of 2-TRDM. In subsequent derivations we make use of the fact that both monomers are in spin-singlet states (pertinent $\alpha$ and $\beta$ blocks of TRMDs are equal) and that both the exact 2-TRDM and its ERPA approximation, Eq.(\[eq:2trdm\]), satisfy the sum-rule $$\sum_p \Gamma^{\nu}_{pqps} = (N-1)\gamma^{\nu}_{qs} \ \ \ ,$$ where $N$ is a number of electrons.
From now on, indices $ijkl$ pertain to atomic orbitals $\left\{ \chi(\mathbf{r}) \right\}$, whereas, as it has been already indicated, indices $pqrs\ldots$ refer to natural orbitals $\left\{ \varphi(\mathbf{r}) \right\}$. The effective two-electron potential $\tilde{v}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')$ has the form: $$\tilde{v}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}') = |\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}'|^{-1 } + \frac{1}{N_B}v^B(\mathbf{r}) + \frac{1}{N_A}v^A(\mathbf{r}') \ \ \ ,$$ with $v^X(\textbf{r}) = -\sum_{\alpha \in X} Z_{\alpha}|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R}_{\alpha}|^{-1}$, where the summation runs over all nuclei of monomer $X$. Its matrix representation is $$\begin{split}
\tilde{v}_{pq}^{rs} &= \bigg \langle \varphi_p(\mathbf{r})\varphi_q(\mathbf{r}') | \tilde{v}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}') | \varphi_r(\mathbf{r})\varphi_s(\mathbf{r}') \bigg \rangle \\
&= v_{pq}^{rs} + N_B^{-1}\braket{\varphi_p|v^B|\varphi_r}\big(\delta_{qs}\delta_{X_q X_s} + S_q^s (1-\delta_{X_q X_s})\big) \\
&+ N_A^{-1}\braket{\varphi_q|v^A|\varphi_s}\big( \delta_{pr}\delta_{X_p X_r} + S_p^r(1-\delta_{X_p X_r}) \big) \ \ \ ,
\end{split}$$ where a given orbital $\varphi_p$ may belong either to monomer $X_p = A$ or $X_p = B$, $S_p^q$ is the overlap integral $S_p^q=\braket{\varphi_p|\varphi_q}$. Notice that natural orbitals belonging to the same monomer are orthonormal and $\forall_{pq\in X} \ S_p^q=\delta_{pq}$. A regular two-electron Coulomb integral is denoted as $v_{pq}^{rs}=\langle \varphi_p(\mathbf{r}_1)\varphi_q(\mathbf{r}_2) | r_{12}^{-1} | \varphi_r(\mathbf{r}_1)\varphi_s(\mathbf{r}_2) \rangle$.
The exchange-dispersion energy is size-extensive, provided that N-representable RDMs and size-extensive TRDMs are employed. Therefore, the last two disconnected terms in Eq. should cancel with contributions from the first term. Korona introduced transition density cumulants[@Korona:08b; @Korona:09] to explicitly carry out the cancellation. Since we do not exploit the cumulant expansion, the disconnected terms have to be kept.
When Eq. is rewritten in terms of transition density matrices, it is straightforward to recognize its structure within the ERPA framework. This leads to the following formula: $$\begin{split}
E^{(2)}_{\rm exch-disp} &= 8\sum_{\mu,\nu}\frac{D_{\mu\nu}s_{\mu\nu}}{\omega_\mu^A + \omega_\nu^B} \\
&- 8\left(E^{(1)}_{\rm elst} - V^{AB} \right)\sum_{\mu,\nu} \frac{s_{\mu\nu}t_{\mu\nu}}{\omega_\mu^A + \omega_\nu^B} \\
&+ 2 E^{(2)}_{\rm disp}\sum_{ijkl}\gamma^A_{ij}\gamma^B_{kl}S_i^l S_j^k \ \ \ .
\label{eq:exdmat}
\end{split}$$ where $V^{AB}$ is the internuclear repulsion energy. The last term includes 1-RDMs of monomers in the AO basis, namely ${\bf{\gamma} }^X_{AO}=[{\bf C}^X]^T {\bf n}^X {\bf C}^X$, where ${\bf C}^X$ transform atomic orbitals to the natural orbitals of the monomer $X$ and ${\bf n}^X$ is a vector of the natural occupation numbers of $X$. The electrostatic energy that appears in the second term in the AO basis reads $$\begin{split}
E^{(1)}_{\rm elst} &= 2 \sum_{ij} \gamma^A_{ij}v^B_{ij} + 2 \sum_{ij} \gamma^B_{ij}v^A_{ij} \\
&+ 4 \sum_{ijkl} \gamma^A_{ij}\gamma^B_{kl} v_{ik}^{jl} + V^{AB} \ \ \ .
\end{split}$$ The dispersion energy in ERPA takes the form: [@Jaszunski:85; @Hapka:19] $$\begin{split}
E^{(2)}_{\rm disp} &= -16 \sum_{\mu, \nu} \frac{\Big(\sum_{\substack{pq \in A \\ rs \in B}} \gamma^{A,\mu}_{pq}\gamma^{B,\nu}_{rs} v_{pr}^{qs} \Big)^2}{\omega^A_\mu + \omega^B_\nu} \\
&= -16 \sum_{\mu,\nu }\frac{s_{\mu\nu}^2}{\omega^A_\mu + \omega^B_\nu} \ \ \ ,
\end{split}$$ where $\omega^{A/B}_{\mu/\nu}$ denotes transition energies obtained as eigenvalues of the ERPA problem, Eq. (\[ERPA\]), solved separately for each monomer, 1-TRDM is obtained as shown in Eq. (\[eq:1trdm\]), and the matrix ${\bf s}$ employed also in Eq. is defined as $$\begin{split}
s_{\mu\nu} &= \sum_{\substack{p>q \in A \\ r>s \in B}}\Big([\textbf{Y}_\mu^A]_{pq}-[\textbf{X}_\mu^A]_{pq})([\textbf{Y}_\nu^B]_{rs}-[\textbf{X}_\nu^B]_{rs}\Big) \\
&\times(n_p-n_q)(n_r-n_s) v_{pr}^{qs} \ \ \ .
\end{split}$$
The remaining intermediates in Eq. read $$\begin{split}
t_{\mu\nu} &= \sum_{\substack{pq \in A \\ rs \in B}} \gamma^{A,\mu}_{pq}\gamma^{B,\nu}_{rs} S_p^s S_q^r \\
&= \sum_{\substack{p>q \in A \\ r>s \in B}}\Big( [\mathbf{X}_\mu^A]_{pq}[\mathbf{X}_\nu^B]_{rs} + [\mathbf{Y}_\mu^A]_{pq}[\mathbf{Y}_\nu^B]_{rs} \Big) \\ &\times (n_p-n_q)(n_r-n_s) S_p^s S_q^r \\
&- \sum_{\substack{p>q \in A \\ r>s \in B}} \Big( [\mathbf{Y}_\mu^A]_{pq}[\mathbf{X}_\nu^B]_{rs} + [\mathbf{X}_\mu^A]_{pq}[\mathbf{Y}_\nu^B]_{rs} \Big) \\ &\times (n_p-n_q)(n_r-n_s) S_p^r S_q^s \\
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
D_{\mu\nu} &= \sum_{\substack{pq \in A \\ rs \in B }} \gamma^{A,\mu}_{pq}\gamma^{B,\nu}_{rs} \tilde{v}_{qp}^{rs}
+ \sum_{\substack{pq \in A \\ rsbb' \in B}} \gamma^{A,\mu}_{pq}\bar{\Gamma}^{B,\nu}_{rsbb'} S_p^{b'} \tilde{v}_{qb}^{sr} \\
&+ \sum_{\substack{ pqaa' \in A \\ rs \in B }} \gamma^{B,\nu}_{rs}\bar{\Gamma}^{A,\mu}_{pqaa'} S_{a'}^r \tilde{v}_{pq}^{as} \\
&+\sum_{\substack{pqaa' \in A \\ rsbb' \in B}} \bar{\Gamma}^{A,\mu}_{pqaa'}\bar{\Gamma}^{B,\nu}_{rsbb'} S_q^{b'} S_{a'}^s \tilde{v}_{pr}^{ab} \ \ \ . \\
\end{split}$$
Expansion of 1- and 2-TRDMs according to Eq. and Eq. , respectively, unfolds the structure of the $D_{\mu\nu}$ matrix: $$\begin{split}
D_{\mu\nu} &= \sum_{\substack{p>q \in A \\ r>s \in B}} [\mathbf{X}^A_\mu]_{pq}[\mathbf{X}^B_\nu]_{rs}
\Big[
(n_p-n_q)(n_r-n_s) \tilde{v}_{qp}^{rs} \\
& +(n_r-n_s) P^A_{pqrs}
+(n_p-n_q) P^B_{pqrs}
-P^{AB}_{pqrs}
\Big] \\
& + \sum_{\substack{p>q \in A \\ r>s \in B}} [\mathbf{Y}^A_\mu]_{pq}[\mathbf{Y}^B_\nu]_{rs}
\Big[
(n_p-n_q)(n_r-n_s) \tilde{v}_{pq}^{sr} \\
& -(n_r-n_s) P^A_{qpsr}
-(n_p-n_q) P^B_{qpsr}
-P^{AB}_{pqrs}
\Big] \\
& + \sum_{\substack{p>q \in A \\ r>s \in B}} [\mathbf{X}^A_\mu]_{pq}[\mathbf{Y}^B_\nu]_{rs}
\Big[
-(n_p-n_q)(n_r-n_s) \tilde{v}_{qp}^{sr} \\
& -(n_r-n_s) P^A_{pqsr}
+(n_p-n_q) P^B_{pqsr}
- P^{AB}_{pqsr}
\Big] \\
& + \sum_{\substack{p>q \in A \\ r>s \in B}} [\mathbf{Y}^A_\mu]_{pq}[\mathbf{X}^B_\nu]_{rs}
\Big[
-(n_p-n_q)(n_r-n_s) \tilde{v}_{pq}^{rs} \\
& +(n_r-n_s) P^A_{qprs}
-(n_p-n_q) P^B_{qprs}
- P^{AB}_{pqsr}
\Big] \\
\label{eq:Dmat}
\end{split}$$ where we have introduced $P^X$ matrices defined as $$\begin{split}
P^A_{pqrs} &= \sum_{aa' \in A} \big(
N^A_{aa'pr} \tilde{v}_{qa'}^{as}
- N^A_{qa'ar} \tilde{v}_{pa'}^{as}
- N^A_{aqa'r} \tilde{v}_{a'p}^{as}\big) \\
& + O^A_{ps} S_q^r \\
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
P^B_{pqrs} &= \sum_{bb' \in B} \big(
N^B_{bb'rp} \tilde{v}_{qb}^{b's}
- N^B_{sb'bp} \tilde{v}_{qb}^{b'r}
- N^B_{bsb'p} \tilde{v}_{qb}^{rb'}\big) \\
&+ O^B_{rq} S_p^s \\
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
P^{AB}_{pqrs} &= \sum_{\substack{a \in A\\b \in B}} \Big(
T_{aqbs} \tilde{v}_{pr}^{ab} + T_{aqrb} \tilde{v}_{pb}^{as} \\
& + T_{pabs} \tilde{v}_{ar}^{qb} + T_{parb} \tilde{v}_{ab}^{qs} \\
& + U^A_{aqbs} V^B_{parb} + U^A_{aqrb} V^B_{pabs} \\
& + U^A_{pabs} V^B_{aqrb} + U^A_{parb} V^B_{aqbs} \\
& + V^A_{aqbs} U^B_{parb} + V^A_{aqrb} U^B_{pabs} \\
& + V^A_{pabs} U^B_{aqrb} + ^A_{parb} U^B_{aqbs} \\
& + W_{aqbs}S_p^bS_a^r + W_{aqrb}S_p^sS_a^b \\
& + W_{pabs}S_a^bS_q^r + W_{parb}S_a^sS_q^b \Big)
\end{split}
\label{eq:pab}$$ with the following intermediates $$N^A_{tuvw} = \sum_{a \in A} \bar{\Gamma}^A_{tuva} S_a^w, \quad
N^B_{tuvw} = \sum_{b \in B} \bar{\Gamma}^B_{tuvb} S_w^b$$ $$O^A_{tu} = \sum_{aa'a'' \in A} \bar{\Gamma}^A_{taa'a''} \tilde{v}_{aa'}^{a''u}, \quad
O^B_{tu} = \sum_{bb'b'' \in B} \bar{\Gamma}^B_{tbb'b''} \tilde{v}_{ub''}^{b'b}$$ $$U^A_{tuvw} = \sum_{aa' \in A} \bar{\Gamma}^A_{taua'}S_{a}^v S_{a'}^w, \,
U^B_{tuvw} = \sum_{bb' \in B} \bar{\Gamma}^B_{bvb'w} S_t^{b} S_u^{b'}$$ $$V^A_{tuvw} = \sum_{aa' \in A} \bar{\Gamma}^A_{taua'}\tilde{v}_{av}^{a'w}, \quad
V^B_{tuvw} = \sum_{bb' \in B} \bar{\Gamma}^B_{bvb'w} \tilde{v}_{tb}^{ub'}$$ $$\begin{split}
T_{tuvw} &= \sum_{\substack{aa' \in A \\ bb' \in B }} \bar{\Gamma}^A_{taua'}\bar{\Gamma}^B_{bvb'w} S_{a'}^{b} S_{a}^{b'} \\
&= \sum_{bb' \in B} \bigg(\sum_{aa' \in A} \bar{\Gamma}^A_{taua'} S_{a}^{b'} S_{a'}^{b}\bigg)\bar{\Gamma}^B_{bvb'w} \\
&=\sum_{bb' \in B }U^A_{tub'b}\bar{\Gamma}^B_{bvb'w}
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
W_{tuvw} &= \sum_{\substack{aa' \in A \\ bb' \in B }} \bar{\Gamma}^A_{taua'}\bar{\Gamma}^B_{bvb'w} \tilde{v}_{ab}^{a'b'} \\
&= \sum_{bb' \in B} \bigg(\sum_{aa' \in A} \bar{\Gamma}^A_{taua'}\tilde{v}_{ab}^{a'b'}\bigg)\bar{\Gamma}^B_{bvb'w} \\
&=\sum_{bb' \in B}V^A_{tubb'}\bar{\Gamma}^B_{bvb'w}
\label{eq:intW}
\end{split}$$ (indices in all intermediates correspond to natural orbitals of the pertinent monomers).
The expression for the exchange-dispersion energy, Eq.(\[eq:exdmat\]), has been proposed primarily to use it together with the multireference description of monomers. Naturally, it is also applicable when both monomers are described with single determinants. As it has already been mentioned, in such a case the ERPA equations become equivalent to the TD-HF approach, so the resulting density-matrix-based expression[@Moszynski:94] for the exchange-dispersion energy could be called “coupled” HF. It should be noticed that it would not be identical to the “coupled” HF equation proposed by Hesselmann *et al*. in Eq.(20) in Ref. [ ]{}. The latter was obtained by replacing the uncoupled amplitudes in the expression derived by applying second quantization formalism[@Moszynski:94b] with the coupled ones. Later, this approach gained theoretical justification from Korona, [@Korona:09] who derived a generally valid formula written in terms of density matrices and frequency-dependent density- and density-matrix susceptibilities, and recovered results of Hesselmann *et al*. by employing the same coupled HF amplitudes. Our expression could in principle also be turned into the coupled approach proposed by Hesselmann *et al*. (implemented in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Molpro</span>[@Molpro:12]) by setting the $\mathbf{X}$ components of the ERPA eigenvectors to zero and replacing the $\mathbf{Y}$ components in Eq. - by the pertinent $\mathbf{Y}-\mathbf{X}$ combinations. This is equivalent to the use of symmetrized 1-TRDMs from TD-HF or TD-KS equations (see Supplementary Information for details). We have exploited such replacements to test our code against the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Molpro</span> implementation for single reference cases. We have also verified that for the Hartree-Fock reference our approach and the one presented in Ref. [ ]{} lead to nearly identical numerical results (see Table S1 in the Supporting Information), if applied to systems which do not require multireference description. However, if used for multireference systems, the two formulations may give substantially different results, as we observed for the beryllium dimer (see Section \[sec:res:model\]). In such a situation there is no reason to trust more one result over the other.
Evaluation of Eq. scales with the sixth power of the molecular size. The construction of matrices $\mathbf{P}^A$, $\mathbf{P}^B$ and $\mathbf{P}^{AB}$ \[Eq. -\] engages two four-index quantities (2-RDMs, integrals or intermediates) and has the $n_{\rm OCC}^4 n_{\rm SEC}^2$ cost, where $n_{\rm OCC} = M_{s_1} + M_{s_2}$ and $n_{\rm SEC} = M_{s_2} + M_{s_3}$. The evaluation of matrix $\mathbf{D}$ in Eq. scales as $n_{\rm OCC}^3 n_{\rm SEC}^3$. Note that the diagonalization of the full ERPA eigenproblem also scales as $n_{\rm OCC}^3 n_{\rm SEC}^3$. By comparison, the single-reference density-matrix-based expression scales with the fifth power of the system size and involves steps with a $M_{s_1}^3 M_{s_3}^2$ scaling (the $s_2$ space is empty).
It is possible to devise low-scaling approximations to the exchange-dispersion energy formula by employing the Dyall partitioning of the monomer Hamiltonian[@Dyall:95; @Rosta:02] in ERPA equations. The response properties may be subsequently expanded in the coupling parameter $\alpha$ which connects the zeroth-order, noninteracting Hamiltonian and the fully interacting one. [@Hapka:19] Truncation of this expansion at the zeroth order leads the so-called uncoupled approximation, denoted $E^{\rm UC}_{\rm exch-disp}$. The uncoupled formula is identical to the coupled one with ERPA eigenvectors and eigenvalues replaced by their approximations of the zeroth-order in $\alpha$ \[this is analogous to the uncoupled formula for dispersion, see Eq. (26) in Ref. [ ]{}\]. The improved scaling behavior in the uncoupled model comes from reduction in the dimensionality of the ERPA eigenproblem. In particular, the electronic hessian matrices take a block-diagonal form in the $\alpha=0$ limit, provided that the set of active orbitals is not empty. [@Pastorczak:18a] Thus, one avoids diagonalization of the full hessian matrix which scales with the sixth power of the molecular size. Instead, if CAS wavefunction is employed one solves only a number of low-dimensional eigenproblems, the largest of which is the active-active block with a $M_{s_2}^6$ scaling. This is still beneficial, since in standard CAS calculations the number of active orbitals is considerably smaller than the size of the virtual space. In GVB-based calculations the zeroth-order hessian matrix takes diagonal form which reduces the scaling to $M_{s_2}^5$.
Similarly to what has been proposed for the dispersion energy in Ref. [ ]{} a semi-coupled, i.e., first-order in $\alpha$, approximation for the exchange-dispersion energy could be derived in a straightforward manner. The scaling of the latter would place in between of the fully-coupled and uncoupled approaches. In this paper we present only results following from the fully-coupled and uncoupled expressions.
Computational details \[sec:compdet\]
=====================================
Second-order exchange-dispersion energies based on the HF, CASSCF, GVB and FCI treatment of the monomers were obtained with the in-house code. We used a developer version of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Molpro</span> program[@Molpro:12] as a source of all necessary integrals as well as 1- and 2-RDMs for Hartree-Fock and CASSCF wave functions. The GVB calculations were performed in the Dalton program[@Dalton:13] and interfaced with our code. Both GVB and CASSCF calculations presented in Section \[sec:sref\] used MP2 natural orbitals as the starting guess. For details on the GVB implementation see Ref. [ ]{}.
Second-order dispersion and exchange-dispersion energies based on time-independent CCSD[@Korona:06] response functions, denoted SAPT(CCSD), [@Korona:08; @Korona:09] were calculated in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Molpro</span>[@Molpro:12] package. Note that all exchange components in SAPT(CCSD) are formulated within the $S^2$ approximation.
All calculations were performed using augmented correlation-consistent orbital basis sets of double- and triple-zeta quality (aug-cc-pV$X$Z, $X=$ D,T). [@Dunning:89; @Kendall:92] A larger, doubly-augmented d-aug-cc-pVTZ basis[@Woon:94] was chosen for the $\cdots$ complex. Monomer calculations were performed in the dimer-centered basis set.
The benchmark second-order exchange-dispersion energies at the FCI level of theory for the $\cdots$ and $\cdots$ systems were obtained from a direct implementation of the FCI exchange-dispersion energy based on transition density matrices from full response equations (see Supporting Information for details). The results have been tested against a different, house-developed code specific for interactions between two two-electron monomers in singlet states. In this case solutions corresponding to the considered physical singlet state of the dimer may be accessed by projection onto the appropriate irreducible representation of the symmetric S$_4$ group (represented by the Young tableau \[2$^2$\]). [@Korona:97]
Apart from calculations for model few-electron system, we verified the accuracy of the ERPA-based exchange-dispersion energies for many-electron dimers from the data set introduced by Korona[@Korona:13] (denoted TK21) and dimers from the A24 data set[@Rezac:13] by Řezáč and Hobza. The same qualitative trends were observed for both sets. In Section \[sec:sref\] we present TK21 results in the aug-cc-pVDZ basis set for which benchmark SAPT(CCSD) values are available. [@Korona:13] The aug-cc-pVTZ results for both TK21 and A24 data sets are provided in the Supporting Information.
When the reference $E_{\rm exch-disp,ref}$ energy is known, relative percent errors are obtained with the formula $$\Delta = \frac{ \, E_{\rm exch-disp}-E_{\rm exch-disp,ref}}{|E_{{\rm exch-disp,ref}}|} \cdot 100\% \ \ \ .
\label{eq:delta}$$ The negative and positive values of $\Delta$ correspond to under- and overestimation of the magnitude of the reference exchange-dispersion energy.
Results \[sec:res\]
===================
Multireference model systems: H$_2$$\cdots$H$_2$, Be$\cdots$Be and He$\cdots$H$_2$ \[sec:res:model\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we examine the accuracy of the ERPA-based exchange-dispersion energy in three model systems of a multireference character: $\cdots$, Be$\cdots$Be and He$\cdots$(1 $^1\Sigma_g^+$, 1 $^1\Sigma_u^+$, 1 $^1\Pi_u$) dimers. In each of the monomers (He, and Be) two electrons were kept active.
We begin with the analysis of the $\cdots$ system. The dimer is kept in the T-shaped geometry and the multireference character is increased by elongation of the covalent bond in one of the interacting monomers (see Figure \[fig:1\] and Ref. [ ]{} for details). Accurate description of the interaction energy along the dissociation coordinate has been shown to pose enormous challenge not only for single-reference methods but also methods providing multireference description of monomers [@Hapka:19; @Brzek:19]. Interaction between two hydrogen molecules, one of them undergoing dissociation, emerges from interplay of the long-range dynamic and nondynamic correlation effects. Thus, it is a perfect model system for our approach. In Figure \[fig:1\] we compare results obtained with single-reference (Hartree-Fock and CCSD) and multireference (CAS and GVB) wave functions in the aug-cc-pVTZ basis set.
The exchange-dispersion energy calculated at the Hartree-Fock level of theory is overestimated by approximately $16\%$ already in the vicinity of the minimum ($R_{\rm H-H} = 1.44~a_0$) compared to the FCI benchmark. As expected, the error rises rapidly when the H-H bond is stretched. Somewhat surprisingly, SAPT(CCSD) also overestimates by as much as $7\%$ near the equilibrium distance. Error of this magnitude in the minimum region, together with the qualitatively wrong behavior observed in the $R_{\rm H-H} > 4.5~a_0$ regime, should be attributed to two factors: the neglect of the cumulant part in the exchange-dispersion expression, as well as approximations in the time-independent CCSD propagators (in our calculations the CCSD(3)[@Korona:06] model was applied).
In contrast to the single-reference case, the multireference description of the monomers within the ERPA framework provides a quantitative agreement with the FCI benchmark. With the GVB ansatz the relative percent errors do not exceed $-4.0\%$ for the entire curve, which corresponds to slight underestimation of the exchange-dispersion energy. The choice of the CAS(2,5) wave function for each hydrogen molecule (notice that choosing only two active orbitals in CAS, i.e. the (2,2) active space, would make CAS wave function identical to that of GVB) reduces the error to below $1.5\%$. This level of accuracy matches the one reported for the dispersion component. [@Hapka:19]
{width="\textwidth"}
In Table \[tab:be\] we present dispersion and exchange-dispersion energies obtained for the beryllium dimer near the equilibrium geometry ($4.7~a_0$). Our results show that the essential part of both energy components is captured already by the CAS(2,5) wave function for each Be atom. Extension of the active space to 14 orbitals brings only a minor change of ca. $0.5\%$. As discussed in Ref [ ]{}, the dispersion interaction in the beryllium dimer obtained at the ERPA-CAS level of theory remains in excellent agreement with the SAPT(CCSD) result. This no longer holds for exchange-dispersion: while the SAPT(CCSD) value is 3.327 m$E_{\rm h}$, our result based on the CAS(2,14) reference amounts to 2.651 m$E_{\rm h}$.
The single-reference-based SAPT(CCSD) value cannot be considered a benchmark for the beryllium dimer. Taking into account that the ERPA approximation yields accurate one-electron response function for beryllium, [@Pernal:12] we expect that multireference ERPA-CAS calculations provide a more reliable estimate of the exchange-dispersion energy in this system. The remaining source of error in our approach is the quality of the ERPA-based two-electron transition density matrices. Since each Be atom is effectively treated as a two-electron system (core electrons are kept frozen), we expect that 2-TRDMs are described with satisfactory accuracy, similar to the $\cdots$ case.
In Table \[tab:be\] we also report the dispersion and exchange-dispersion energy values for beryllium dimer in the uncoupled approximation. Unfortunately, this approximation leads to significant errors underestimating the dispersion contributions by $-21\%$ and exchange-dispersion by $-34\%$ with respect to coupled results.
With the HF description of the monomers, for the exchange-dispersion energy one obtains the value as high as 4.671 m$E_{\rm h}$ thus deviating largely from both CAS and SAPT(CCSD) values. The observed discrepancy reflects the influence of static correlation effects, which cannot be correctly accounted for in single-reference calculations. It should finally be noted that the HF exchange-dispersion energy following from the formula proposed by Hesselmann *et al.*[@Hesselmann:05] and implemented in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Molpro</span> package[@Molpro:12] amounts to 2.237 m$E_{\rm h}$ which accidentally remains in better agreement with the ERPA-based result.
[l S S p[2mm]{} S S]{} & & && &\
CAS(2,5) & -18.52 & -12.64 && 2.636 & 1.789\
CAS(2,14) & -18.61 & -14.77 && 2.651 & 1.745\
HF & -20.14 & -18.30 && 4.671 & 1.626\
SAPT(CCSD) & -18.86 & && 3.327 &\
\[tab:be\]
The proposed formalism is valid not only for ground states, but also when one or both monomers are in excited states, on condition that a zeroth-order wavefunction of a dimer is not degenerate. To investigate the performance of the ERPA-based approximation to the exchange-dispersion energy for excited states, we examine the $\cdots$($X$) complex, where $X$ denotes either the ground state ($^1\Sigma_g^+$) or one of the two lowest singlet excited states ($^1\Sigma_u^+$ and $^1\Pi_u$) of the hydrogen molecule. The dimer is kept in the T-shaped configuration in which we vary the distance between He and the center of mass of . The helium atom was described with a CAS(2,2) reference, whereas for the molecule a CAS(2,8) wavefunction was used. In the case of the $\cdots$($^1\Pi_u$) dimer we report results for the $A''$ state, which corresponds to perpendicular orientation of the $\pi$ orbital of with respect to the plane of the complex. The bond lengths assumed for the hydrogen molecule correspond to the equilibrium values for the investigated states and they read 1.401$\,a_0$, 2.443$\,a_0$, and 1.951$\,a_0$, for $^1\Sigma_g^+$, $^1\Sigma_u^+$, and $^1\Pi_u$ states, respectively. Figure \[fig:2\] presents the results for the exchange-dispersion energy computed either exactly (“FCI” curves), i.e., by describing monomers with FCI wave functions and employing the expression shown in Eq. , or approximately (“CAS” curves), which consists of using CASSCF for monomers combined with the proposed ERPA-based approximation for the exchange-dispersion energy, Eqs. -. In addition, we present FCI results in the $S^2$ approximation (“FCI($S^2$)” curves, see also Supporting Information for details).
First, let us compare the FCI and FCI($S^2$) results. In general, the single-exchange approximation is expected to fail at distances shorter than the van der Waals minimum. [@Schaffer:12; @Schaffer:13] As could be inferred from Figure \[fig:2\], the breakdown of the $S^2$ approximation is more rapid for both excited $\cdots$($^1\Sigma_u^+$, $^1\Pi_u$) states of the complex than for the ground $\cdots$($^1\Sigma_g^+$) state. This is not surprising—the minimum in the ground-state occurs at $6.4\,a_0$, whereas in excited states the interaction is considerably stronger and the minima shift to ca. $3.7\,a_0$ and $3.2\,a_0$ for the $^1\Sigma_u^+$ and $^1\Pi_u$ and states, respectively.
Next, we assess the performance of the ERPA-based approach. For the single-reference dominated $\cdots$($^1\Sigma_g^+$) state ERPA combined with CAS remains in good agreement with the FCI benchmark (Figure \[fig:2\]), with relative percent errors remaining in the $3-6\%$ range for the entire curve. In contrast, for both excited states of the dimer our method fails qualitatively. The discrepancy with respect to the benchmark result is huge not only around van der Waals minima, but also at larger distances which shows that the single-exchange approximation is not the main source of error in this case.
We have verified that the erroneous behavior observed for excited states of can be traced to the fact that ERPA does not recover double excitations in the orbital active space. [@Pernal:12; @Pernal:18] For these excitations can only be described if the diagonal elements of the response eigenvectors[@Giesbertz:12] are retained (see Supporting Information for details). Notice that in the approximations assumed to obtain the exchange-dispersion energy we only recover off-diagonal elements of the transition density matrices, cf. Eq.(\[eq:1trdm\]). Consequently, the response function and response properties in dispersion components of the interaction energy are impaired, since double excitations are thrown out.
To illustrate the influence of double excitations on the quality of exchange-dispersion in this system, we discard them in the FCI linear response, meaning in practice that we neglect the diagonal elements of the 1-TRDM’s. The resulting exchange-dispersion energy is plotted in the S$^2$ approximation in Figure \[fig:2\] (“mFCI(S$^2$)” curves). For dimers in excited states the mFCI(S$^2$) curves are dramatically different compared to the FCI(S$^2$) ones and they resemble ERPA-based CAS results. The lack of double excitations in ERPA has much lesser effect on the $E^{(2)}_{\rm disp}$ component—errors with respect to FCI remain in the $8-30$% range for the He$\cdots$($^1\Sigma_u^+$) state of the dimer, and in the $7-12$% range for the He$\cdots$($^1\Pi_u$) state (see Figure S1 and Table S2 in the Supporting Information). Taking into account that $E^{(2)}_{\rm exch-disp}$ is small in comparison to $E^{(2)}_{\rm disp}$, and also the fact that the overall contribution from double excitations is expected to be less pronounced for many-electron systems than for the hydrogen molecule, [@Pernal:14b] one can still expect that the proposed ERPA-based approximations will prove useful when applied to dispersion interactions in excited systems.
{width="\textwidth"}
Single-reference systems \[sec:sref\]
-------------------------------------
In order to verify the accuracy of the exchange-dispersion energies based on the ERPA response for many electron monomers, we analyze dimers from the TK21 data set. [@Korona:13] All of them are single-reference systems, i.e., the pertinent multiconfiguration wave functions are dominated by a single determinant. Our results based on GVB and CASSCF description of the monomers are compared with the SAPT(CCSD) benchmark.
[l p[3mm]{} S S S p[4mm]{} S S S]{} && &&\
&& HF & GVB & CAS && HF & GVB & CAS\
$\overline{\Delta}$ && -12.67 & -18.66 & -12.02 && -16.49 & -35.73 & -43.19\
$\sigma$ && 14.48 & 10.22 & 7.29 && 16.54 & 12.87 & 23.65\
$\overline{\Delta}_{\rm abs}$ && 17.68 & 18.66 & 12.22 && 21.78 & 35.73 & 43.19\
$\Delta_{\rm max}$ && 27.42 & 38.24 & 25.64 && 33.33 & 61.56 & 87.93\
\[tab:tk21\]
The relative percent error $\Delta$ for each system is calculated according to Eq. . In Table \[tab:tk21\] we show the error statistics for the TK21 data set using mean error $\overline{\Delta}$, the standard deviation $\sigma$, the mean absolute error $\overline{\Delta}_{\rm abs}$, and the maximum absolute error $\Delta_{\rm max}$ as error measures. The errors are also presented in terms of box plots in Figure \[fig:tk21\]. In both Table \[tab:tk21\] and Figure \[fig:tk21\] the Hartree-Fock data are given for comparison.
{width="\textwidth"}
As it is known, CASSCF wavefunctions are constructed from a small number of active orbitals only to capture major static correlation effects but they lack dynamic correlation. The lack of intramonomer dynamic correlation in all of the analyzed methods results in substantial underestimation of the exchange-dispersion energy with absolute errors exceeding $12\%$ (Table \[tab:tk21\]). Treatment of the monomers at the CASSCF level ($\overline{\Delta} = -12.0\%$, $\overline{\Delta}_{\rm abs} =12.2\%$) offers a modest improvement over the Hartree-Fock wavefunction ($\overline{\Delta} = -12.7\%$, $\overline{\Delta}_{\rm abs} = 17.7\%$). Worth noting, however, is a nearly twofold reduction in the standard deviation: from $\sigma = 14.5\%$ in HF to $\sigma = 7.3\%$ in CASSCF. GVB is inferior to both CAS- and HF-based variants in terms of mean errors ($\overline{\Delta} = -\overline{\Delta}_{\rm abs} = -18.7\%$), although the spread of errors ($\sigma = 10.2\%$) is smaller than in the Hartree-Fock case.
As evident from both Table \[tab:tk21\] and Figure \[fig:tk21\], the uncoupled approximation to the exchange-dispersion energy leads to prohibitively large errors in the ERPA-based approaches. This remains in agreement with our previous results for the dispersion components. [@Hapka:19] A particularly poor performance with errors above $80\%$ is observed for the - and - dimers (also for methane-containing complexes in the A24 data set, see Table S7). In contrast, at the HF level of theory the quality of the uncoupled exchange-dispersion energy is only slightly worse than in the coupled formulation.
Finally, we observe that the errors in exchange-dispersion energies reported in Table \[tab:tk21\] and Figure \[fig:tk21\] are overall higher than those of the second-order dispersion energy presented in Ref. [ ]{}. For instance, the mean absolute error for the TK21 data set in dispersion calculated using CASSCF description of monomers amounts to $7.0\%$ (cf. Table S5 in Ref. [ ]{}) compared to $12.2\%$ error in exchange-dispersion (Table \[tab:tk21\]). Fortunately, it is expected that some cancellation of error will occur, since exchange-dispersion dampens only ca. $5-15\%$ of the dispersion energy in the van der Waals minimum, the components are of the opposite signs, and both of them are underestimated with respect to the CCSD benchmark. In the aforementioned case the error of the total $E^{(2)}_{\rm DISP} = E^{(2)}_{\rm disp} + E^{(2)}_{\rm exch-disp}$ term amounts to $5.9\%$ (see Table S8 in the Supplementary Information).
The accuracy of second-order dispersion energy components may suffer from both the lack of intramonomer dynamic correlation in monomer wave functions as well as from approximate treatment of one-electron TRDMs. Compared to the dispersion contribution, the exchange-dispersion energy expression requires access to two-electron TRDMs, which in our method are described within the REOM-ERPA formalism. This additional approximation is the most likely cause of larger errors for the exchange-dispersion energies than for the dispersion ones.
Conclusions \[sec:concl\]
=========================
We have presented a general formulation of the second-order exchange-dispersion SAPT energy in the single-exchange approximation applicable to dimers, in which at least one of the interacting monomers requires a description by a multireference wave function. The derived formula is based on employing the Rowe’s equation of motion formalism in the extended random phase approximation to obtain one- and two-electron response properties. The final formula defined by Eq. - requires access to only 1- and 2-TRDMs of the monomers. It is valid for both ground and nondegenerate excited states of the monomers in spin singlet states. The proposed approach was applied in combination with either CASSCF or GVB treatment of the interacting systems. This work complements our recent study[@Hapka:19] on the ERPA-based variant of the second-order dispersion energy.
We have analyzed the accuracy of our multireference approach for several model, few-electron systems. For the $\cdots$ dimer, in which static correlation effects are introduced by stretching one of the H-H bonds, the ERPA-based exchange-dispersion energy remains in excellent agreement with the FCI benchmark. As expected, results from single-reference SAPT variants deviate from the FCI reference in the strongly-correlated regime. In a similar way, for the challenging case of the beryllium dimer[@Patkowski:07] our approach based on CAS(2,14) wave functions gives exchange-dispersion energy which is substantially different from both the HF-SAPT and SAPT(CCSD) values.
Results for the lowest excited states of the $\cdots$ dimer (excitation localized on the hydrogen molecule) demonstrate that the exchange-dispersion energy based on REOM-ERPA approximation may be qualitatively wrong due to the lack of double diagonal excitations. Nevertheless, the total dispersion interaction, i.e. the sum of the second-order dispersion and exchange-dispersion components, remains qualitatively correct, as the dominating polarization $E^{(2)}_{\rm disp}$ contribution is much less affected by the missing excitations.
Excellent quality of exchange-dispersion energies obtained with our approach for ground-state, few-electron dimers illustrates that it is possible to recover intramonomer correlation effects in these molecules using either GVB reference or CAS wave functions with small active spaces. However, for many-electron systems a substantial amount of intramonomer correlation is missing even if the monomers are described at the CAS($n,n$) ($n$ active electrons on $n$ active orbitals) level of theory. This results in sizeable errors in exchange-dispersion energies. For dimers of the TK21 and A24 data sets, which do not include strongly correlated electrons, ERPA combined with CASSCF affords exchange-dispersion energies only slightly more accurate than the Hartree-Fock-based SAPT. The GVB-based results are slightly inferior to both CASSCF and Hartree-Fock. Similar behavior was observed for the $E^{(2)}_{\rm disp}$ energy in our previous work. [@Hapka:19] It should be emphasized, that the true target of the ERPA-based SAPT variant, are many-electron systems of a multirefence character for which neither Hartree-Fock nor other single-reference SAPT formulations are reliable.
Evaluation of the density-matrix-based exchange-dispersion formula in the ERPA approximation scales with the sixth power in terms of the orbital basis size. The overall cost of the calculation is dominated by steps scaling as $n_{\rm OCC}^3 n_{\rm SEC}^3$. The computational burden may be significantly reduced by invoking the uncoupled approximation which circumvents diagonalization of the full ERPA eigenproblem. Unfortunately, results for model systems investigated both in this and in our previous work indicate that the uncoupled approximation should be avoided in the EPRA-based SAPT formulation, as it leads to prohibitevely large errors. Thus, further development of the proposed scheme aiming at computation cost reduction should employ density fitting or development of the local variant.
The authors would like to thank Grzegorz Cha[ł]{}asi[ń]{}ski for helpful discussions and commenting on the manuscript.
K. P. and M. H. were supported by the National Science Centre of Poland under Grant No. 2016/23/B/ST4/02848.
@ifundefined
[63]{}
Stone, A. *The theory of intermolecular forces*; Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997 Gordon, M. S.; Fedorov, D. G.; Pruitt, S. R.; Slipchenko, L. V. Fragmentation Methods: A Route to Accurate Calculations on Large Systems. *Chem. Rev.* **2012**, *112*, 632–672 Jeziorski, B.; Moszynski, R.; Szalewicz, K. Perturbation theory approach to intermolecular potential energy surfaces of van der Waals complexes. *Chem. Rev.* **1994**, *94*, 1887–1930 Szalewicz, K.; Patkowski, K.; Jeziorski, B. In *Intermolecular Forces and Clusters II*; Wales, D. J., Ed.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005; pp 43–117 Hohenstein, E. G.; Sherrill, C. D. Wavefunction methods for noncovalent interactions. *Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci.* **2012**, *2*, 304–326 Szalewicz, K. Symmetry-adapted perturbation theory of intermolecular forces. *Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci.* **2012**, *2*, 254–272 Jansen, G. Symmetry-adapted perturbation theory based on density functional theory for noncovalent interactions. *Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci.* **2014**, *4*, 127–144 Grimme, S.; Hansen, A.; Brandenburg, J. G.; Bannwarth, C. Dispersion-Corrected Mean-Field Electronic Structure Methods. *Chem. Rev.* **2016**, *116*, 5105–5154 Hermann, J.; DiStasio, R. A.; Tkatchenko, A. First-Principles Models for van der Waals Interactions in Molecules and Materials: Concepts, Theory, and Applications. *Chem. Rev.* **2017**, *117*, 4714–4758 Shahbaz, M.; Szalewicz, K. Dispersion Energy from Local Polarizability Density. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2019**, *122*, 213001 Podeszwa, R.; Szalewicz, K. Three-body symmetry-adapted perturbation theory based on Kohn-Sham description of the monomers. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2007**, *126*, 194101 Deible, M. J.; Tuguldur, O.; Jordan, K. D. Theoretical Study of the Binding Energy of a Methane Molecule in a (H$_2$O)$_{20}$ Dodecahedral Cage. *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2014**, *118*, 8257–8263 Hapka, M.; Rajchel, [Ł]{}.; Modrzejewski, M.; Sch[ä]{}ffer, R.; Cha[ł]{}asi[ń]{}ski, G.; Szcz[ś]{}niak, M. M. The nature of three-body interactions in DFT: Exchange and polarization effects. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2017**, *147*, 084106 Lotrich, V. F.; Szalewicz, K. Three-Body Contribution to Binding Energy of Solid Argon and Analysis of Crystal Structure. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **1997**, *79*, 1301–1304 Cha[ł]{}asi[ń]{}ski, G.; Jeziorski, B. *Int. J. Quant. Chem.* **1973**, *7*, 63–73 Chipman, D. M.; Hirschfelder, J. O. Perturbation theories for the calculation of molecular interaction energies. II. Application to H$_2^+$. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1973**, *59*, 2838–2857 Cha[ł]{}asi[ń]{}ski, G.; Jeziorski, B. On the exchange polarization effects in the interaction of two helium atoms. *Mol. Phys.* **1976**, *32*, 81–91 Cha[ł]{}asi[ń]{}ski, G.; Jeziorski, B. Exchange polarization effects in the interaction of closed-shell systems. *Theor. Chem. Acc.* **1977**, *46*, 277–290 Rybak, S.; Jeziorski, B.; Szalewicz, K. Many-body symmetry-adapted perturbation theory of intermolecular interactions. H$_2$O and HF dimers. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1991**, *95*, 6576–6601 Murrell, J. N.; Randi[ć]{}, M.; Williams, D. The theory of intermolecular forces in the region of small orbital overlap. *Proc. Roy. Soc. A.* **1965**, *284*, 566–581 Hesselmann, A.; Jansen, G.; Sch[ü]{}tz, M. Density-functional theory-symmetry-adapted intermolecular perturbation theory with density fitting: A new efficient method to study intermolecular interaction energies. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2005**, *122*, 014103 Misquitta, A. J.; Podeszwa, R.; Jeziorski, B.; Szalewicz, K. Intermolecular potentials based on symmetry-adapted perturbation theory with dispersion energies from time-dependent density-functional calculations. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2005**, *123*, 214103 Jansen, G.; Hesselmann, A. Comment on “Using Kohn-Sham Orbitals in Symmetry-Adapted Perturbation Theory To Investigate Intermolecular Interactions”. *J. Phys. Chem. A* **2001**, *105*, 11156–11157 Korona, T. Exchange-Dispersion Energy: A Formulation in Terms of Monomer Properties and Coupled Cluster Treatment of Intramonomer Correlation. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **2009**, *5*, 2663–2678 Korona, T. A coupled cluster treatment of intramonomer electron correlation within symmetry-adapted perturbation theory: benchmark calculations and a comparison with a density-functional theory description. *Mol. Phys.* **2013**, *111*, 3705–3715uchowski, P. S.; Podeszwa, R.; Moszynski, R.; Jeziorski, B.; Szalewicz, K. Symmetry-adapted perturbation theory utilizing density functional description of monomers for high-spin open-shell complexes. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2008**, *129*, 084101 Hapka, M.; [Ż]{}uchowski, P. S.; Szcz[ś]{}niak, M. M.; Cha[ł]{}asi[ń]{}ski, G. Symmetry-adapted perturbation theory based on unrestricted Kohn-Sham orbitals for high-spin open-shell van der Waals complexes. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2012**, *137*, 164104 Gonthier, J. F.; Sherrill, C. D. Density-fitted open-shell symmetry-adapted perturbation theory and application to $\pi$-stacking in benzene dimer cation and ionized DNA base pair steps. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2016**, *145*, 134106 Korona, T.; Jeziorski, B. Dispersion energy from density-fitted density susceptibilities of singles and doubles coupled cluster theory. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2008**, *128*, 144107 Korona, T. Second-order exchange-induction energy of intermolecular interactions from coupled cluster density matrices and their cumulants. *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.* **2008**, *10*, 6509–6519 Moszynski, R.; [Ż]{}uchowski, P. S.; Jeziorski, B. Time-independent coupled-cluster theory of the polarization propagator. *Collect. Czech. Chem. Commun.* **2005**, *70*, 1109–1132 Sch[ä]{}ffer, R.; Jansen, G. Intermolecular exchange-induction energies without overlap expansion. *Theor. Chem. Acc.* **2012**, *131*, 1235 Sch[ä]{}ffer, R.; Jansen, G. Single-determinant-based symmetry-adapted perturbation theory without single-exchange approximation. *Mol. Phys.* **2013**, *111*, 2570–2584 Hapka, M.; Przybytek, M.; Pernal, K. Second-Order Dispersion Energy Based on Multireference Description of Monomers. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **2019**, *15*, 1016–1027 Chatterjee, K.; Pernal, K. Excitation energies from extended random phase approximation employed with approximate one- and two-electron reduced density matrices. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2012**, *137*, 204109 Pernal, K.; Chatterjee, K.; Kowalski, P. H. How accurate is the strongly orthogonal geminal theory in predicting excitation energies? Comparison of the extended random phase approximation and the linear response theory approaches. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2014**, *140*, 014101 Patkowski, K.; [Ż]{}uchowski, P. S.; Smith, D. G. A. First-order symmetry-adapted perturbation theory for multiplet splittings. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2018**, *148*, 164110 Waldrop, J. M.; Patkowski, K. Spin splittings from first-order symmetry-adapted perturbation theory without single-exchange approximation. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2019**, *150*, 074109 Cha[ł]{}asi[ń]{}ski, G.; Jeziorski, B.; Andzelm, J.; Szalewicz, K. On the multipole structure of exchange dispersion energy in the interaction of two helium atoms. *Mol. Phys.* **1977**, *33*, 971–977 Rowe, D. J. Equations-of-Motion Method and the Extended Shell Model. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **1968**, *40*, 153–166 Pernal, K. Intergeminal Correction to the Antisymmetrized Product of Strongly Orthogonal Geminals Derived from the Extended Random Phase Approximation. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **2014**, *10*, 4332–4341 Pastorczak, E.; Pernal, K. Correlation Energy from the Adiabatic Connection Formalism for Complete Active Space Wave Functions. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **2018**, *14*, 3493–3503 Pastorczak, E.; Pernal, K. Electronic Excited States from the Adiabatic-Connection Formalism with Complete Active Space Wave Functions. *J. Phys. Chem. Lett.* **2018**, *9*, 5534–5538 Jaszunski, M.; McWeeny, R. Time-dependent Hartree-Fock calculations of dispersion energy. *Mol. Phys.* **1985**, *55*, 1275–1286 Moszynski, R.; Jeziorski, B.; Rybak, S.; Szalewicz, K.; Williams, H. L. Many-body theory of exchange effects in intermolecular interactions. Density matrix approach and applications to He-F$^-$, He-HF, H$_2$-HF, and Ar-H$_2$ dimers. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1994**, *100*, 5080–5092 Moszynski, R.; Jeziorski, B.; Szalewicz, K. Many-body theory of exchange effects in intermolecular interactions. Second-quantization approach and comparison with full configuration interaction results. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1994**, *100*, 1312–1325 Werner, H.-J.; Knowles, P. J.; Knizia, G.; Manby, F. R.; Sch[ü]{}tz, M. Molpro: a general-purpose quantum chemistry program package. *Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci.* **2012**, *2*, 242–253 Dyall, K. G. The choice of a zeroth-order Hamiltonian for second-order perturbation theory with a complete active space self-consistent-field reference function. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1995**, *102*, 4909 Rosta, E.; Surj[á]{}n, P. R. Two-body zeroth order Hamiltonians in multireference perturbation theory: The APSG reference state. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2002**, *116*, 878–890 Aidas, K.; Angeli, C.; Bak, K. L.; Bakken, V.; Bast, R.; Boman, L.; Christiansen, O.; Cimiraglia, R.; Coriani, S.; Dahle, P.; Dalskov, E. K.; Ekstr[ö]{}m, U.; Enevoldsen, T.; Eriksen, J. J.; Ettenhuber, P.; Fern[á]{}ndez, B.; Ferrighi, L.; Fliegl, H.; Frediani, L.; Hald, K.; Halkier, A.; H[ä]{}ttig, C.; Heiberg, H.; Helgaker, T.; Hennum, A. C.; Hettema, H.; Hjerten[æ]{}s, E.; H[ø]{}st, S.; H[ø]{}yvik, I.-M.; Iozzi, M. F.; Jans[í]{}k, B.; Jensen, H. J. A.; Jonsson, D.; J[ø]{}rgensen, P.; Kauczor, J.; Kirpekar, S.; Kj[æ]{}rgaard, T.; Klopper, W.; Knecht, S.; Kobayashi, R.; Koch, H.; Kongsted, J.; Krapp, A.; Kristensen, K.; Ligabue, A.; Lutn[æ]{}s, O. B.; Melo, J. I.; Mikkelsen, K. V.; Myhre, R. H.; Neiss, C.; Nielsen, C. B.; Norman, P.; Olsen, J.; Olsen, J. M. H.; Osted, A.; Packer, M. J.; Pawlowski, F.; Pedersen, T. B.; Provasi, P. F.; Reine, S.; Rinkevicius, Z.; Ruden, T. A.; Ruud, K.; Rybkin, V. V.; Sa[ł]{}ek, P.; Samson, C. C. M.; de Mer[á]{}s, A. S.; Saue, T.; Sauer, S. P. A.; Schimmelpfennig, B.; Sneskov, K.; Steindal, A. H.; Sylvester-Hvid, K. O.; Taylor, P. R.; Teale, A. M.; Tellgren, E. I.; Tew, D. P.; Thorvaldsen, A. J.; Th[ø]{}gersen, L.; Vahtras, O.; Watson, M. A.; Wilson, D. J. D.; Ziolkowski, M.; [Å]{}gren, H. The Dalton quantum chemistry program system. *Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci.* **2013**, *4*, 269–284 Pastorczak, E.; Jensen, H. J. A.; Kowalski, P. H.; Pernal, K. Generalized Valence Bond Perfect-Pairing Made Versatile Through Electron-Pairs Embedding. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **2019**, *15*, 4430–4439 Korona, T.; Przybytek, M.; Jeziorski, B. Time-independent coupled cluster theory of the polarization propagator. Implementation and application of the singles and doubles model to dynamic polarizabilities and van der Waals constants. *Mol. Phys.* **2006**, *104*, 2303–2316 Korona, T.; Jeziorski, B. Dispersion energy from density-fitted density susceptibilities of singles and doubles coupled cluster theory. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2008**, *128*, 144107 Dunning Jr, T. H. Gaussian basis sets for use in correlated molecular calculations. I. The atoms boron through neon and hydrogen. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1989**, *90*, 1007–1023 Kendall, R. A.; Dunning Jr, T. H.; Harrison, R. J. Electron affinities of the first-row atoms revisited. Systematic basis sets and wave functions. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1992**, *96*, 6796–6806 Woon, D. E.; Dunning, T. H. Gaussian basis sets for use in correlated molecular calculations. IV. Calculation of static electrical response properties. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1994**, *100*, 2975–2988 Korona, T.; Moszynski, R.; Jeziorski, B. In *Convergence of Symmetry-Adapted Perturbation Theory for the Interaction between Helium Atoms and between a Hydrogen Molecule and a Helium Atom*; L[ö]{}wdin, P.-O., Sabin, J. R., Zerner, M. C., Karwowski, J., Karelson, M., Eds.; Adv. Quantum Chem.; Academic Press, 1997; Vol. 28; pp 171 – 188 Řezáč, J.; Hobza, P. Describing Noncovalent Interactions beyond the Common Approximations: How Accurate Is the “Gold Standard,” CCSD(T) at the Complete Basis Set Limit? *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **2013**, *9*, 2151–2155 Brzk, F.; Boguslawski, K.; Tecmer, P.; [Ż]{}uchowski, P. S. Benchmarking the accuracy of seniority-zero wavefunction methods for non-covalent interactions. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **2019**, *15*, 4021–4035 Pernal, K. Exact and approximate adiabatic connection formulae for the correlation energy in multireference ground and excited states. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2018**, *149*, 204101 Giesbertz, K. J. H.; Gritsenko, O. V.; Baerends, E. J. Response calculations based on an independent particle system with the exact one-particle density matrix: Excitation energies. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2012**, *136*, 094104 Patkowski, K.; Podeszwa, R.; Szalewicz, K. Interactions in Diatomic Dimers Involving Closed-Shell Metals. *J. Phys. Chem. A* **2007**, *111*, 12822–12838
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider $([0,1], \dota, \dotv, \star, \dotto , 0, 1)$ as a dual of BL-algebra and introduce a natural metric $d_\star$ on it. It is shown that $d_\star$ induced a metric $d_{\bigstar}$ on $[0,1]^2$ and all of the operations are continuous functions from $([0,1]^2, d_{\bigstar})$ into $([0,1], d_\star)$. We extend the induced topology of $d_\star$ to a topology on arbitrary BL-algebra $\mathcal{L}$ and it’s shown that $\mathcal{L}$ becomes a topological BL-algebra.'
address: |
Seyed Mohammad Amin Khatami\
Department of Computer Science\
Birjand University of Technology\
Birjand\
Iran
author:
- Seyed Mohammad Amin Khatami
bibliography:
- 'bibilio.bib'
title: 'The natural topology on a BL-algebra which makes it a topological algebra'
---
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
Triangular norms and triangular conorms, in shortly t-norms and s-norms, are appeared in several areas of mathematics. The beginning of them goes back to [@menger; @sch]. One of the areas that t-norms and s-norms are appeared, is many-valued logics. Indeed, a t-norm (s-norm) could be seen as a generalization for the interpretation of the conjunction connective (disjunction connective) [@hol; @als].
Basic logic which is introduced by H[á]{}jek in the early of 1998 [@hajek98] is known as the logic of continuous t-norms. The algebraic counter part of the propositional basic logic is BL-algebras. Indeed, the Lindenbaum algebra of equivalent formulas of propositional basic logic is a BL-algebra. MV-algebras, which introduced by Chang [@chang1959new] to prove the completeness theorem for logic, are special kind of BL-algebras. A more general algebraic structure originated in logics without contractions is residuated lattice. The oldest such structure which is appeared in classical logic is Boolean algebra.
This algebraic structures are studied from algebraic and topological point of view. Algebra studies the property of operations and algorithmic computations of a space, while topology provide a framework to understanding the geometric properties of a space. After introducing the concept of BL-algebras [@hajek98], algebraic and topological properties of them, is one of the interesting research areas.
Bozooei et.al in [@zah-bor-2016; @bor-rez-kou-2011] introduce the notion of topological BL-algebras and then in [@bor-rez-kou-2012] they study the metrizability of BL-algebras. The objective of this article is introducing a natural topology on BL-algebras which makes them topological algebras. This article is an extended and further development of the author conference paper [@khatami2018], in which a metric on $[0,1]$ as a dual of BL-algebras studied.
When $[0,1]$ is endowed to be a dual of BL-algebra, ie an algebra $(L, \dota, \dotv, \star, \dotto , 0, 1)$ of type $(2,2,2,2,0,0)$ which satisfies the conditions in Definition \[dbl-algebra\], then $\star$ present as an s-norm. We show that when $\star$ is weaker than the s-norm, then the mapping $d_\star(a,b)=(a\dotto b)\star(b\dotto a)$ becomes a metric on $[0,1]$. Furthermore, $d_\star$ induced a metric $d_{\bigstar}$ on $L^2$ and all of the operations becomes continuous functions from $(L^2, d_{\bigstar})$ into $(L, d_\star)$. We extend the induced topology of $d_\star$ to a topology on arbitrary BL-algebra $\mathcal{L}$ and it’s shown that $\mathcal{L}$ becomes a topological BL-algebra.
The rest of the paper organized as follows. Section 2 presents a summary about t-norms, s-norms and BL-algebras. Section 3 introduces the concept of dual of BL-algebras and describes a metric on $[0,1]$ as a dual of BL-algebra and section 4 proves that it is a topological algebra. Section 5 explains a topology on dual of BL-algebras which makes them topological algebras, and finally a natural topology on BL-algebras which makes them topological algebras presented in section 6.
**preliminaries** {#sec:per}
=================
t-norms and s-norms
-------------------
\
Recall that a triangular norm, in shortly a t-norm, is a binary function $T$ from $[0,1]^2$ into $[0,1]$ which is associative, commutative, non-decreasing on both arguments and $T(1,x)=x$ for all $x\in[0,1]$. If the boundary condition of a t-norm is reversed, it is called a t-conorm or an s-norm. Thus an s-norm is an associative, commutative, non-decreasing function $S$ from the unite square into the unite interval satisfying for all $x\in[0,1]$ the boundary condition $S(0,x)=x$.
A t-norm $T$ and an s-norm $S$ are called dual if $S(x,y)=1-T(1-x,1-y)$ for all $x,y\in[0,1]$. Bellow, the most important t-norms and their dual s-norms are listed in Table \[tnor\].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
t-norm s-norm
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ --
$T_L(x,y)=\max\{0,x+y-1\}$ $S_L(x,y)=\min\{1,x+y\}$
$T_G(x,y)=\min\{x,y\}$ $S_G(x,y)=\max\{x,y\}$
$T_\pi(x,y)=x.y$ $S_\pi(x,y)=x+y-x.y$
$T_d(x,y)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} $S_d(x,y)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\min\{x,y\}&\max\{x,y\}=1\\ \max\{x,y\}&\min\{x,y\}=0\\
0&\mbox{otherwise} 0&\mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}\right.$ \end{array}\right.$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: , , product, and drastic t-norm and s-norm []{data-label="tnor"}
A t-norm $T_1$ is called weaker than $T_2$, in symbols $T_1\le T_2$, whenever $T_1(x,y)\le T_2(x,y)$ for all $x,y\in[0,1]$. A similar notion used for s-norms. Obviously for t-norms and s-norms in Table \[tnor\],
$T_d\le T_L\le T_\pi\le T_G$ and $S_G\le S_\pi\le S_L\le S_d$.
Also for any t-norm $T$ and s-norm $S$, one could easily verify that
$T_d\le T\le T_G$ and $S_G\le S\le S_d$.
BL-algebras
-----------
\
In many-valued logics, t-norms and s-norms sometimes play the role of the interpretation of the conjunction and disjunction connective. In 1998, H[á]{}jek introduced a many-valued logic, namely basic logic, which is based only on continuous t-norms [@hajek98]. If $Prop$ is generated from a set of atomic propositions $P$ by formal operations $\{\&, \to, \bot\}$ and $e_0: P\to[0,1]$ be a function, then there is a unique extension $e$ of $e_0$, called an evaluation, satisfying the following rules:
$e(\bot)=0$, $e(\varphi \&\psi)=T\left(e(\varphi),e(\psi)\right)$, and $e(\varphi\to \psi)=R_T(e(\varphi),e(\psi))$,
where $R_T$ is defined as follows,
$z\le R_T(x,y)$ iff $T(z,x)\le y$ for all $z,y,z\in [0,1]$.
The algebraic counter part of a theory in basic logic, forms an algebra, called BL-algebra. A BL-algebra is an algebra $\mathcal{L}=(L, \wedge, \vee, *, \too , 0, 1)$ of type $(2,2,2,2,0,0)$ satisfying the following properties:
1. $(L, \wedge, \vee, 0 ,1)$ is a bounded lattice with greatest element $1$ and smallest element $0$,\[bl1\]
2. $(L, *, 1)$ is an Abelian monoid,\[bl2\]
3. $\too$ is the residua of $*$, i.e., $c\le a\too b$ iff $c*a\le b$ for all $a,b,c\in L$,\[bl3\]
4. $a\wedge b=a*(a\too b)$ for all $a,b\in L$,\[bl4\]
5. $(a\too b)\vee(b\too a)=1$ for all $a,b\in L$.\[bl5\]
For a theory $\Sigma\subseteq Prop$, let $[\varphi]=\{\psi: T\vdash\varphi\leftrightarrow\psi\}$, $Lind(\Sigma)=\{[\varphi]: \varphi\in Prop\}$, $\le$ is defined by $[\varphi]\le[\psi]$ iff $\Sigma\vdash(\varphi\to\psi)$, and $[\top]=[\bot\to\bot]$. Then $(Lind(\Sigma),\le,[\bot],[\top])$ forms a bounded lattice that by the following operations becomes a BL-algebra.
$[\varphi]*[\psi]=[\varphi\&\psi]~~~~,~~~~[\varphi]\rightarrowtail[\psi]=[\varphi\to\psi]$.
\[blprop\] The following properties are hold in every BL-algebra $\mathcal{L}$.
1. \[b1\] $a*b=b*a$ and $(a*b)*c=a*(b*c)$,\[f1\]
2. \[b2\] $a*0=0$,\[f2\]
3. \[b3\] $a*(a\too b)\le b$ and $a\le (b\too(a*b)$,\[f3\]
4. \[b4\] $a\le b$ iff $a\too b=1$,\[f4\]
5. \[b5\] if $a\le b$ then $a*c\le b*c$, $c\too a\le c\too b$, and $a\too c\ge b\too c$,\[f5\]
6. \[b6\] $(a\vee b)*c=(a*c)\vee(b*c)$,\[f6\]
7. \[b7\] $a*b\le a$ and $a\le b\too a$,\[f7\]
8. \[b8\] $a\vee b=\big((a\too b)\too b\big)\wedge\big((b\too a)\too a\big)$,\[f8\]
9. \[b9\] $(a\too b)\le \big((b\too c)\too(a\too c)\big)$,\[f9\]
10. \[b10\] $(a\too b)*(b\too c)\le(a\too c)$,\[f10\]
11. \[b11\] $a\too(b\too c)=(a*b)\too c$,\[f11\]
12. \[b12\] $a\too(b\too c)=b\too(a\too c)$,\[f12\]
13. \[b13\] $a\too a=1$,\[f13\]
14. \[b14\] $a\too b\le(a*c)\too(b*c)$,\[f14\]
15. \[b15\] $(a\too b)*(c\too d)\le(a*c)\too(b*d)$,\[f15\]
See [@hajek98 Cahpter 2]
When the continuous scale $[0,1]$ endowed to be a BL-algebra, the binary operator $*$ becomes a continuous t-norm on $[0,1]$ [@godo99]. The BL-algebra on the real segment $[0,1]$ which is defined by continuous t-norms, is called t-algebra.
**dual of BL-algebras, s-algebras, and the natural metric on s-algebras** {#sec:dual}
=========================================================================
Now, we introduce a dual notion for BL-algebras. For lattice join and meet operators we use a dual notion also. Thus in a lattice $(L, \le, \dota, \dotv)$, $a\le b$ iff $a\dotv b=a$. So, $a\dotv b=\inf\{a,b\}$ and $a\dota b=\sup\{a,b\}$.
\[dbl-algebra\] A DBL-algebra, is an algebra $\mathcal{L}=(L, \dota, \dotv, \star, \dotto , 0, 1)$ of type $(2,2,2,2,0,0)$ satisfies the following conditions:
1. $(L, \dota, \dotv, 0 ,1)$ is a bounded lattice with greatest element $1$ and smallest element $0$,\[db1\]
2. $(L, \star, 0)$ is an Abelian monoid,\[db2\]
3. $\dotto$ is the residua of $\star$, i.e., $a\ge b\dotto c$ iff $a \star b\ge c$ for all $a,b,c\in L$,\[db3\]
4. $a\dota b=a\star(a\dotto b)$ for all $a,b\in L$,\[db4\]
5. $(a\dotto b)\dotv(b\dotto a)=0$ for all $a,b\in L$.\[db5\]
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a DBL-algebra. then the following properties hold:
1. $a\star b=b\star a$ and $(a\star b)\star c=a\star (b\star c)$,\[d1\]
2. $a\star 1=1$,\[d2\]
3. $a\star (a\dotto b)\ge b$ and $a\ge b\dotto(a\star b)$,\[d3\]
4. $a\ge b$ iff $a\dotto b=0$,\[d4\]
5. if $a\ge b$ then $a\star c\ge b\star c$, $c\dotto a\ge c\dotto b$, and $a\dotto c\le b\dotto c$,\[d5\]
6. $(a\dotv b)\star c=(a\star c)\dotv(b\star c)$,\[d6\]
7. $a\star b\ge a$ and $a\ge b\dotto a$,\[d7\]
8. $a\dotv b=\big((a\dotto b)\dotto b\big)\dota\big((b\dotto a)\dotto a\big)$,\[d8\]
9. $(a\dotto b)\ge \big((b\dotto c)\dotto(a\dotto c)\big)$,\[d9\]
10. $(a\dotto b)\star(b\dotto c)\ge(a\dotto c)$,\[d10\]
11. $a\dotto(b\dotto c)=(a\star b)\dotto c$,\[d11\]
12. $a\dotto(b\dotto c)=b\dotto(a\dotto c)$,\[d12\]
13. $a\dotto a=0$,\[d13\]
14. $a\dotto b\ge(a\star c)\dotto(b\star c)$,\[d14\]
15. $(a\dotto b)\star (c\dotto d)\ge(a\star c)\dotto(b\star d)$,\[d15\]
The proof is similar to the proof of Proposition \[blprop\]. Let’s remind it.
1. Follows from \[db2\].
2. Since $a\ge 0$, so $a\star 1\ge 0\star 1$. But \[db2\] implies that $1\star 0=1$. Thus $a\star 1=1$.
3. Since $a\dotto b\ge a\dotto b$ by \[db3\], $(a\dotto b)\star a\ge b$. Again, since $a\star b\ge a\star b$, by \[db3\], $a\ge b\dotto(a\star b)$.
4. $a\ge b$ iff $0\star a\ge b$ which is by adjointness is equivalent $0\ge a\dotto b$, means that $a\dotto b=0$.
5. Assume that $a\ge b$. We have the followings.
- By \[d3\] $a\ge b\ge c\dotto(b\star c)$ and so adjointness condition (\[db3\]) implies that $a\star c\ge b\star c$.
- By \[d3\] $c\star (c\dotto a)\ge a\ge b$. Thus $(c\dotto a)\star c\ge b$. Therefore by adjointness, $c\dotto a\ge c\dotto b$.
- By the first inequality of \[d5\] $a\star (b\dotto c)\ge b\star (b\dotto c)$. On the other hand by \[d3\] $b\star (b\dotto c)\ge c$. So, $a\star (b\dotto c)\ge c$. Now, using \[d1\] and \[db3\] we have $b\dotto c\ge a\dotto c$.
6. Since $a\ge a\dotv b$ \[d5\] implies that $a\star c\ge (a \dotv b)\star c$. A similar argument show that $b\star c\ge (a \dotv b)\star c$. So, $(a\star c)\dotv (b\star c)\ge (a \dotv b)\star c$. For the reverse inequality, since $a\star c\ge (a\star c)\dotv (b\star c)$ by adjointness $a\ge c\dotto\big((a\star c)\dotv (b\star c)\big)$. Similarly, $b\ge c\dotto\big((a\star c)\dotv (b\star c)\big)$. So, $a\dotv b\ge c\dotto\big((a\star c)\dotv (b\star c)\big)$ that by adjointness implies that $(a\dotv b)\star c\ge (a\star c)\dotv (b\star c)$.
7. Since $b\ge 0$, applying \[d5\] and \[db2\] we have $a\star b\ge a\star 0=a$. Furthermore, by adjointness this means that $a\ge b\dotto a$.
8. Let $A=\big((a\dotto b)\dotto b\big)\dota\big((b\dotto a)\dotto a\big)$. Applying \[db2\], \[db4\], \[d6\], and the facts that $A\ge a\dotto(a\dotto b)$, $A\ge b\dotto(b\dotto a)$, and finally using \[d3\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
A&=&A\star 0=A\star \big((a\dotto b)\dotv(b\dotto a)\big)
=\big(A\star(a\dotto b)\big)\dotv\big(A\star(b\dotto a)\big)\\
&\ge&\big[\big((a\dotto b)\dotto b\big)\star(a\dotto b)\big]\dotv\big[\big((b\dotto a)\dotto a\big)\star(b\dotto a)\big]
\ge b\dotv a.\end{aligned}$$ Conversely, $(a\dotto b)\star(a \dotv b)=\big((a\dotto b)\star a\big)\dotv\big((a\dotto b)\star b\big)
\ge b\dotv b=b$ by \[d6\], \[d3\], and \[d7\]. Now, by adjointness $(a \dotv b)\ge (a \dotto b)\dotto b$. A similar argument show that $(a \dotv b)\ge (b \dotto a)\dotto a$. So, $(a \dotv b)\ge \big((a \dotto b)\dotto b\big)\dota\big((b \dotto a)\dotto a\big)=A$.
9. Using \[d3\] two times we have $a \star(a\dotto b)\star (b\dotto c)\ge b\star(b\dotto c)\ge c$, which means that $(a\dotto b)\star (b\dotto c)\star a\ge c$. Now, using adjointness two times have the result.
10. Apply adjointness on \[d9\].
11. For any point $x$ of $L$ we have $x\ge a\dotto(b\dotto c)$ iff $x\star a\ge b\dotto c$ iff $(x\star a)\star b\ge c$ iff $x\star (a\star b)\ge c$ iff $x\ge (a\star b)\dotto c$. Since $x$ is arbitrary we obtain the result.
12. Using \[d11\] twice we get $a\dotto(b\dotto c)=(a\star b)\dotto c=(b\star a)\dotto c=b\dotto(a\dotto c)$.
13. By \[d7\] $a\ge 0\dotto a$. Hence \[d4\] implies that $a\dotto(0\dotto a)=0$. Applying \[d12\] we get $0\dotto(a\dotto a)=a\dotto(0\dotto a)=0$. Again using \[d4\] we deduced that $a\dotto a=0$.
14. By \[d3\] $\big(a\star(a\dotto b)\big)\star c\ge b\star c$ which means that $(a\dotto b)\star(a\star c)\ge b\star c$. Now, adjointness give $a\dotto b\ge(a\star c)\dotto(b\star c)$.
15. By \[d3\], $\big(a\star (a\dotto b)\big)\star\big(c\star(c\dotto d)\big)\ge b\star d$. So, $\big((a\dotto b)\star(c\dotto d)\big)\star(a\star c)\ge b\star d$ which by adjointness leads to $(a\dotto b)\star(c\dotto d)\ge(a\star c)\dotto(b\star d)$.
Assume that $S$ be a continuous s-norm. The residua of $S$ is the unique operator $R_S:[0,1]^2 \to [0,1]$, defined by the adjoint property,
for all $a, b, c\in[0,1]$, $S(a,b)\ge z$ iff $a\ge R_S(b,c)$.
Continuity of $S$ implies that $R_S(a,b)=\min\{c: S(c,a)\ge b\}$. An easy argument show that for any continuous s-norm $S$ and it’s residua $R_S$, $([0,1], \max, \min, S, R_S, 0, 1)$ forms a DBL-algebra, called s-algebra.
If $([0,1], \dota, \dotv, \star, \dotto, 0, 1)$ endowed to be a DBL-algebra, then $\star$ becomes a continuous t-norm, $\dotto$ would be the residua of $\star$ and therefore $\dota$ and $\dotv$ becomes the maximum and minimum functions, respectively.
The proof is similar to the one for BL-algebras. See [@godo99 Proposition 3].
For any s-algebra $\mathcal{L}=([0,1], \max, \min, \star, \dotto, 0, 1)$, we introduce a metric on $[0,1]$ which makes it a topological algebra. Define $d_\star:[0,1]^2\to[0,1]$ by $d_\star(a,b)=(a\dotto b)\star(b\dotto a)$. The following theorem show that $d_\star$ is a metric on $[0,1]$.
\[metric\] Let $\star$ be a continuous s-norm and $\dotto$ be the residue of $\star$. Define $d_\star$ by $d_\star(a,b)=(a\dotto b)\star(b\dotto a)$. Then,
1. (identity of indiscernibles) $\forall a, b$, $d_\star(a,b)=0$ iff $a=b$,
2. (symmetry) $\forall a, b$, $d_\star(a,b)=d_\star(b,a)$,
3. (transitivity) $\forall a, b, c$, $d_\star(a,b)\le d_\star(a,c)\star d_\star(c,b)$.\[3\]
Furthermore, if $\star$ is weaker than the s-norm, then $d_\star$ would be a metric on $[0,1]$.
Clearly, by \[d13\] $d_\star(a,a)=0$ for $a\in[0,1]$. Furthermore, if $d_\star(a,b)=0$, then $(a\dotto b)\star(b\dotto a)=0$. Applying \[d7\] we get $a\dotto b=0$ and $b\dotto a=0$. Now, \[d4\] implies that $a\ge b$ and $b\ge a$ that is $a=b$. Symmetric property of $d_\star$ is clear by \[d1\]. To prove \[3\], by \[d10\] $(a\dotto c)\star(c\dotto b)\ge a\dotto b$ and $(b\dotto c)\star(c\dotto a)\ge b\dotto a$ for arbitrary $a,b,c,\in [0,1]$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
d_\star(a,b)&=&(a\dotto b)\star(b\dotto a)\\
&\le&\big((a\dotto c)\star(c\dotto b)\big)\star\big((b\dotto c)\star(c\dotto a)\big)\\
&=&\big((a\dotto c)\star(c\dotto a)\big)\star\big((b\dotto c)\star(c\dotto b)\big)\\
&=&d_\star(a,c)\star d_\star(c,b)\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore if $\star$ is weaker than $S_L$, then
$d_\star (a,b)\le d_\star(a,c)\star d_\star(c,b)
\le S_L\big(d_\star(a,c),d_\star(c,b)\big)\le d_\star(a,c)+d_\star(c,b)$.
Below, the induced metric arising from tree famous continuous s-norms are listed in Table \[snor\].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s-norm residua metric
------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
$ $ $d_L(x,y)=|x-y|$
\medmuskip=0mu \medmuskip=0mu
\thinmuskip=0mu \thinmuskip=0mu
\thickmuskip=0mu \thickmuskip=0mu
S_L(x,y)=\min\{1,x+y\}$ R_L(x,y)=
\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
0& x\ge y\\
y-x& x<y
\end{array}\right.$
$ $ $
\medmuskip=0mu \medmuskip=0mu \medmuskip=0mu
\thinmuskip=0mu \thinmuskip=0mu \thinmuskip=0mu
\thickmuskip=0mu \thickmuskip=0mu \thickmuskip=0mu
S_G(x,y)=\max\{x,y\}$ R_G(x,y)= d_G(x,y)=
\left\{\begin{array}{cc} \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
0& x\ge y\\ 0& x=y\\
y& x<y \max\{x,y\}& x\ne y
\end{array}\right.$ \end{array}\right.$
$ $ $
\medmuskip=0mu \medmuskip=0mu \medmuskip=0mu
\thinmuskip=0mu \thinmuskip=0mu \thinmuskip=0mu
\thickmuskip=0mu \thickmuskip=0mu \thickmuskip=0mu
S_\pi(x,y)=x+y-x.y$ R_\pi(x,y)= d_\pi(x,y)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\left\{\begin{array}{cc} 0&x=y\\
0& x\ge y\\ \displaystyle\frac{|x-y|}{1-\min\{x,y\}}&x\ne y
\displaystyle\frac{y-x}{1-x}&x<y \end{array}\right.$
\end{array}\right.$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: , , and product induced metrics []{data-label="snor"}
**$[0,1]$ as a topological s-algebra**
======================================
The operations of the s-algebra $[0,1]$ are continuous with respect to the Euclidean topology $d_L(x,y)=|x-y|$. However, in general continuity of operations does not hold. Specially, $R_G$ and $R_\pi$ are not continuous.
In this section, we show that for any continuous s-norm $\star$ and it’s residua $\dotto$, all of the operations of the corresponding s-algebra $([0,1],\max, \min, \star, \dotto, 0, 1)$ are continuous with respect to induced topology of the metric $d_\star$ introduced in Theorem \[metric\].
The Euclidean topology on $[0,1]^2$ is usually defined by
$d\big((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)\big)=\sqrt{(x_1-y_1)^2+(x_2-y_2)^2}$,
which is equivalent to the maximum metric $\max\{|x_1-y_1|,|x_2-y_2|\}$ and the taxicab metric $|x_1-y_1|+|x_2-y_2|$. Here we use a metric, similar to the taxicab metric on $[0,1]^2$ which is made by $\star$ and the metric $d_\star$.
\[metric1\] Let $\star$ , $\dotto$, and $d_\star$ be as in Theorem \[metric\]. Define $\mathbf{d}_\star:[0,1]^2\times[0,1]^2\to[0,1]$ by $\mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})=d_\star(a_1,b_1)\star d_\star(a_2,b_2)$ where $\mathbf{a}=(a_1,a_2)$ and $\mathbf{b}=(b_1,b_2)$. Then
1. $\forall \mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}\in[0,1]^2$, $\mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})=0$ iff $\mathbf{a}=\mathbf{b}$,
2. $\forall \mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}\in[0,1]^2$, $\mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})=
\mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{b},\mathbf{a})$,
3. \[a3\] $\forall \mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}, \mathbf{c}\in[0,1]^2$, $\mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})\le
\mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{c})\star\mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{c},\mathbf{b})$.
Furthermore, if $\star\le S_L$, then $\mathbf{d}_\star$ define a metric on $[0,1]^2$.
We only check \[a3\]. Using transitivity of $d_\star$ (Theorem \[metric\]) and \[d1\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d_\star}\big(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})&=& d_\star(a_1,b_1)\star d_\star(a_2,b_2)\\
&\le&\big(d_\star(a_1,c_1)\star d_\star(c_1,b_1)\big)\star\big(d_\star(a_2,c_2)\star d_\star(c_2,b_2)\big)\\
&=&\big(d_\star(a_1,c_1)\star d_\star(a_2,c_2)\big)\star\big((d_\star(c_1,b_1)\star d_\star(c_2,b_2)\big)\\
&=&\mathbf{d_\star}(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{c})\star\mathbf{d_\star}(\mathbf{c},\mathbf{b}).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, an easy argument like as the proof of Theorem \[metric\] show that whenever $\star\le S_L$, $\mathbf{d}_\star$ is a metric on $[0,1]^2$.
Now, we show that for any continuous s-norm $\star$ and it’s residua $\dotto$, the s-algebra $\mathcal{L}=([0,1],\max, \min, \star, \dotto, 0, 1)$ is a topological algebra. To this end we should introduce topologies on $[0,1]$ and $[0,1]^2$ such that all of the operations of $\mathcal{L}$ are continuous functions with respect to these topologies. Note that by \[db4\] and \[d8\] it is enough to show that $\star$ and $\dotto$ are continuous functions. In the case that $\star$ is weaker than the s-norm, the induced topology of metric $d_\star$ and $\mathbf{d}_\star$ do the goal.
\[con\] Let $\star$, $\dotto$, $d_\star$, and $\mathbf{d}_\star$ be as in Theorem \[metric1\]. If $\star$ is weaker than $S_L$, then $\star:([0,1]^2,\mathbf{d}_\star)\to([0,1],d_\star)$ and $\dotto:([0,1]^2,\mathbf{d}_\star)\to([0,1],d_\star)$ are continuous functions.
Using \[d15\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
(a_1\star a_2)\dotto (b_1\star b_2)&\le& (a_1\dotto b_1)\star(a_2\dotto b_2)\\
&\text{and}&\\
(b_1\star b_2)\dotto (a_1\star a_2)&\le& (b_1\dotto a_1)\star(b_2\dotto a_2).\end{aligned}$$ Now, applying \[d5\] twice we get
$\medmuskip=0mu
\thinmuskip=0mu
\thickmuskip=0mu
\big((a_1\star a_2)\dotto (b_1\star b_2)\big)\star
\big((b_1\star b_2)\dotto (a_1\star a_2)\big)
\le\big((a_1\dotto b_1)\star(a_2\dotto b_2)\big)
\star\big((b_1\dotto a_1)\star(b_2\dotto a_2)\big)$,
that is $$\label{a1}
d_\star(a_1\star a_2, b_1\star b_2)\le \mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})$$ which means that $\star$ is a continuous function.
For continuity of $\dotto$, by \[d9\] $a_1\dotto b_1\ge (b_1\dotto b_2)\dotto (a_1\dotto b_2)$, and therefore by adjointness $$\label{z1}
(a_1\dotto b_1)\star(b_1\dotto b_2)\ge a_1\dotto b_2.$$ Again by \[d9\] $a_1\dotto b_2\ge (b_2\dotto a_2)\dotto (a_1\dotto a_2)$ which beside the inequality \[z1\] leads to
$(a_1\dotto b_1)\star(b_1\dotto b_2)\ge (b_2\dotto a_2)\dotto (a_1\dotto a_2).$
Now, applying adjointness we get
$\big((a_1\dotto b_1)\star(b_1\dotto b_2)\big)\star(b_2\dotto a_2)\ge(a_1\dotto a_2)$,
which beside \[d1\] implies that
$\big((a_1\dotto b_1)\star(b_2\dotto a_2)\big)\star(b_1\dotto b_2)\ge(a_1\dotto a_2)$.
Finally, again by adjointness $$\label{z2}
(b_1\dotto b_2)\dotto(a_1\dotto a_2) \le(a_1\dotto b_1)\star(b_2\dotto a_2).$$ A similar argument show that $$\label{z3}
(a_1\dotto a_2)\dotto(b_1\dotto b_2) \le(b_1\dotto a_1)\star(a_2\dotto b_2).$$ Now using \[z2\] and \[z3\] and applying \[d5\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
d_\star (a_1\dotto a_2, b_1\dotto b_2)&=&
\big((b_1\dotto b_2)\dotto(a_1\dotto a_2)\big)\star
\big((a_1\dotto a_2)\dotto(b_1\dotto b_2)\big)\\
&\le&
\big((a_1\dotto b_1)\star(b_2\dotto a_2)\big)\star
\big((a_1\dotto a_2)\dotto(b_1\dotto b_2)\big)\\
&\le&\big((a_1\dotto b_1)\star(b_2\dotto a_2)\big)\star
\big((b_1\dotto a_1)\star(a_2\dotto b_2)\big)\\
&=&\big((a_1\dotto b_1)\star(b_1\dotto a_1)\big)\star
\big((b_2\dotto a_2)\star(a_2\dotto b_2)\big)\\
&=&d_\star(a_1,b_1)\star d_\star(a_2,b_2)\\
&=&\mathbf{d_\star}(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\dotto$ is a continuous function.
Now, we want to generalize Theorem \[con\] for the case that $\star$ is an arbitrary continuous s-norm.
\[top\] Assume that $\star$, $\dotto$, $d_\star$, and $\mathbf{d}_\star$ be as in Theorem \[metric1\]. ($\star$ is not necessarily weaker than the s-norm). For $a\in [0,1]$ and $r\in(0,1]$ the $\star$-ball around $a$ of radius $r$ is the set
$N_r(a)=\{b\in[0,1]: d_\star(a,b)<r\}.$
Similarly the $\bigstar$-ball around $\mathbf{a}\in [0,1]^2$ of radius $r\in(0,1]$ is the set
$\mathbf{N}_r(\mathbf{a})=\{\mathbf{b}\in[0,1]^2: \mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})<r\}.$
A subset $G$ of $[0,1]$ is called an $\star$-open set if for every $a\in G$ there exists a radius $r>0$ such that $N_r(a)\subseteq G$. $\bigstar$-open subsets of $[0,1]^2$ defined similarly.
\[topology\] With the notions in Definition \[top\], the family of all $\star$-open sets, denoted by $T_\star$ form a topology on $[0,1]$. Similarly, the family of all $\bigstar$-open sets of $[0,1]^2$, denoted by $T_\bigstar$ form a topology on $[0,1]^2$.
Obviously $\emptyset, [0,1]\in T_\star$.
Assume that $A, B\in T_\star$. If $A\cap B$ is empty, then it is in $T_\star$. Suppose that $A\cap B\ne\emptyset$ and $a\in A\cap B$. Since $A$ and $B$ are $\star$-open sets, there exist $r_A>0$ and $r_B>0$ such that $N_{r_A}(a)\subseteq A$ and $N_{r_B}(a)\subseteq B$. let $r=\min\{r_A, r_B\}$. Now, $N_r(a)\subseteq N_{r_A}(a)\cap N_{r_B}(a)\subseteq A\cap B$. So, $A\cap B$ is an $\star$-open set.
Finally, let $\{G_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a family of $\star$-open sets and $G=\cup_{i\in I}G_i$. If $G$ is empty there is noting to prove. Assume that $G\ne\emptyset$ and $a\in G$. So, there is $i\in I$ such that $a\in G_i$. Since $G_i$ is an $\star$-open set, there exists $r>0$ such that $N_r(a)\subseteq G_i\subseteq G$. Thus $G$ is an $\star$-open set.
The second part is also proved by a similar argument.
Note that when $\star\le S_L$, then topology $T_\star$ ($T_\bigstar$) is the topology induced by metric $d_\star$ ($\mathbf{d}_\star$).
\[contin\] Let $\star$, $\dotto$, $d_\star$, and $\mathbf{d}_\star$ be as in Theorem \[metric1\] ($\star$ is not necessarily weaker than the s-norm). Then the mappings $\star:([0,1]^2,T_\bigstar)\to([0,1],T_\star)$ and $\dotto:([0,1]^2,T_\bigstar)\to([0,1],T_\star)$ are continuous functions.
For continuity of $\star$, consider an $\star$-open set $A\in T_\star$. We must show that the inverse image of $A$, $\star^{-1}(A)$, is an $\bigstar$-open set. For this consider a point $\mathbf{a}\in \star^{-1}(A)$. So, $\star(\mathbf{a})\in A$, that is $a_1\star a_2\in A$. But $A$ is an $\star$-open set and hence there exists $r>0$ such that $N_r(a_1\star a_2)\subseteq A$. We claim that $\mathbf{N}_r(\mathbf{a})\subseteq \star^{-1}(A)$.
Consider an element $\mathbf{b}\in\mathbf{N}_r(\mathbf{a})$. So, $\mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})<r$. Now, inequality \[a1\] in the proof of Theorem \[con\] implies that
$d_\star(a_1\star a_2, b_1\star b_2)\le \mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})<r$.
So, $b_1\star b_2\in N_r(a_1\star a_2)\subseteq A$, that is $\star(\mathbf{b})\in A$ or $\mathbf{b}\in \star^{-1}(A)$. Hence, $\mathbf{N}_r(\mathbf{a})\subseteq \star^{-1}(A)$ which means that $\star^{-1}(A)$ is an $\bigstar$-open set. Thus, $\star$ is a continuous function.
A similar argument, that use the final argument in the proof of Theorem \[con\] show that $\dotto$ is a continuous function.
**natural topology on DBL-algebras** {#DBL}
====================================
In this section, we introduce a topology on an arbitrary DBL-algebra which makes it a topological algebras. We need a definition for positive element of DBL-algebras.
Let $\mathcal{L}=(L, \dota, \dotv, \star, \dotto , 0, 1)$ be a DBL-algebra. An element $a\in L$ is called a positive element of $L$, denoted by $a\gg 0$, whenever for any $b\in L$, $a\dotv b=0$ implies that $b=0$.
\[ggp\] Let $\mathcal{L}=(L, \dota, \dotv, \star, \dotto , 0, 1)$ be a DBL-algebra. for any $a,b\in L$,
1. $1\gg 0$,
2. if $a\gg 0$, then $a>0$,
3. if $b>a\gg 0$, then $b\gg 0$,
4. \[g4\] if $a\gg 0$ and $b\gg 0$, then $a\dotv b\gg 0$.
<!-- -->
1. For any $x\in L$, since $1\dotv x=x$, so $1\dotv x=0$ implies that $x=0$, that is $1\gg 0$.
2. If by contrary, $a=0$, then for $x\ne 0$, $a\dotv x=0$, which is in contradiction with $a\gg 0$.
3. For an arbitrary $x\in L$, assume that $b\dotv x=0$. Since $b>a$, $b\dotv x\ge a\dotv x$. So, $a\dotv x=0$ and therefore $x=0$. Thus $b\gg 0$.
4. For an arbitrary $x\in L$, assume that $(a\dotv b)\dotv x=0$. Thus, $a\dotv(b\dotv x)=0$. Therefore, $b\dotv x=0$. Hence, $x=0$ that is $a\dotv b\gg0$.
Now, as like as the Definition \[top\], we introduce a topology on DBL-algebras.
\[top1\] Assume that $\mathcal{L}=(L, \dota, \dotv, \star, \dotto , 0, 1)$ be a DBL-algebra. Suppose that the mappings $d_\star:L\times L\to L$ and $\mathbf{d}_\star:L^2\times L^2\to L$ defined by
$d_\star(a,b)=(a\dotto b)\star(b\dotto a)$ and $\mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})=d_\star(a_1,b_1)\star d_\star(a_2,b_2)$,
respectively, where $\mathbf{a}=(a_1,a_2)$ and $\mathbf{b}=(b_1,b_2)$. For any $a\in L$ and any positive element $r\in L$, the $\star$-ball around $a$ of radius $r$ is the set
$N_r(a)=\{b\in L: d_\star(a,b)<r\}.$
Similarly the $\bigstar$-ball around $\mathbf{a}\in L^2$ of radius $r\gg 0$ is the set
$\mathbf{N}_r(\mathbf{a})=\{\mathbf{b}\in L^2: \mathbf{d}_\star(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})<r\}.$
A subset $G$ of $L$ is called an $\star$-open set if for every $a\in G$ there exists a radius $r\gg 0$ such that $N_r(a)\subseteq G$. $\bigstar$-open subsets of $L^2$ defined similarly.
with the notions in Definition \[top1\],
1. $\forall a, b$, $d_\star(a,b)=0$ iff $a=b$,
2. $\forall a, b$, $d_\star(a,b)=d_\star(b,a)$,
3. $\forall a, b, c$, $d_\star(a,b)\le d_\star(a,c)\star d_\star(c,b)$.\[3\]
Furthermore, a similar argument holds for $d_\bigstar$.
Similar to the proofs of Theorem \[metric\] and Theorem \[metric1\].
\[topthe\] With the notions in Definition \[top1\], the family of all $\star$-open sets form a topology on $L$ denoted by $T_\star$. Similarly $T_\bigstar=\{A : A~\text{is an}~
\bigstar\text{-open set of}~L^2\}$ is a topology on $L^2$.
Obviously $\emptyset, L\in T_\star$. Assume that $A, B\in T_\star$. If $A\cap B$ is empty, then it is in $T_\star$. So, let $a\in A\cap B$. Since $A$ and $B$ are $\star$-open sets, there exist $r_A\gg 0$ and $r_B\gg 0$ such that $N_{r_A}(a)\subseteq A$ and $N_{r_B}(a)\subseteq B$. By \[g4\], $r=r_A\dotv r_B\gg 0$. Now, $N_r(a)\subseteq N_{r_A}(a)\cap N_{r_B}(a)\subseteq A\cap B$. Hence, $A\cap B$ is an $\star$-open set. The rest of the proof is similar to the proof of Theorem \[topology\].
The following theorem show that the introduced topologies on $L$ and $L^2$, makes $\mathcal{L}$ a topological algebra.
With the notions in Theorem \[topthe\], the mappings $\star:(L^2,T_\bigstar)\to(L,T_\star)$ and $\dotto:(L^2,T_\bigstar)\to(L,T_\star)$ are continuous functions.
Similar to the proof of Theorem \[contin\].
**natural topology on BL-algebras**
===================================
In this section, using the duality between BL-algebras and DBL-algebras, we introduce a topology on an arbitrary BL-algebra which makes it a topological algebras. So, this section could be seen as the dual of Section \[DBL\].
Let $\mathcal{L}=(L, \wedge, \vee, *, \too , 0, 1)$ be a BL-algebra. An element $a\in L$ is called strongly less than $1$, denoted by $a\ll 1$, whenever for any $b\in L$, $a\vee b=1$ implies that $b=1$.
The following lemma and it’s proof, are the dual ones of Lemma \[ggp\].
Let $\mathcal{L}=(L, \wedge, \vee, *, \too , 0, 1)$ be a BL-algebra. for any $a,b\in L$,
1. \[l1\] $0\ll 1$,
2. if $a\ll 1$, then $a<1$,
3. if $b<a\ll 1$, then $b\ll 1$,
4. \[l4\] if $a\ll 1$ and $b\ll 1$, then $a\vee b\ll 1$.
The proof is the dual ones of the proof of Lemma \[ggp\]. For example for \[l1\], since $0\vee x=x$, so $0\vee x=1$ implies that $x=1$, that is $0\ll 1$.
For any BL-algebra $\mathcal{L}$, define two operators $\leftrightarrow$ and $\Leftrightarrow$ on $L$ and $L^2$, respectively as follows:
$a \leftrightarrow b=(a\too b)*(b\too a)~~~~~,~~~~~
\mathbf{a}\Leftrightarrow\mathbf{b}=(a_1\leftrightarrow b_1)*(a_2\leftrightarrow b_2)$.
\[r1\] By \[b1\], both of $\leftrightarrow$ and $\Leftrightarrow$ are symmetric. Furthermore, by \[b13\] $a\leftrightarrow a=1$ and $\mathbf{a}\Leftrightarrow\mathbf{a}=1$ for any $a\in L$ and $\mathbf{a}\in L^2$. In addition an easy consequence of \[b10\] implies that for any $a,b,c,\in L$, $a\leftrightarrow b\ge (a\leftrightarrow c)*(c\leftrightarrow b)$. Similarly, for any $\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}, \mathbf{c}\in L^2$, $\mathbf{a}\Leftrightarrow\mathbf{b}\ge(\mathbf{a}\Leftrightarrow\mathbf{c})*
(\mathbf{c}\Leftrightarrow\mathbf{b})$. Finally, note that by \[b7\] $a\too b\ge a\leftrightarrow b$.
Now, we introduce a topology on BL-algebras.
\[top2\] For any elements $a,r\in L$ that $r\ll 1$, the $*$-ball around $a$ of radius $r$ is the set
$B_r(a)=\{b\in L: a\leftrightarrow b>r\}.$
Similarly the $\mathbf{*}$-ball around $\mathbf{a}\in L^2$ of radius $r\ll 1$ is the set
$\mathbf{B}_r(\mathbf{a})=\{\mathbf{b}\in L^2: \mathbf{a}\Leftrightarrow\mathbf{b}>r\}.$
A subset $G$ of $L$ is called an $*$-open set if for every $a\in G$ there exists a radius $r\ll 1$ such that $B_r(a)\subseteq G$. $\divideontimes$-open subsets of $L^2$ defined similarly.
\[r2\] By Remark \[r1\], $a\in B_r(a)$ and similarly $\mathbf{a}\in\mathbf{B}_r(\mathbf{a})$. Moreover, if $r\ge s$ then $B_r(a)\subseteq B_s(a)$ and $\mathbf{B}_r(\mathbf{a})\subseteq \mathbf{B}_s(\mathbf{a})$.
With the notions in Definition \[top2\], the family of all $*$-open sets form a topology on $L$ denoted by $T_*$. Similarly $T_\bigs=\{A : A~\text{is an}~
\bigs\text{-open set of}~L^2\}$ is a topology on $L^2$.
Obviously $\emptyset, L\in T_*$. Assume that $A, B\in T_*$. if $a\in A\cap B$, then since $A$ and $B$ are $*$-open sets, there exist $r_A\ll 1$ and $r_B\ll 1$ such that $N_{r_A}(a)\subseteq A$ and $N_{r_B}(a)\subseteq B$. By \[l4\], $r=r_A\vee r_B\ll 1$. Since $r\ge r_A$, Remark \[r2\] implies that $N_r(a)\subseteq N_{r_A}(a)$. Similarly, $N_r(a)\subseteq N_{r_B}(a)$. Thus $N_r(a)\subseteq N_{r_A}(a)\cap N_{r_B}(a)\subseteq A\cap B$. Hence, $A\cap B$ is an $*$-open set. The rest of the proof is similar to the proof of Theorem \[topology\].
Besides \[bl4\] and \[b8\], the following theorem show that the introduced topologies $T_*$ and $T_\bigs$ on $L$ and $L^2$, makes $\mathcal{L}$ a topological BL-algebra.
The mappings $*:(L^2,T_\bigs)\to(L,T_*)$ and $\too:(L^2,T_\bigs)\to(L,T_*)$ are continuous functions.
Consider an $*$-open set $A\in T_*$. We must show that the inverse images of $A$, $*^{-1}(A)$ and $\too^{-1}(A)$ are $\bigs$-open sets.
Firstly, consider a point $\mathbf{a}\in *^{-1}(A)$, that is $a_1 * a_2\in A$. Since $A$ is an $*$-open set, there exists $r\ll 1$ such that $B_r(a_1 * a_2)\subseteq A$. To finalize the first part of proof, we show that $\mathbf{B}_r(\mathbf{a})\subseteq *^{-1}(A)$. To this end consider an element $\mathbf{b}\in\mathbf{B}_r(\mathbf{a})$. So, $\mathbf{a}\Leftrightarrow\mathbf{b}>r$, that is $$\label{a11}
(a_1\leftrightarrow b_1)*(a_2\leftrightarrow b_2)>r.$$ On the other hand since by \[b15\]
$\medmuskip=1mu
\thinmuskip=1mu
\thickmuskip=1mu
(a_1 * a_2)\too (b_1 * b_2)\ge (a_1\too b_1)*(a_2\too b_2)$ and $
\medmuskip=1mu
\thinmuskip=1mu
\thickmuskip=1mu
(b_1 * b_2)\too (a_1 * a_2)\ge (b_1\too a_1)*(b_2\too a_2)$,
so, applying \[b5\] twice and then using \[b1\] and \[a11\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
(a_1 * a_2)\leftrightarrow(b_1 * b_2)&=&\big((a_1 * a_2)\too (b_1 * b_2)\big)
*\big((b_1 * b_2)\too (a_1 * a_2)\big)\\
&\ge&\big((a_1\too b_1)*(a_2\too b_2)\big)*\big((b_1 * b_2)\too (a_1 * a_2)\big)\\
&\ge&\big((a_1\too b_1)*(a_2\too b_2)\big)*\big((b_1\too a_1)*(b_2\too a_2)\big)\\
&=&\big((a_1\too b_1)*(b_1\too a_1)\big)*\big((a_2\too b_2)*(b_2\too a_2)\big)\\
&=&(a_1\leftrightarrow b_1)*(a_2\leftrightarrow b_2)\\
&>&r.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $b_1 * b_2\in B_r(a_1 * a_2)\subseteq A$. Hence $\mathbf{b}\in *^{-1}(A)$ which finalize the first part of the proof.
Secondly, to prove that $\too^{-1}(A)$ is an $\bigs$-open set, consider a point $\mathbf{a}\in \too^{-1}(A)$. So $a_1 \too a_2\in A$. Since $A$ is an $*$-open set, there exists $r\ll 1$ such that $B_r(a_1\too a_2)\subseteq A$. To prove that $\too^{-1}(A)$ is $\bigs$-open, we show that $\mathbf{B}_r(\mathbf{a})\subseteq \too^{-1}(A)$. To this end, if $\mathbf{b}\in\mathbf{B}_r(\mathbf{a})$ ,then $$\label{a12}
\mathbf{a}\Leftrightarrow\mathbf{b}>r.$$ By \[b9\] $a_1\too b_1\le (b_1\too b_2)\too(a_1\too b_2)$ and so by \[bl3\] $$\label{a22}
(a_1\too b_1)*(b_1\too b_2)\le(a_1\too b_2).$$ Again by \[b9\] $a_1\too b_2\le (b_2\too a_2)\too(a_1\too a_2)$ and so by \[a22\]
$(a_1\too b_1)*(b_1\too b_2)\le(b_2\too a_2)\too(a_1\too a_2)$.
Now applying \[bl3\] we have $\big((a_1\too b_1)*(b_1\too b_2)\big)*(b_2\too a_2)\le(a_1\too a_2)$ which besides \[b1\] leads to $\big((a_1\too b_1)*(b_2\too a_2)\big)*(b_1\too b_2)\le(a_1\too a_2)$. Again \[bl3\] implies that $$\label{a33}
(b_1\too b_2)\too(a_1\too a_2)\ge (a_1\too b_1)*(b_2\too a_2).$$ A similar argument show that $$\label{a44}
(a_1\too a_2)\too(b_1\too b_2)\ge (b_1\too a_1)*(a_2\too b_2).$$ Now by \[a33\] and \[a44\] and applying \[b5\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
(a_1\too a_2)\leftrightarrow(b_1\too b_2)&=&
\big((a_1\too a_2)\too(b_1\too b_2)\big)*
\big((b_1\too b_2)\too(a_1\too a_2)\big)\\
&\ge&
\big((b_1\too a_1)*(a_2\too b_2)\big)*
\big((b_1\too b_2)\too(a_1\too a_2)\big)\\
&\ge&
\big((b_1\too a_1)*(a_2\too b_2)\big)*
\big((a_1\too b_1)*(b_2\too a_2)\big)\\
&=&
\big((b_1\too a_1)*(a_1\too b_1)\big)*
\big((a_2\too b_2)*(b_2\too a_2)\big)\\
&=&(a_1\leftrightarrow b_1)*(a_2\leftrightarrow b_2)\\
&=&\mathbf{a}\Leftrightarrow\mathbf{b}\end{aligned}$$ Thus by \[a12\], $(a_1\too a_2)\leftrightarrow(b_1\too b_2)>r$ that is $(b_1\too b_2)\in B_r(a_1\too a_2)\subseteq A$. Hence $\mathbf{b}\in \too^{-1}(A)$ which completes the proof.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the synchronization properties of the two-dimensional periodic flow over a circular cylinder using the principles of phase-reduction theory. The influence of harmonic external forcings on the wake dynamics, and the possible synchronization of the vortex shedding behind the cylinder to these forcings, is determined by evaluating the phase response of the system to weak impulse perturbations. These horizontal and vertical perturbations are added at different phase values over a period, in order to develop a linear one-dimensional model with respect to the limit cycle that describes the high-dimensional and nonlinear dynamics of the fluid flow via only a single scalar phase variable. This model is then utilized to acquire the theoretical conditions for the synchronization between the cylinder wake and the harmonic forcings added in the near-wake region. Valuable insights are gained by comparing the findings of the present research against those rendered by the dynamic mode decomposition and adjoint analysis of the wake dynamics in earlier works. The present analysis reveals regions in the flow which enable phase synchronization or desynchronization to periodic excitations for applications such as active flow control and fluid-structure interactions.'
author:
- 'M. A. Khodkar$^1$ and Kunihiko Taira$^{1}$[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'Main.bib'
date:
-
- '?; revised ?; accepted ?. - To be entered by editorial office'
title: 'Phase-synchronization properties of laminar cylinder wake for periodic external forcings'
---
phase reduction, synchronization, unsteady flows.
Introduction \[section:Intro\]
==============================
Dynamical systems with rythmic unsteadiness are omnipresent in engineering problems such as structural vibrations, electric circuits, chemical reactions and robotic locomotions [@Kuramoto1984; @Pikovsky2001]. The nonlinear dynamics of such systems is characterized by a self-sustained oscillation, when the state of the system resides sufficiently close to its limit-cycle attractor. The rich physics of limit-cycle oscillators can abundantly be found in periodic fluid flows as well [@Huerre1990]. These unsteady flows have long been the subject of extensive research for the purpose of prediction, control and extracting the coherent fluid structures [@Holmes1996]. In particular, the study of phase-locking between the flow oscillation and harmonic actuations is essential to reveal the underlying synchronization mechanisms for modifying the dominant oscillation frequency of the flow in a mathematically rigorous and computationally inexpensive fashion [@Kawamura2013; @Kawamura2015; @Taira2018; @Iima2019]. Within the scope of the present work, synchronization (phase-locking) is defined as the adjustment of the natural frequency of the flow to the frequency of the actuation. In the context of aerodynamic performance of flyers, altering the flow frequency can in turn lead to the enhancement of lift-to-drag ratio, e.g., by advancing or delaying the vortex shedding from the body [@Nair2020]. These objectives require the development of low-dimensional models describing the nonlinear interaction between all oscillators in the fluid system in a simplified fashion [@Nair2018].
Most control or reduction techniques conventionally employed for fluid flows rely on the linearization of the flow around a steady or quasisteady state, which makes them underperform when the deviation from the bifurcation point is relatively large [@Bewley2001]. Approaches such as Floquet theory [@Herbert1987] or phase-reduction theory [@Kuramoto2019] enable the extension of analysis to periodic flows, as they pave a path towards active flow control with respect to time-varying base flows.
The present investigation provides a linear framework for the phase-based description of temporal evolution of time-periodic flows. In particular, we analyze the response of a two-dimensional (2D) circular cylinder wake to harmonic actuations. The Reynolds number of interest is adequately large so that the von Kàrmàn vortex street forms, but it is also low enough to ensure that the wake remains laminar. This analysis proposes a novel and computationally tractable way for uncovering the regions in the flow best suited for the placement of external oscillatory forcing inputs, to achieve synchronization between the vortex shedding and these actuations, and consequently, to modify the shedding frequency. Furthermore, this methodology is capable of identifying the most sensitive regions of the flow to control inputs at any given time, enabling an energy-optimal control strategy, without any explicit knowledge of governing dynamics. Additional insights are gained by comparing the findings of the present phase-based analysis against those of other modal- and adjoint-based methods, especially by inspecting the spatial maps of synchronization at different harmonics. The paper is organized as follows. The phase-based, low-dimensional description of the flow is derived in §\[section:Theory\]. Section \[section:DNS\] describes the numerical solver used to conduct the direct numerical simulations (DNS) of the flow. Section \[section:Results\] presents the results of the phase-based model, specifically the regions optimal for synchronization and energy-efficient control, and validates the accuracy of the model predictions for synchronization against DNS results. This section also investigates the potential commonalities and the characteristic differences between the findings of the present model and the widely-used dynamic mode decomposition (DMD), while highlighting the desirable capabilities of the phase-based analysis. Section \[section:Conclusion\] summarizes the main results, and discusses the outlook for subsequent studies.
Phase-based analysis of periodic flows \[section:Theory\]
=========================================================
Consider a periodic flow whose dynamics is governed by $$\dot{{\boldsymbol{q}}} = {\boldsymbol{F}}({\boldsymbol{q}}) \, , \label{eqn:Dyn1}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{q}}$ is the state vector of the flow with a stable limit cycle ${\boldsymbol{q_0}}$ such that ${\boldsymbol{q_0}}({\boldsymbol{x}}, t+T) = {\boldsymbol{q_0}}({\boldsymbol{x}}, t)$. Here, $T$ denotes the periodicity, through which the natural frequency $\omega_n$ can be calculated as $\omega_n = 2\pi/T$. The periodic nature of the flow allows for phase $\theta$ to satisfy $$\dot{\theta} = \omega_n \, , \quad \theta \in [-\pi, \pi] \, . \label{eqn:Phase1}$$ Note that ${\boldsymbol{q_0}}\big(\theta(t)\big)$ describes the full flow field at time $t$ corresponding to phase $\theta(t)$. In the vicinity of the limit cycle, and in the basin of the attractor, the phase dynamics can be captured via the phase function $\mathit{\Theta}({\boldsymbol{q}})$ so that $\theta = \mathit{\Theta}({\boldsymbol{q}})$. Consequently, we find that $$\dot{\theta} = \mathit{\dot{\Theta}}({\boldsymbol{q}}) = \bnabla_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} \mathit{\Theta}({\boldsymbol{q}}) \cdot \dot{{\boldsymbol{q}}} = \bnabla_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} \mathit{\Theta}({\boldsymbol{q}}) \cdot {\boldsymbol{F}}({\boldsymbol{q}}) = \omega_n \, , \label{eqn:Phase2}$$ which provides a one-dimensional, linear framework for describing the originally nonlinear and high-dimensional dynamics of (\[eqn:Dyn1\]) with respect to the limit cycle ${\boldsymbol{q_0}}$.
The flow dynamics of (\[eqn:Dyn1\]) can then be weakly perturbed in the following fashion $$\dot{{\boldsymbol{q}}} = {\boldsymbol{F}}({\boldsymbol{q}}) + \varepsilon {\boldsymbol{f}}(t) \, , \label{eqn:Dyn2}$$ where $\varepsilon \ll 1$ and ${{\left\lVert{\boldsymbol{f}}\right\rVert}_2} = 1$. This equation can be expressed in terms of the phase variable and function to arrive at $$\dot{\theta} = \mathit{\dot{\Theta}}({\boldsymbol{q}}) = \bnabla_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} \mathit{\Theta}({\boldsymbol{q}}) \cdot \dot{{\boldsymbol{q}}} = \bnabla_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} \mathit{\Theta}({\boldsymbol{q}}) \cdot [{\boldsymbol{F}}({\boldsymbol{q}}) + \varepsilon {\boldsymbol{f}}(t) ] \, . \label{eqn:Phase_forced}$$ Equations (\[eqn:Phase\_forced\]) and (\[eqn:Phase2\]) can then be combined to obtain $$\dot{\theta} = \omega_n + \varepsilon \bnabla_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} \mathit{\Theta}({\boldsymbol{q}})\big|_{{\boldsymbol{q}} = {\boldsymbol{q_0}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{f}}(t) \, . \label{eqn:LRF}$$ Here, the higher-order terms have been neglected, assuming that the perturbation is sufficiently small. Hereafter, we denote $\bnabla_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} \mathit{\Theta}({\boldsymbol{q}}) |_{{\boldsymbol{q}} = {\boldsymbol{q_0}}}$ by ${\boldsymbol{Z}}(\theta)$, and refer to it as the phase-sensitvity function.
We find the phase-sensitivity function via a direct method by applying weak impulse perturbations in the form $I \delta(t - t_0) \hat{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{{\boldsymbol{j}}}$ at different phase values over a period by changing $t_0$, where $I$, $\delta(t-t_0)$ and $\hat{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{{\boldsymbol{j}}}$ represent the perturbation amplitude, the Dirac delta function centered at $t_0$ and the unit vector specifying the impulse direction, respectively. In this research, $\delta(t-t_0)$ is modelled as a narrow Gaussian function given by $$\delta(t-t_0) = \frac{I}{\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma} \exp\bigg[ - \frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{t - t_0}{\sigma}\Big)^2 \bigg] \, , \label{eqn:Dirac_delta}$$ where $\sigma$ is taken as $10 \Delta t$, with $\Delta t$ indicating the DNS time step (see §\[section:DNS\]).
The introduction of impulse perturbation results in an asymptotic phase advancement or delay. This asymptotic phase shift, known as the phase-response function $g(\theta; I\hat{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{{\boldsymbol{j}}})$, can be measured experimentally or numerically for a certain phase value and location at which the perturbation is added. Given that $I \ll 1$, the phase-sensitivity function can be evaluated as $$Z_j(\theta) = \lim_{I \rightarrow 0} \frac{g(\theta; I\hat{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{{\boldsymbol{j}}})}{I} \approx \frac{g(\theta; I\hat{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{{\boldsymbol{j}}})}{I} \, . \label{eqn:PSF}$$ The phase-sensitivity functions can be computed for various phase values and locations, to obtain the $2\pi$-periodic phase-sensitivity functions of the entire flow field. One can alternatively integrate the adjoint equations of the dynamical system backward in time to obtain ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$ [@Ermentrout2010; @Nakao2016]. This adjoint-based approach relies on the calculation of Jacobi matrix of $ {\boldsymbol{F}}({\boldsymbol{q}})$ at each time, which requires the explicit knowledge of governing equations, and as a result, cannot be implemented experimentally.
Once ${\boldsymbol{Z}}$ is available, the linear model of (\[eqn:LRF\]) can be used for designing optimal open- or closed-loop controls [@Nair2020]. It can also be utilized to study the synchronization of the periodic flow to an external actuation such as $\varepsilon {\boldsymbol{f}}(t)$ with the frequency $\Omega$, assuming that ${{\left\lvert\Omega - \omega_n\right\rvert}} \ll 1$. We define the relative phase between the actuation and the flow oscillation as $\phi(t) = \omega_n - \Omega t$. This definition can be combined with equation (\[eqn:LRF\]) to calculate the temporal rate of change of $\phi$ $$\dot{\phi} = \varepsilon[\Delta + {\boldsymbol{Z}}(\phi + \Omega t) \cdot {\boldsymbol{f}}(t)] \, , \label{eqn:Relative_phase1}$$ where $\Delta = (\omega_n - \Omega)/\varepsilon = \mathcal{O}(1)$.
The synchronization or phase-locking between the flow oscillation and harmonic forcing occurs when $\dot{\phi} \rightarrow 0$. As a consequence, and after many cycles, the flow adjusts its frequency, so that it oscillates with the new frequency $\Omega$. Since $\Omega t$ changes much more rapidly than the relative phase (${{\left\lvert\Omega - \omega_n\right\rvert}} \ll 1$), the right-hand side of equation (\[eqn:Relative\_phase1\]) can be estimated by taking its average over one period [@Kuramoto1984; @Ermentrout2010]. Hence, equation (\[eqn:Relative\_phase1\]) can be simplified to $$\dot{\phi} = \varepsilon[\Delta + \mathit{\Gamma}(\phi)] \, , \label{eqn:Relative_phase2}$$ where the $2\pi$-periodic phase-coupling function $\mathit{\Gamma}(\phi)$ is formulated as $$\mathit{\Gamma}_m(\phi) = \frac{\Omega}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi/\Omega} {\boldsymbol{Z}} (\phi + \Omega t'/m ) \cdot {\boldsymbol{f}}(t') \mathrm{d}t' = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi} {\boldsymbol{Z}}(\phi + \varphi/m) \cdot {\boldsymbol{f}}(\varphi) \mathrm{d}\varphi \, , \label{eqn:PCF}$$ while $\Omega = m\omega_n$ with $m \in \mathbb{N}$. Stable phase-locking between the external forcing and the periodic flow can be achieved if and only if $$\varepsilon \mathit{\Gamma}_{{\mathrm{min}}} < \Omega - \omega_n < \varepsilon \mathit{\Gamma}_{{\mathrm{max}}} \, ,
\label{eqn:Sync_condition}$$ where $\mathit{\Gamma}_{{\mathrm{max}}}$ and $\mathit{\Gamma}_{{\mathrm{min}}}$ are respectively the maximum and minimum values of the phase-coupling function at a certain point. The region of synchronization in the frequency-amplitude plane, also called Arnold tongue [@Arnold1997], is thus bounded by two lines with the slopes $-1/\Gamma_{{\mathrm{min}}}$ and $1/\Gamma_{{\mathrm{max}}}$, both passing through the point $(\Omega/\omega_n, \varepsilon) = (1, 0)$ (e.g., see figure \[fig:Arnold\_tongue\]). Evidently, as the difference between $\mathit{\Gamma}_{{\mathrm{max}}}$ and $\mathit{\Gamma}_{{\mathrm{min}}}$ becomes larger, the area of the synchronization region grows as well. We therefore define the parameter *synchronizability* $S \equiv \mathit{\Gamma}_{{\mathrm{max}}} - \mathit{\Gamma}_{{\mathrm{min}}}$ as a measure for the convenince of phase-locking. While the above derivations assume $\varepsilon \ll 1$, the synchronization criterion (\[eqn:Sync\_condition\]) often holds for moderate values of $\varepsilon$.
Numerical simulations \[section:DNS\]
=====================================
Let us consider the application of the phase-reduction analysis to characterize the synchronization properties of the circular cylinder wake. The governing equations for this 2D incompressible flow are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial {\boldsymbol{u}}}{\partial t} + {\boldsymbol{u}} \cdot \bnabla{{\boldsymbol{u}}} = \frac{1}{Re} \nabla^2 {\boldsymbol{u}} - \nabla p + \varepsilon {\boldsymbol{f}} \, \quad \textrm{and} \quad \bnabla \cdot {\boldsymbol{u}} = 0 \, ,
\label{eqn:DNS}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{u}} = u \hat{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{{\boldsymbol{x}}} + v \hat{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{{\boldsymbol{y}}}$, $p$ and ${\boldsymbol{f}}$ represent dimensionless velocity, pressure and external forcing, respectively. Equations in (\[eqn:DNS\]) are non-dimensionalized by taking the cylinder diameter $d$ and the freestream velocity $U$ as the characteristic length and velocity (figure \[fig:Setup\](a)). Here, we study the flow at a Reynolds number of $Re \equiv Ud/\nu = 100$, where $\nu$ denotes the kinematic viscosity. For the cylinder flow under consideration, the state of the flow is determined by measuring the lift coefficient $C_L$ and its temporal derivative $\dot{C}_L$ (figure \[fig:Setup\](b)), whose asymptotic changes in response to the impulse perturbations give the phase response, and subsequently, the phase-sensitivity function of the wake flow.
![(a) Setup of impulse perturbations and harmonic actuations used for calculating the phase properties of the fluid flow. $\alpha$ and $r$ denote the angular position of the perturbation and its distance from the center of the cylinder, respectively. Horizontal and vertical, black arrows indicate the position and orientation of impulse perturbations used for developing the linear, phase-based model, while the red arrows show example arrangements of top and bottom actuators used to study the synchronization proeprties of the wake flow. (b) Limit-cycle attractor of the flow depicted in the $\dot{C}_L-C_L$ plane, along with the definitions of the phase variable $\theta$ and the phase function $\mathit{\Theta}$.[]{data-label="fig:Setup"}](Setup.pdf){width="1.\textwidth"}
A spatial filter in the form of the three-point discrete delta function of [@Roma1999] is multiplied by the forcing ${\boldsymbol{f}}$ of equation (\[eqn:DNS\]) to ensure that it is localized and acts as a point force. Such impulsive, point forces are placed at different angular positions $\alpha$ and distances $r$ from the center of the cylinder, to map out the phase-sensitivity function for the entire flow field (figure \[fig:Setup\](a)). The perturbation amplitudes are selected such that $I \in [0.01, 0.02]$, making them adequately small to satisfy the linearity assumption.
The DNS of governing equations (\[eqn:DNS\]) is carried out using the immersed boundary projection method of [@Taira2007]. The far-field boundary conditions are handled via the multi-domain technique of [@Colonius2008], while each domain is discretized uniformly. The computational domain is chosen as $x/d \in [-39.5, 40.5]$ and $y/d \in [-40, 40]$ with the cylinder located at the origin. The first domain, which is the nearest to the cylinder, lies within the area $[-2, 3]\times[-2.5, 2.5]$ and has the grid spacing $\Delta x/d = \Delta y/d = 0.025$. The time step $\Delta t$ is set to satisfy $\Delta t < 0.5\Delta x/U$. When the impulse perturbations are located too close to the boundaries of the first domain or fall outside of it, the domain is sufficiently enlarged. The natural frequency, the time series of lift and drag coefficients, and the velocity and vorticity fields rendered by the present computational approach are in agreement with those of earlier studies such as [@Munday2013] and [@Taira2018], validating the overall setup.
Results \[section:Results\]
===========================
In this section, we discuss the results regarding the maps of phase-sensitivity functions and synchronizability for the entire flow field. Such findings reveal valuable information about designing optimal control strategies for the frequency or phase modification of the wake dynamics. The accuracy of the model predictions for the synchronizability are validated against DNS results. We furthermore study the connections and differences between the present method and the DMD-based analysis of the flow, in order to illustrate the distinctive features of the phase-reduction analysis.
![Phase-sensitivity function at different phases $\theta$, given by impulse perturbations in (a) $\hat{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ and (b) $\hat{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{{\boldsymbol{y}}}$ directions.[]{data-label="fig:Z"}](Z.pdf){width="1.\textwidth"}
The spatial maps of phase-sensitivity functions demonstrated in figure \[fig:Z\] exhibit a symmetry condition between the upper and lower halves of the flow so that for horizontal impulses $Z_x(\theta; x/d, \alpha) = Z_x(\theta + \pi; x/d, -\alpha)$, and for the vertical ones $Z_y(\theta; x/d, \alpha) = -Z_y(\theta + \pi; x/d, -\alpha)$. In accordance with the findings of [@Luchini2009] and [@Iima2019], we observe that the sensitivity to the forcing inputs is typically the largest downstream of the cylinder and in its vicinity. In addition, a horizontal perturbation in positive direction and placed upstream of the cylinder, either does not change the phase $\theta$ ($Z_x = 0$) or causes phase advancement ($Z_x < 0$), as also reported by [@Iima2019]. The maps of figure \[fig:Z\] indicate that an energy-efficient control strategy for shifting the phase of the flow requires placing the control inputs around the separation point ($\pi/3 \lesssim {{\left\lvert\alpha\right\rvert}} \lesssim \pi/2$ and $0.6 \lesssim x/d \lesssim 0.8$), when they are oriented horizontally, and much closer to the wake ($\pi/12 \lesssim {{\left\lvert\alpha\right\rvert}} \lesssim \pi/4$ and $0.6 \lesssim x/d \lesssim 0.8$), when they are vertical. The stated regions correspond to the peaks of $Z_x$ and $Z_y$.
In this study, we consider the synchronization of the wake to two sinusoidal forcing inputs in the form $f = 0.5\varepsilon[1 + \sin(\Omega t)]$, placed at the top and bottom of the cylinder, as shown in figure \[fig:Setup\]. Note also that there is a phase difference $\pi$ between the two actuators. The distribution of synchronizability $S$ at different harmonics are depicted in figure \[fig:Sync\], when ${\boldsymbol{f}}$ is directed horizontally and vertically. As can be seen in this figure, when $\Omega = (2k-1)\omega_n$ ($k \in \mathbb{N}$), horizontal actuations give much larger values for $S$ in comparison with vertical actuations, i.e., for the odd-harmonic forcings, phase-locking to horizontal actuations can take place with much lower forcing amplitudes. For the even-harmonic forcings, however, the opposite holds, meaning that synchronization to vertical actuations at these harmonics requires lower values for $\varepsilon$. Furthermore, the regions with large synchronizability in the first harmonic mainly overlap with those of the associated phase-sensitivity map. In fact, the location of maximum synchronizability for horizontal (vertical) actuations at $\Omega = \omega_n$ is found to be at $x/d = 0.6$ and $\alpha = 5\pi/12$ ($x/d = 0.6$ and $\alpha = \pi/4$), marked by the green point of the corresponding map. For vertical periodic forcings, the general shape of synchronizability maps does not change substantially for different harmonics, and the maximum value of $S$ appears at the same location for all. In contrast, when the forcings are horizontal, the pattern of $S$ can significantly differ among different harmonics. Specifically, when $\Omega = 2k\omega_n$, $S$ in the centerline of the wake increases from approximately zero at the first harmonic to some fairly large values in $\mathcal{O} (1)$. This can be attributed to the $\pi$-periodicity of $Z_x$ along the centerline of the wake, leading to the orthogonality of phase-sensitivity function to ${\boldsymbol{f}}$, and nearly zero values for both $\mathit{\Gamma}_{{\mathrm{max}}}$ and $\mathit{\Gamma}_{{\mathrm{min}}}$ when $\Omega = \omega_n$. At $\Omega = 2\omega_n$ or other higher harmonics, this orthogonality no longer holds, as can be understood from the formulation for the phase-coupling function (\[eqn:PCF\]), resulting in relatively large values for $S$ at $\alpha = 0$. In fact, the maximum value of $S$ occurs at $\alpha = 0$ and $x/d = 1.2$ ($x/d = 1.4$) for $\Omega = 2\omega_n$ ($\Omega = 4\omega_n$). The synchronization of actuations placed at the colored points shown in the synchronizability maps of the first harmonic are compared against DNS results in figure \[fig:Arnold\_tongue\].
![(a) Synchronizability fields at different harmonics for horizontal periodic actuators. The green point in each panel indicates the position at which $S$ for a certain value of $\Omega/\omega_n$ is maximized. (b) Same as (a), except harmonic actuators are directed vertically.[]{data-label="fig:Sync"}](S.pdf){width="1.\textwidth"}
The comparison between the findings of the present phase-based approach, particularly for synchronizability maps, and the DMD analysis of the wake flow, underlines the characteristic differences between the two methods. Most distinctively, the phase-based model finds the optimal location for the synchronization fairly close to the cylinder, while the peaks of DMD modes fall at least two diameters away from the cylinder, as can be seen for the velocity modes of figure \[fig:DMD\]. We should emphasize that the phase-reduction and DMD analyses are employed for different objectives. The former identifies the optimal location for an oscillatory control input capable of modifying the phase or oscillation frequency of the flow, whereas the latter aims to extract the most dynamically relevant structures of the flow field. The comparison also exhibits some commonalities between the two. Most noticeably, it shows that the patterns identified by DMD modes are typically strong along the same directions in which $S$ is large. For instance, the structures in DMD modes of the horizontal velocity field are vanishing at $\alpha = 0$ for the first and third modes, but are the strongest for the second and fourth modes. In addition, for the odd modes of vertical velocity, it is observed that the dominant structures emerge closer to the wake center in comparison with those of $u$-modes. These findings are in line with the results of the present analysis for synchronizability fields.
![Magnitude of DMD modes for (a) horizontal, and (b) vertical velocity fields, with the frequency of mode $m$ being $m\omega_n$.[]{data-label="fig:DMD"}](DMD_modes.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
The present phase-based model reveals the necessary conditions for the synchronization of the vortex shedding to external actuations. The theoretically calculated Arnold tongues corresponding to the points A to D of figure \[fig:Sync\] (solid lines in figure \[fig:Arnold\_tongue\]) are compared against the numerically obtained boundaries of synchronization in the frequency-amplitude plane for the same cases (blue crosses in the same figure). The numerical boundaries for a prescribed value of $\varepsilon$ are found by locating the largest value of ${{\left\lvert\Omega - \omega_n\right\rvert}}$ for which the difference between the oscillation frequency of the flow and $\Omega$ is below $1\%$. Except for the case with horizontal actuation at $x/d = 0.6$ and $\alpha = \pi/2$ (point C in figure \[fig:Sync\]a), in which model predictions slightly deviate from DNS results, all other cases show excellent agreement between the two. Note that as the amplitude $\varepsilon$ of the actuations increases, the nonlinear effects become more pronounced, such that the gradual decline in the agreement between the linear model of (\[eqn:LRF\]) and DNS at higher amplitudes is reasonably expected. Consistent with the observations of [@Rigas2017] and [@Herrmann2020], we also find that subharmonic synchronization (i.e., when the vortex shedding oscillates with the frequency $\Omega/m$ instead of $\Omega$) can commonly arise at higher harmonics. However, since the smaller values of $S$ at these harmonics (especially at the even harmonics of horizontal synchronizability field) make them difficult to achieve, phase-locking at higher harmonics are not shown here.
![Synchronization of vortex shedding to harmonic actuations for (a) horizontal and (b) vertical forcing inputs, located at points A to D of figure \[fig:Sync\]. The phase-based analysis suggests that only cases falling inside the areas bounded by the solid black lines meet the theoretical criteria for phase-locking. The numerically found boundaries of synchronization are also marked by the blue crosses.[]{data-label="fig:Arnold_tongue"}](Arnold_tongue.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
Once the maps of $Z_x$ and $Z_y$ are available, the phase-sensitivity function for any arbitrariliy-oriented impulse perturbation at any point can be calculated as $Z(\beta) = Z_x \cos(\beta) + Z_y \sin (\beta)$, while $\beta$ is the angle between the forcing direction and $\hat{{\boldsymbol{e}}}_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}$. Subsequently, other phase properties such as $\Gamma$ and $S$ can also be computed for all possible locations and directions of forcing inputs, following the formulations of §\[section:Theory\]. The optimal orientation of actuations leading to the maximum synchronizability for different points in the flow field are shown in figure \[fig:Orientation\]. The length of each vector is proportional to the magnitude of $S$, when a harmonic forcing in the same direction and at the same location is introduced. The optimal orientation for the periodic actuations in the near wake ($x/d \lesssim 1.5$) is found to be nearly tangential to the cylinder. This is of practical significance, since tangential forcings can result in a more streamlined and stabilized wake, causing substantial drag reduction [@Munday2013]. It is also seen that actuations tangential to the cylinder and placed at $x/d = 0.6$ and $\alpha = \pm 5\pi/12$ (red arrows of figure \[fig:Orientation\](a)) yield the largest value possible for $S$. Therefore, a harmonic actuation at the same location as the red vectors and parallel to them results in phase-locking with the smallest amplitude $\varepsilon$, in comparison with all other actuations at any other locations and with any other orientations. The synchronizability field corresponding to periodic forcings parallel to the top red arrow of figure \[fig:Orientation\](a), and with $\Omega = \omega_n$, is remarkably similar to the synchronizability map of horizontal forcings at the same harmonic (compare figures \[fig:Orientation\](b) and \[fig:Sync\](a)), except the values of $S$ in figure \[fig:Orientation\](b) are around $5\%$ larger.
![(a) The vector field represents the optimal orinetation of forcing inputs at different locations in the flow field, in order to acquire the maximum synchronizability. The length of each vector is proportional to the synchronizability achieved by applying the perturbation in the same direction and at the same location as the vector. The red vectors correspond to the actuations leading to the maximum value of $S$. (b) Synchronizability field at $\Omega = \omega_n$, when the periodic actuations are aligned with the top red vector of panel (a).[]{data-label="fig:Orientation"}](Optimal_orientation.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
The capabilities of the present phase-based analysis in modifying the oscillation frequency of the flow can give insights into the physics of vortex shedding process as well as the interaction mechanicsms of vortical structures in the wake flow such as vortex splitting and merging. Furthermore, this method proposes a novel approach for controlling the unsteady dynamics of periodic flows through changing their oscillation frequency or phase by finding the optimal strategy for the placement of forcing inputs. Such strategy can in turn enable substantial drag reduction and/or lift enhancement. The current framework of the phase-reduction theory holds promise for its application to a variety of engineering problems such as biological swimmers and flyers, vortex-induced vibration and fluid-structure interactions.
Concluding Remarks \[section:Conclusion\]
=========================================
We performed a phase-based analysis on the 2D periodic flow past a cylinder at $Re = 100$. Weak impulse perturbations were introduced at different locations in the flow field and at various times over a period, in order to uncover the important phase properties of the periodic wake. The present direct method does not need a priori knowledge of the underlying dynamics, is computationally tractable, and can be straightforwardly implemented in experimental setups. The maps of phase-sensitivity function and synchronizability identified by the phase-based model of (\[eqn:LRF\]) reveal optimal strategies for altering the wake dynamics via modification of the phase or frequency of the flow. The present method accurately predicts the necessary conditions for the synchronization of the wake flow to external harmonic actuations, as confirmed by comparing the model predictions against DNS results. Furthermore, the comparison between the phase- and DMD-based analysis of the flow shows that, despite some interesting similarities, the optimal positioning of forcing inputs required for changing the frequency or the phase of the flow is better determined using the present phase-based approach. This should not come across as surprisng, as they are developed for vastly different objectives. In subsequent studies, the authors aim to investigate the commonalities and discrepancies between the two methods in detail, consider more complex physics such as the interactions between the periodic wakes of multiple bodies, and extend the current approach to quasiperiodic flows, e.g. via cluster-based techniques.
Acknowledgment \[section:Acknowledgment\] {#acknowledgment-sectionacknowledgment .unnumbered}
=========================================
We gratefully acknowledge the support from the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant: FA9550-16-1-0650, Program Managers: Drs. Gregg Abate and Douglas Smith) and the Army Research Office (Grant: W911NF-19-1-0032, Program Manager: Dr. Matthew J. Munson).
[^1]: Email addresses for correspondence: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Mihajlo Vanevi'' c[^1]'
- 'Zoran Radovi'' c'
date: 'Received: / Revised version: date'
title: Quasiparticle states in superconducting superlattices
---
[leer.eps]{} gsave 72 31 moveto 72 342 lineto 601 342 lineto 601 31 lineto 72 31 lineto showpage grestore
\[sec:Intro\]Introduction
=========================
The artificial S/N superlattices consisting of alternating superconductor (S) and normal-metal or semiconductor (N) layers have been studied for some time already [@art:BaranovBuzdin; @art:TakahashiTakahashi1; @art:RadovicLedvij; @art:Bulaevski90; @art:Buzdin92; @art:TanakaTsukada; @art:Stojkovic; @art:Kummel94; @art:Kuplevakshky], see also [@art:Koperdraad; @art:KettersonBook]. The recent advancement of nanofabrication technology and experimental techniques [@art:Moussy02], as well as intrinsically layered structure of high-$T_c$ superconductors [@art:Huang03; @art:Buschmann92; @art:Kashiwaya] has reinvigorated the long standing interest in understanding the effects inherent to clean superconducting heterostructures [@art:Mortensen; @art:Gyorffy96; @art:GunsenhKummel94]. The size and coherence effects have been studied recently for double barrier SNS and NSN junctions in the clean limit based on the solutions of Gor’kov and Bogoliubov–de Gennes (BdG) equations [@art:TanakaTsukada1; @art:Brinkman; @art:RadovicGrcka; @art:BozovicRadovic; @art:BozovicRadovicNew; @art:RadovicPhysC].
In this paper we extend the previous approach of Tanaka and Tsukada [@art:TanakaTsukada] and Plehn [et al.]{} [@art:Kummel94] to the more general case of superlattices with finite interlayer transparency. We present comprehensive and systematic analysis of the influence of interface transparency on the quasiparticle band structure and density of states for wide range of the superlattice parameters. Due to the phase coherence of electronic wave functions the energy spectrum is gapless in superlattices with thin S layers and transparent interfaces [@art:RadovicPhysC], and splits into almost flat bands (transmission resonances) with decreasing transparency. For thick S layers, the subgap bands are formed due to the Andreev reflection [@art:Andreev] which leads to [the conversion of Cooper pairs]{} in superconducting layers into correlated electrons and holes in the normal layers. [Whereas the calculations are performed in the clean limit, the influence of impurities on the density of states]{} can be taken into account by replacing the superconducting coherence length with an effective one, as shown by Halterman and Valls [@art:Halterman] in comparison with experiments of Moussy [et al.]{} [@art:Moussy02]. Our results for density of states in superlattices with layer thicknesses smaller than the superconducting correlation length, qualitatively confirm main features previously obtained by Bulaevskii and Zyskin [@art:Bulaevski90] and Buzdin [et al.]{} [@art:Buzdin92] for atomic-scale layered systems within the tight binding approximation.
\[sec:Model\]The model
======================
The system under consideration is an S/N superlattice in the clean limit, consisting of alternating superconducting and normal-metal (or semiconductor) layers of thickness $d_S$ and $d_N$, with insulating interfaces modelled as thin potential-energy barriers. The superconducting layers are characterized by constant pair potential $\Delta_0$, and zero phase difference, $\phi=0$, is assumed across the superlattice. Effective band masses and electrostatic potentials of the two metals are $m_S$ ($m_N$) and $U_S$ ($U_N$), respectively. The superlattice is uniform in the $x-y$ plane and the $z$ axis is perpendicular to the layers.
Quasiparticle propagation in the superlattice is described by the Bogoliubov–de Gennes equation $$\begin{pmatrix}
H_0({\bf r}) & \Delta({\bf r}) \\
\Delta^*({\bf r}) & -H_0^* ({\bf r})
\end{pmatrix}
\Psi({\bf r}) = E \Psi({\bf r}),$$ where $\Psi({\bf r})=\big(u({\bf r}), v({\bf r})\big){}^T$ is the two-component wave function in the [electron-hole space]{}, the quasiparticle energy $E$ is measured with respect to the chemical potential $\mu$, and the hamiltonian $H_0$ within the superlattice period $a=d_N+d_S$, for $z\in(-d_N,d_S)$, is given by $$\begin{gathered}
H_0({\bf r}) = - \nabla \frac{\hbar^2}{2m({\bf r})} \nabla
+ \hat W \, [ \delta(z) + \delta(z+d_N) ]
\\
+U({\bf r})- \mu.\end{gathered}$$ The first term is the quasiparticle kinetic energy in the effective mass approximation [@art:Mortensen; @art:effMass], the second term, with $\hat W=\hbar^2 k_{FS} Z / 2m_S$, describes finite transparency of S-N interfaces modelled as $\delta$-function potential barriers, and dimensionless parameter $Z$ measures the barrier strength. Fermi energies in N and S layers are ${E}_{FN}= \hbar^2 k_{FN}^2/2m_N = \mu - U_N$ and ${E}_{FS}= \hbar^2 k_{FS}^2/2m_S =\mu-U_S$, respectively. We define the corresponding effective chemical potentials as $\mu_N =
\mu_N(k_\parallel)={E}_{FN}-(\hbar^2 k_\parallel^2/2m_N)$ and $\mu_S=\mu_S(k_\parallel)={E}_{FS}-(\hbar^2 k_\parallel^2/2m_S)$, where ${\bf k}_\parallel$ is the conserved quasiparticle momentum parallel to the layers.
[The pair potential $\Delta({\bf r})$ should be treated self-consistently. For the sake of simplicity we used the stepwise model with $\Delta({\bf r})$ equal to constant $\Delta_0$ in S and zero in N layers [@art:Kummel94; @art:TanakaTsukada1]. However, for S/N superlattices with thin S layers, the effective $\Delta_0$ can be taken as the space-averaged self-consistently determined pair potential, correspondingly smaller than the bulk value [@art:BozovicRadovicNew]. For superlattices with thick S films, $\Delta_0$ can be set to the bulk value.]{}
Solutions of BdG equation, $$\Psi({\bf r})=
\begin{pmatrix}
u(z) \\ v(z)
\end{pmatrix}
e^{i{\bf k}_\parallel \cdot {\bf r}},$$ in N and S layers can be written in the form $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{pmatrix}
u(z) \\ v(z)
\end{pmatrix}_N
=
C_1 \sin(k^+_N z)
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}
+
C_2 \cos(k^+_N z)
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}
\\
+
C_3 \sin(k^-_N z)
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}
+
C_4 \cos(k^-_N z)
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{pmatrix}
u(z) \\ v(z)
\end{pmatrix}_S
=
C_5 \sin(k^+_S z)
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar u \\ \bar v
\end{pmatrix}
+
C_6 \cos(k^+_S z)
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar u \\ \bar v
\end{pmatrix}
\\
+
C_7 \sin(k^-_S z)
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar v \\ \bar u
\end{pmatrix}
+
C_8 \cos(k^-_S z)
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar v \\ \bar u
\end{pmatrix}.\end{gathered}$$ Here, $\Omega = \sqrt{\smash[b]{E^2 - \Delta_0^2}}$, $k^\pm_N=\sqrt{\smash[b]{2m_N(\mu_N \pm E)/ \hbar^2}}$, $k^\pm_S=\sqrt{\smash[b]{2m_S(\mu_S \pm \Omega)/ \hbar^2}}$ and the BCS coherence amplitudes are $\bar u = \sqrt{\smash[b]{(1+\Omega/E)/2}}$ and $\bar v = \sqrt{\smash[b]{(1-\Omega/E)/2}}$.
Complex coefficients $C_1$ through $C_8$ are determined from the boundary conditions at interfaces $z=0$ and $z=-d_N$ inside the primitive cell $$\label{eq:bCond1}
\begin{pmatrix}
u_N(0) \\ v_N(0)
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
u_S(0) \\ v_S(0)
\end{pmatrix},$$ $$\label{eq:bCond2}
\frac{1}{m_N}
\begin{pmatrix}
u'_N(0) \\ v'_N(0)
\end{pmatrix}
+
\frac{k_{FS}}{m_S} Z
\begin{pmatrix}
u(0) \\ v(0)
\end{pmatrix}
=
\frac{1}{m_S}
\begin{pmatrix}
u'_S(0) \\ v'_S(0)
\end{pmatrix},$$ $$\label{eq:bCond3}
e^{iKa}
\begin{pmatrix}
u_N(-d_N) \\ v_N(-d_N)
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
u_S(d_S) \\ v_S(d_S)
\end{pmatrix},$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:bCond4}
\frac{e^{iKa}}{m_N}
\begin{pmatrix}
u'_N(-d_N) \\ v'_N(-d_N)
\end{pmatrix}
-
\frac{k_{FS}}{m_S} Z e^{iKa}
\begin{pmatrix}
u_N(-d_N) \\ v_N(-d_N)
\end{pmatrix}
\\
=
\frac{1}{m_S}
\begin{pmatrix}
u'_S(d_S) \\ v'_S(d_S)
\end{pmatrix}.\end{gathered}$$ Here, the Bloch condition $\Psi(x,y,z+a)=e^{iKa}\Psi(x,y,z)$ is used and the crystal momentum $K$ is taken within the first Brillouin zone, $K \in (-\pi/a, \pi/a)$.
Dispersion relation $E=E_{n,k_\parallel}(K)$ can be written in the following implicit form [@art:Kummel94] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DispRel}
\cos(K a) &= - \tilde D_1 /4 \pm
\sqrt{(\tilde D_1/4)^2 - \tilde D_2/4 + 1/2} \notag
\\
&\equiv F^\pm(E,k_\parallel),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde D_1$ and $\tilde D_2$ are defined in terms of dimensionless quantities $E/\Delta_0$, $k_\parallel / k_{FS}$, $Z$, $d_N/ \xi_0$, $d_S / \xi_0$, $m_N / m_S$,\
${E}_{FN}/{E}_{FS}$, and $\Delta_0 / {E}_{FS}$ (see the Appendix).
Global density of states (for both spin orientations) per unit area of the cross section $L_xL_y$, averaged over a primitive cell, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:g}
g(E)&=
\frac{1}{L_xL_y} \sum_{\sigma,k_\parallel, K}
\delta {\bm (} E-E(k_\parallel,K) {\bm )} \notag \\
&=
\frac{1}{\pi}\int dk_\parallel \; k_\parallel
\sum_{i=+,-} \frac{a}{2\pi} \int dK^i \;
\delta {\bm (} E-E(k_\parallel,K^i) {\bm )} \notag \\
&=
\frac{a}{2\pi^2} \int dk_\parallel \; k_\parallel
\sum_{i=+,-}
\left|
\frac{\partial K^i}{\partial E(k_\parallel,K^i)}
\right|_{E(k_\parallel, K^i)=E},\end{aligned}$$ where $K^\pm(E)$ are the solutions of Eq. , and $$\left|
\frac{\partial K^i}{\partial E(k_\parallel,K^i)}
\right|
=
\frac{1}{a}
\left|
\frac{\partial\arccos[F^i(E,k_\parallel)]}{\partial E}
\right|.$$ In accordance with Eq. , the integration over $k_\parallel$ \[or $\mu_S=\mu_S(k_\parallel)$\] in Eq. is limited to the intervals given by $$\label{eq:Cond1}
(\tilde D_1/4)^2 - \tilde D_2/4 + 1/2 \ge 0$$ and $$\label{eq:Cond2}
|F^\pm(E,k_\parallel)| \le 1.$$ In the following, $g(E)$ is normalized to the normal-state value $\bar g = (m_S d_S k_{FS} + m_N d_N k_{FN})/ \pi^2\hbar^2$.
\[sec:Elect\]Energy bands and density of states
===============================================
![\[fig:EvsDZ0\] Energy bands as a function of the S layer thickness $d_S$, for S/N superlattices with thick N layers, $d_N=3\xi_0$, transparent interfaces, $Z=0$, and ${\bf k}_\parallel=0$. Andreev bound states ($E<\Delta_0$) and geometrical resonances ($E>\Delta_0$) for the corresponding SNS and NSN trilayers are shown for comparison (solid curves).](VanevicFig1.eps){width="7.7cm" height="6.3cm"}
![\[fig:EvsK12\] Characteristic dispersion of energy bands illustrated for $d_N=3\xi_0$, $Z=0$, ${\bf k}_\parallel=0$, and (a) $d_S=3.0005 d_N$, and (b) $d_S=3.0013d_N$. Bands displayed in (a) are double degenerate for all $K$. Dotted curves represent dispersion for finite transparency $Z=0.5$.](VanevicFig2.eps){width="8cm" height="6.3cm"}
The dispersion relation, Eq. , is solved numerically and the global density of states is calculated from Eq. for various superlattices and for zero phase difference $\phi=0$. In the following, we focus on the influence of finite interface transparency on quasiparticle band structure and density of states. For simplicity, this is illustrated for equal effective masses and Fermi wave-vectors, $m_N/m_S=1$ and $k_{FN}/k_{FS}=1$. Superconductors are characterized by [the bulk value of the pair potential]{} $\Delta_0/E_{FS}=10^{-3}$, which corresponds to the zero-temperature BCS coherence length $\xi_0=\hbar^2
k_{FS}/(\pi m_S \Delta_0)$ $\sim 10^3$Å.
Energy bands for S/N superlattices with thick N layers, transparent S-N interfaces and quasiparticles propagating perpendicular to the layers (${\bf k}_\parallel=0$) are shown in Fig. \[fig:EvsDZ0\]. Quasicontinuum of energy states corresponding to the crystal momentum within the first Brillouin zone, $K\in(-\pi/a,\pi/a)$, is indicated by shading the band width calculated from Eqs. and .
![\[fig:EvsZd12\] Energy bands as a function of $Z$, for ${\bf k}_\parallel=0$ and for two particular S/N superlattices: (a) $d_S=d_N=3\xi_0$ and (b) $d_S=15\xi_0$, $d_N=3\xi_0$. Arrows indicate the bound states in the tunnel limit.](VanevicFig3.eps){width="6.84cm" height="8.4cm"}
For the corresponding SNS trilayer, Andreev bound states, $E<\Delta_0$, in the normal interlayer of thickness $d_N$, for zero phase difference across the junction, transparent interfaces, and ${\bf k}_\parallel=0$ are given by [@art:Kulik] $$\label{eq:SNSAndreev}
\frac{E_n}{\Delta_0} = \pi^2
\Big[
n+ \frac{1}{\pi} \arccos\Big(\frac{E_n}{\Delta_0}\Big)
\Big]
\frac{1}{d_N/\xi_0},$$ where $n=0,1,\ldots$. In this case the Andreev bound states are double degenerate. Geometrical resonances, $E>\Delta_0$, for the corresponding NSN junction with S interlayer of thickness $d_S$, and $Z=0$, ${\bf k}_\parallel=0$ are given by $$\label{eq:NSNGeom}
\frac{E_n}{\Delta_0}= \sqrt{1+n^2\frac{\pi^4}{(d_S/\xi_0)^2}},$$ which follows from the condition $d_S(k^+_S - k^-_S)=2n\pi$, where $n=\pm 1,\pm 2,\ldots$. At these energies the Andreev reflection vanishes and the electron is transmitted without creation or annihilation of Cooper pairs [@art:BozovicRadovic; @art:BozovicRadovicNew; @art:RadovicPhysC]. Both Andreev bound states and geometrical resonances of the corresponding SNS and NSN trilayers are shown in Fig. \[fig:EvsDZ0\] for comparison.
In S/N superlattices with thick S layers, the energy band structure above the gap, $E > \Delta_0$, is also affected by the Andreev process [@art:Gyorffy96; @art:GunsenhKummel94]. With increasing $d_N$, the band structure dependance on $d_S/d_N$ remains qualitatively the same as in Fig. \[fig:EvsDZ0\], with compression and lowering of energy bands that enter the superconducting gap [@art:Vanevic]. [Andreev reflection is the fundamental mechanism that determines the quasiparticle band structure in S/N superlattices. However, qualitatively the same results as shown in Fig. \[fig:EvsDZ0\] are obtained for semiconductor / normal-metal superlattices [@art:SurfSciRep; @art:PikusBook].]{} Characteristic dispersion of energy bands, shown in Fig. \[fig:EvsDZ0\], is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:EvsK12\] for two close thicknesses of the S layer. For some layer thicknesses the energy bands are double degenerate for all $K$, Fig. \[fig:EvsK12\] (a), in contrast with the usual degeneracy at high-symmetry points only (at the center and the ends of the first Brillouin zone), Fig. \[fig:EvsK12\] (b). These two types of dispersion alternate rapidly with the change of layer thicknesses on the atomic scale $k_{F}^{-1}$, while the band width changes on the macroscopic scale.
Finite interface transparency, as well as mismatch of effective masses and [Fermi wave-vectors]{} [@art:Vanevic], lift the degeneracy in $E(K)$, Fig. \[fig:EvsK12\], and change the band structure, Fig. \[fig:EvsZd12\]. For large $Z$, energy bands split into pairs of flat bands independent of $K$, and there is a significant change of the band energy below the superconducting gap. Approaching the tunnel limit for $Z\gg 1$, pairs of adjacent flat energy bands transform into bound states of isolated films defined by $d_S k^\pm_S = n_1\pi$ and $d_N k^\pm_N = n_2\pi$. However, this does not imply that the energy band splitting and decrease of the band widths due to the flattening will be visible in the $E$ vs. $d_{S(N)}$ plot (cf. Figs. \[fig:EvsDZ0\] and \[fig:EvsDZ1\]). Energy levels for $Z\gg 1$ oscillate rapidly with layer thicknesses on the atomic scale $k_F^{-1}$, Fig. \[fig:EvsDZ1close\], so that $E$ vs. $d_{S(N)}$ curves fill the energy space quasicontinuously on the macroscopic scale, Fig. \[fig:EvsDZ1\]. This implies erasing of the band structure and localization of quasiparticle states in real superlattices with finite interface transparency and slightly unequal layers.
![\[fig:EvsDZ1\] Energy ’bands’ for $d_N=3\xi_0$, ${\bf k}_\parallel=0$ and $Z=4$. Shading is produced by the rapid oscillatory dependence of flat energy bands on the S layer thickness.](VanevicFig4.eps){width="8.5cm" height="6.4cm"}
![\[fig:EvsDZ1close\] Rapid oscillatory dependance of energy bands on the S layer thickness for nontransparent superlattices. Energy dispersion $E(K)$ is shown by shading for all $K$, solid curves represent $E(0)$.](VanevicFig5.eps){width="7.7cm" height="6.2cm"}
Previous analysis has been made for quasiparticles that propagate perpendicular to the layers. Dependence of energy bands on $k_\parallel$, i.e. on the effective chemical potential $\mu_S(k_\parallel)$, is illustrated for $Z=0$ in Figs. \[fig:d1Z0debeli12-svi\] (a) and \[fig:d2Z0debeli12-svi\] (a). Band widths decrease with the increase of $k_\parallel$, and bands split into pairs of bound states (flat bands) for very large parallel momentum [@art:Kummel94], similar to the tunnel limit. The effect of erasing the band structure with finite interface transparency is enhanced with the increase of $k_\parallel$. Corresponding changes of the global density of states are shown in Figs. \[fig:d1Z0debeli12-svi\] (b) and \[fig:d2Z0debeli12-svi\] (b). Integration of Eq. is performed over the shaded regions in Figs. \[fig:d1Z0debeli12-svi\] (a) and \[fig:d2Z0debeli12-svi\] (a), where Eqs. and are satisfied.
Now we shall focus on energy bands and the density of states in thin-layer S/N superlattices, where coherence effects are pronounced and ballistic transport is more likely to take place [@art:RadovicPhysC]. Dependence of energy bands on the superlattice period is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:EvsD\] for $d_S=d_N$, ${\bf k}_\parallel=0$, and for both $Z=0$ and $Z=1$. It can be seen that the band structure in transparent thin-layer superlattices differs significantly from the thick-layer case considered in Ref. [@art:Kummel94]. For thin layers, dispersion of energy bands is significant, with only a small part of the lower band laying below $\Delta_0$. Energy bands as a function of $k_\parallel$, and for various interface transparencies are shown in Fig. \[fig:EvsMiSveD1\]. For $Z=0$ and $d_S=d_N$, the most striking feature is the onset of the lowest energy band at the midgap, practically for any $k_\parallel$. This is not the case for thick-layer superlattices, where band energy decreases more rapidly down to zero with the increase of $k_\parallel$, resulting in the left-side “tail” of the subgap peak in the density of states, Figs. \[fig:d1Z0debeli12-svi\] and \[fig:d2Z0debeli12-svi\]. For thin-layer superlattices, finite interface transparency introduces the resonance effect: energy bands penetrate periodically below the midgap with the increase of $k_\parallel$. This is more pronounced as $Z$ gets larger, Fig. \[fig:EvsMiSveD1\]. The corresponding global densities of states for various interface transparencies are shown in Fig. \[fig:gustZsvi\].
![\[fig:d1Z0debeli12-svi\] (a) [Normalized energy bands $E/\Delta_0$]{} as a function of $\mu_S=\mu_S(k_\parallel)$, for S/N superlattice with $d_S=15\xi_0$, $d_N=3\xi_0$ and $Z=0$, and (b) [the corresponding global density of states $g(E)$ normalized to the normal-state value $\overline{g}$.]{} Global density of states for $Z=0.5$ (dashed curve), and in the tunnel limit (dotted curve) are given for comparison.](VanevicFig6.eps){width="7.7cm" height="6.3cm"}
For transparent interfaces, the density of states is BCS-like with the energy gap $E_g$ smaller than the pair potential $\Delta_0$. The value of $E_g$ for transparent interfaces, equal effective masses, and equal Fermi energies can be obtained from the well known dispersion relation [@art:TanakaTsukada; @art:vanGelder; @art:Kummel71] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:vanGelder}
\cos [ (K^\pm \pm k_{zF})a ]
=
\cos(q\delta \, d_S)\cos(q\, d_N)
\\
-
\delta^{-1} \sin(q\delta \, d_S)\sin(q\, d_N),\end{gathered}$$ which is a special case of Eq. . Here, $k_{zF}=\sqrt{\smash[b]{k_F^2 - k_\parallel^2}}$, $\delta=\Omega/E$, and $q=mE/\hbar^2 k_{zF}$. For $d_S$, $d_N \to
0$, from Eqs. and exactly follows [@art:BaranovBuzdin] $$E_g=\frac{\Delta_0}{1+d_N/d_S}.$$ Practically, this simple relation remains valid for the layer thicknesses up to one or two coherence lengths $\xi_0$, due to the weak variation of the bottom of the lowest energy band with the layer thickness, Fig. \[fig:EvsD\] (a).
![\[fig:d2Z0debeli12-svi\] (a) [Normalized energy bands $E/\Delta_0$ ]{} as a function of $\mu_S=\mu_S(k_\parallel)$, for S/N superlattice with $d_S=d_N=3\xi_0$ and $Z=0$, and (b) [the corresponding global density of states $g(E)$ normalized to the normal-state value $\overline{g}$.]{} Global density of states for $Z=0.5$ (dashed curve), and in the tunnel limit (dotted curve) are given for comparison.](VanevicFig7.eps){width="7.7cm" height="6.3cm"}
![\[fig:EvsD\] (a) Energy bands for S/N superlattices with $d_S=d_N$, ${\bf k}_\parallel=0$ and $Z=0$. (b) Erasing of the band structure with decrease of interface transparency is shown for $Z=1$.](VanevicFig8.eps){width="6.84cm" height="8.4cm"}
With decreasing interfacial transparency, the subgap peak in $g(E)$ at $E_g$ decays, and the usual BCS coherence peak at $\Delta_0$ reenters as the superconducting layers become more isolated. In the tunnel limit, the BCS peak at $\Delta_0$ is completely restored, Fig. \[fig:gustZsvi\] (dotted curve in the bottom panel). For thicker layers $d_S \sim d_N\sim\xi_0$, the coherence effects are less pronounced and the tunnel limit behavior is practically reached for smaller $Z\sim 1$. Previously, this double peak structure in the density of states of S/N superlattices is obtained within the tight binding approximation for atomic-scale layered systems, and apparently observed in high-$T_c$ intrinsically layered superconductors [@art:Bulaevski90; @art:Buzdin92; @art:Buschmann92].
![\[fig:EvsMiSveD1\] Energy bands as a function of $\mu_S=\mu_S(k_\parallel)$, for S/N superlattice with thin [layers]{}, $d_S=d_N=0.1\xi_0$, and for various interface transparencies.](VanevicFig9.eps){width="5.7cm" height="13.4cm"}
![\[fig:gustZsvi\] Global density of states for S/N superlattice with thin [layers]{}, $d_S=d_N=0.1\xi_0$, and for various interface transparencies. Tunnel limit is indicated in the bottom panel (dotted curve). Note that [the effective]{} $\Delta_0$ varies with $Z$, being the smallest for $Z=0$ (top panel) and reaching the bulk value in the tunnel limit (bottom panel).](VanevicFig10.eps){width="5.7cm" height="13.4cm"}
\[sec:Concl\]Conclusion
=======================
We have derived the dispersion relation for superconductor / normal-metal (semiconductor) superlattices in the clean limit, generalizing the previous expression of Plehn [et al.]{} [@art:Kummel94] to include an arbitrary interface transparency and mismatch of effective band masses. The obtained general dispersion relation is used for numerical analysis of the influence of interface transparency on energy band structure and density of states in metallic S/N superlattices. Although we used stepwise approximation for the pair potential, our results will not be altered significantly by the fully self-consistent numerical calculations [@art:Kummel94], if [an effective]{} pair potential (smaller than the bulk value) is taken for thin S layers, and simply the bulk value in the cases of thick S layers, low transparency, and mismatch of [Fermi wave-vectors]{} or band masses. Our results confirm previously obtained features in the metallic S/N superlattices [[@art:TanakaTsukada; @art:Stojkovic; @art:Kummel94]]{}, including the limiting cases of double barrier SNS or NSN trilayers [[@art:SchusslerKummel93; @art:GunsenhKummel94; @art:Brinkman; @art:RadovicGrcka; @art:BozovicRadovic; @art:BozovicRadovicNew; @art:RadovicPhysC]]{}, and are in a good qualitative agreement with the results obtained within the tight binding approximation [@art:Bulaevski90; @art:Buzdin92].
Consequences of the quantum interference effect are strong and rapid (on the atomic scale) geometrical oscillations with layers thickness of the energy dispersion in transparent superlattices, and of the almost flat energy bands (transmission resonances) in the case of finite transparency. Oscillations in the latter case are practically within the band width of the corresponding fully transparent superlattice. Practically, this could imply the localization of quasiparticle states in superlattices with low interface transparency.
Characteristic changes of quasiparticle band structure with decreasing interface transparency are suitably reflected in the global (averaged on the lattice period) density of states, which can be directly measured by STM techniques [@art:Buschmann92; @art:Moussy02]. Oscillations of the density of states are simply related to the band structure for transparent superlattices with thick layers [@art:TanakaTsukada]. However, superlattices with the period smaller than the coherence length, when S and N layers lose their individual properties due to strong [phase coupling by Andreev scattering]{}, do not differ significantly from a bulk BCS superconductor, except for a subgap peak in the global density of states instead of the superconductor coherence peak at $\Delta_0$ [@art:Bulaevski90]. For transparent interfaces, position of the subgap peak is simply related to the lattice parameters. For finite interface transparency, we find the characteristic double peak structure in the global density of states [@art:Buzdin92]. With decreasing transparency the subgap peak decreases, only slightly changing the position, while the coherence peak at the effective $\Delta_0$ grows, and the density of states develops towards the gapless BCS result for the bulk superconductor in the tunnel limit. We point out that this double-peak structure of the global density of states in small-period clean-metal S/N superlattices can be used as a reliable experimental probe for interface transparency.
We are grateful to Ivana Petkovi' c, Miloš Božovi' c, and Boris Grbi' c for useful discussions. The work has been supported by the Serbian Ministry of Science, Project No. 1899.
M.V. Baranov, A.I. Buzdin, L.N. Bulaevskii, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**91**]{}, 1063 (1986) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**64**]{}, 628 (1986)\] S. Takahashi, M. Tachiki, Phys. Rev. B [**33**]{}, 4620 (1986); S. Takahashi, M. Tachiki, Phys. Rev. B [**34**]{}, 3162 (1986) Z. Radovi[ć]{}, M. Ledvij, L. Dobrosavljevi[ć]{}-Gruji[ć]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 8613 (1991) L.N. Bulaevskii, M.V. Zyskin, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 10230 (1990) A.I. Buzdin, V.P. Damjanovi[' c]{}, A.Yu. Simonov, Physica C [**194**]{}, 109 (1992) Yu. Tanaka, M. Tsukada, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 7578 (1991) B.P. Stojkovi[' c]{}, O.T. Valls, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 3374 (1994) H. Plehn, O.-J. Wacker, R. K[ü]{}mmel, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 12140 (1994) S.V. Kuplevakhsky, S.V. Naydenov, A.A. Galiautdinov, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 7858 (1997); S.V. Kuplevakhsky, A.V. Naduev, S.V. Naydenov, Superlatt. Microstruct. [**25**]{}, 819 (1999) R. Koperdraad, Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1995 J.B. Ketterson, S.N. Song, [*Superconductivity*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1999) N. Moussy, H. Curtois, B. Pannetier, Europhys. Lett. [**55**]{}, 861 (2001); N. Moussy, H. Courtois, B. Pannetier, Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**72**]{}, 128 (2001) B.-L. Huang, C.-Yu Mou, Physica C [**390**]{}, 167 (2003) L. Buschmann, M. Boekholt, G. G[" u]{}ntherodt, Physica C [**203**]{}, 68 (1992) S. Kashiwaya et al., Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 2667 (1996) N.A. Mortensen, K. Flensberg, A.-P. Jauho, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 10176 (1999) O. [Š]{}ipr, B. Gy[ö]{}rffy, J. Phys. C [**8**]{}, 169 (1996) U. Gunsenheimer, U. Sch[ü]{}ssler, R. K[ü]{}mmel, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 6111 (1994) Yu. Tanaka, M. Tsukada, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 287 (1993) A. Brinkman, A.A. Golubov, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 11297 (2000) Z. Radovi[' c]{}, N. Lazarides, N. Flytzanis, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 014501 (2003) M. Bo[ž]{}ovi[' c]{}, Z. Radovi[' c]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 134524 (2002) M. Bo[ž]{}ovi[' c]{}, Z. Radovi[' c]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**70**]{}, 513 (2005) M. Bo[ž]{}ovi[' c]{}, Z. Pajovi[' c]{}, Z. Radovi[' c]{}, Physica C [**391**]{}, 309 (2003) A.F. Andreev, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**46**]{}, 1823 (1964) \[JETP Lett. [**19**]{}, 1228 (1964)\] K. Halterman, O.T. Valls, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 224516 (2002) R.A. Morrow, K.R. Brownstein, Phys. Rev. B [**30**]{}, 678 (1984) I.O. Kulik, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**57**]{}, 1745 (1969) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**30**]{}, 944 (1970)\] M. Vanevi[' c]{}, Diploma thesis, University of Belgrade, 2003 M. Steslicka et al., Surf. Sci. Rep. [**47**]{}, 93 (2002) E.L. Ivchenko, G.E. Pikus, [*Superlattices and Other Heterostructures – Symmetry and Optical Phenomena*]{}, 2nd edn. (Springer, Berlin, 1997) A.P. van Gelder, Phys. Rev. [**181**]{}, 787 (1969) R. K[" u]{}mmel, Phys. Rev. B [**3**]{}, 784 (1971) U. Sch[ü]{}ssler, R. K[ü]{}mmel, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 2754 (1993)
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
From the boundary conditions, Eqs. –, the dispersion relation, Eq. , is expressed through $\tilde D_1= D_1/D_0$ and $\tilde D_2=D_2/D_0$, where
$$\begin{aligned}
D_0=& {{{m_r}^2}}\,{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,
{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{\left( {{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2 \right)}^2,
\\
D_1=& F_0 + F_1({{{{Z}}{{k_{FS}}}}}) + F_2({{{{Z}}{{k_{FS}}}}})^2,
\\
D_2=& G_0 + G_1 ({{{{Z}}{{k_{FS}}}}}) + G_2 ({{{{Z}}{{k_{FS}}}}})^2
+ G_3 ({{{{Z}}{{k_{FS}}}}})^3 + G_4 ({{{{Z}}{{k_{FS}}}}})^4.\end{aligned}$$
Here, ${m_r}=m_N/m_S$, $F_0$ through $F_2$ and $G_0$ through $G_4$ are given by
[$$\begin{aligned}
F_0=&
{{m_r}}\,
\left( {{{{\bar u}}}}^2 -{{{{\bar v}}}}^2 \right) \,
\Big\{ \big[
{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}
\left(
{{{{{{k^-_N}}}}{}^2}} +{{{m_r}^2}}\,{{{{{{k^-_S}}}}{}^2}}
\right)
+
{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}
\left(
{{{{{{k^+_N}}}}{}^2}} + {{{m_r}^2}}\,{{{{{{k^+_S}}}}{}^2}}
\right)
\big]
\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad -
\big[
{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}
\left(
{{{{{{k^+_N}}}}{}^2}} + {{{m_r}^2}}\,{{{{{{k^-_S}}}}{}^2}}
\right)
+
{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}
\left(
{{{{{{k^-_N}}}}{}^2}} + {{{m_r}^2}}\,{{{{{{k^+_S}}}}{}^2}}
\right)
\big]
\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad +
2\,{{m_r}}\,{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,
\big[
{{\bar v}}^2
\left(
{{c^+_N}}{{c^-_S}}+ {{c^-_N}}{{c^+_S}}\right)
-
{{\bar u}}^2
\left(
{{c^+_N}}{{c^+_S}}+ {{c^-_N}}{{c^-_S}}\right)
\big]
\Big\}, $$$$\begin{aligned}
F_1 =&
-2\,{{{m_r}^2}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\,
\Big\{
{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,
\big[
{{{{k^+_S}}}}\, {{s^-_S}}\left(
{{c^-_N}}\, {{\bar u}}^2 - {{c^+_N}}\, {{\bar v}}^2
\right)
+
{{{{k^-_S}}}}\, {{s^+_S}}\left(
{{c^+_N}}\, {{\bar u}}^2 - {{c^-_N}}\, {{\bar v}}^2
\right)
\big]
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+
{{m_r}}\,{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,
\big[
{{{{k^-_N}}}}\, {{s^+_N}}\left(
{{c^+_S}}\, {{\bar u}}^2 - {{c^-_S}}\, {{\bar v}}^2
\right)
+
{{{{k^+_N}}}}\, {{s^-_N}}\left(
{{c^-_S}}\, {{\bar u}}^2 - {{c^+_S}}\, {{\bar v}}^2
\right)
\big]
\Big\},\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
F_2 =&
-
{{{m_r}^3}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\,
\big[
{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,
\left(
{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2
-
{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}\, {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,
\left(
{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2
-
{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\big],\end{aligned}$$]{}and [$$\begin{aligned}
G_0=&
{{{s^-_N}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,
\left(
{{{{{{k^-_N}}}}{}^2}}\,{{{{{{k^+_N}}}}{}^2}}
+
{{{m_r}^4}}\,{{{{{{k^-_S}}}}{}^2}}\,{{{{{{k^+_S}}}}{}^2}}
\right)
{\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)}^2
\notag
\\
&
-
2\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\,
\Big\{
{{m_r}}\,{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,
\big[
{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,
\left(
{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2
-
{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{{{c^+_S}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{c^+_N}}}\, {{{s^-_N}}}\,
\left(
{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{{{c^+_S}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2
-
{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\big]
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+
{{{m_r}^3}}\,{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,
\big[
{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,
\left(
{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2
-
{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{c^+_S}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,{{{c^+_N}}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,
\left(
{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{c^+_S}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2
-
{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\big]
\Big\}
\notag
\\
&+
{{{m_r}^2}}\,
{{\Big(}}
2\,{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,
\big\{
{{{s^-_S}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\left(
{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{c^+_N}}}-1
\right)
\,
\left(
{{{{{{k^-_S}}}}{}^2}} + {{{{{{k^+_S}}}}{}^2}}
\right)
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+
{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,
\big[
\left(
1 + 2\,{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{c^+_N}}}\,{{{c^-_S}}}\, {{{c^+_S}}}
\right)
\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^4 + {{{{\bar v}}}}^4
\right)
-2\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\left(
{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{{c^+_S}}}
+
{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{c^+_N}}}
+
{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{c^+_N}}}\,{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{{c^+_S}}}
\right)
\big]
\big\}
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad+
{{{s^-_N}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,
\big\{
2 {{k^-_S}}\, {{k^+_S}}\, {{\bar u}}^2 \, {{\bar v}}^2 \,
\left({{c^-_S}}\,{{c^+_S}}-1\right)
\left({{k^-_N}}{}^2+{{k^+_N}}{}^2 \right)
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+
{{s^-_S}}\, {{s^+_S}}\big[
{{\bar u}}^4
\left(
{{k^-_N}}{}^2 \, {{k^+_S}}{}^2 + {{k^+_N}}{}^2 \, {{k^-_S}}{}^2
\right)
+
{{\bar v}}^4
\left(
{{k^-_N}}{}^2 \, {{k^-_S}}{}^2 + {{k^+_N}}{}^2 \, {{k^+_S}}{}^2
\right)
\big]
\big\}
{{\Big)}},\end{aligned}$$]{}[$$\begin{aligned}
G_1 = &
-2\,{{m_r}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\notag
\\
& \times
{{\Big[}}
{{{s^+_N}}}\,
{{\Big(}}
{{m_r}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,
\big\{
{{{c^+_S}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}\,
\big[
{{{{{{k^-_N}}}}{}^2}}\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2
-
{{{{{{k^+_N}}}}{}^2}}\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
+
{{{m_r}^2}}\,{{{{{{k^-_S}}}}{}^2}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\big]
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad +
{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,
\big[
{{{{{{k^+_N}}}}{}^2}}\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2
-
{{{{{{k^-_N}}}}{}^2}}\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
+
{{{m_r}^2}}\,{{{{{{k^+_S}}}}{}^2}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\big]
\big\}
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad +
{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,
\big\{
-2\,{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{{c^+_S}}}\,{{{m_r}^2}}\,{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\, {{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
{{{s^-_S}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,
\big[
{{{{{{k^+_N}}}}{}^2}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
{{{m_r}^2}}\,
\left(
{{{{{{k^+_S}}}}{}^2}}\, {{{{\bar u}}}}^2
-
{{{{{{k^-_S}}}}{}^2}}\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\big]
\big\}
{{\Big)}}
\notag
\\
&\qquad +
{{{c^+_N}}}\,{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,
{{\Big(}}
-2\,{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{m_r}}\,{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,
\left(
{{{c^+_S}}}\,{{m_r}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}
+
{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}
\right)
\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 -{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\! +
{{{s^-_S}}}\,
\big\{
-2\,{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{c^+_S}}}\, {{m_r}}\,{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\, {{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
{{{s^-_N}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,
\big[
{{{{{{k^-_N}}}}{}^2}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
{{{m_r}^2}}\,
\left(
{{{{{{k^-_S}}}}{}^2}}\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{{{k^+_S}}}}{}^2}}\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\big]
\big\}
{{\Big)}}
{{\Big]}},\end{aligned}$$]{}[ $$\begin{aligned}
G_2 = &
-{{{m_r}^2}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\notag
\\
& \times
{{\Big(}}
2\,{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{m_r}}\,{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,
\big\{
2\,{{{c^+_S}}}\,{{m_r}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,
\left(
-{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 + {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
{{{s^+_S}}}\,
\big[
-{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - 2\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
{{{c^+_N}}}\,{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,
\left(
-2\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 + {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\big]
\big\}
\notag
\\
&\qquad +
{{{s^-_S}}}\,
{{\big(}}
-2\,{{{c^+_N}}}\,{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,
\big[
{{{c^+_S}}}\,{{m_r}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - 2\,{{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
2\,{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\, {{{s^+_S}}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\big]
\notag
\\
&\qquad\qquad\quad +
{{{s^+_N}}}\,
\big\{
{{{s^-_N}}}\,
\big[
{{{{{{k^-_N}}}}{}^2}}
+
{{{{{{k^+_N}}}}{}^2}}
+
{{{m_r}^2}}\,
\left(
{{{{{{k^-_S}}}}{}^2}} + {{{{{{k^+_S}}}}{}^2}}
\right)
\big]
\, {{{s^+_S}}}\,
\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
+
2\,{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{c^+_S}}}\,{{m_r}}\,{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,
\left(
-2\,{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 + {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)
\big\}
{{\big)}}
{{\Big)}},\end{aligned}$$]{}[ $$\begin{aligned}
G_3 =
2\,{{{m_r}^3}}\,
{\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)}^2
\,
\big\{
{{m_r}}\,{{{{{k^+_S}}}}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}\,{{{c^+_S}}}
+
{{{s^+_S}}}\,
\big[
{{{{{k^-_N}}}}}\,{{{c^-_N}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}
+
{{{s^-_N}}}\,
\left(
{{m_r}}\,{{{{{k^-_S}}}}}\,{{{c^-_S}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}
+
{{{{{k^+_N}}}}}\,{{{c^+_N}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}
\right)
\big]
\big\},\end{aligned}$$]{}[ $$\begin{aligned}
G_4 =
{{{m_r}^4}}\,{{{s^-_N}}}\,{{{s^+_N}}}\,{{{s^-_S}}}\,{{{s^+_S}}}\,
{\left(
{{{{\bar u}}}}^2 - {{{{\bar v}}}}^2
\right)}^2,\end{aligned}$$]{}where $s^\pm_N\equiv\sin(k^\pm_N {{d_N}})$, $c^\pm_N\equiv\cos(k^\pm_N{{d_N}})$, $s^\pm_S\equiv\sin(k^\pm_S {{d_S}})$, and $c^\pm_S\equiv\cos(k^\pm_S {{d_S}})$. For $Z=0$ and ${m_r}=1$ expressions for $\tilde D_1$ and $\tilde D_2$ reduce to the results given in Ref. [@art:Kummel94].
[^1]: *Present address:* Department of Physics, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 82, 4056 Basel, Switzerland;
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Fuchs-Peres-Brandt (FPB) probe realizes the most powerful individual attack on Bennett-Brassard 1984 quantum key distribution (BB84 QKD) by means of a single controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate. This paper describes a complete physical simulation of the FPB-probe attack on polarization-based BB84 QKD using a deterministic CNOT constructed from single-photon two-qubit quantum logic. Adding polarization-preserving quantum nondemolition measurements of photon number to this configuration converts the physical simulation into a true deterministic realization of the FPB attack.'
author:
- 'Jeffrey H. Shapiro'
- 'Franco N. C. Wong'
title: 'Attacking quantum key distribution with single-photon two-qubit quantum logic'
---
Introduction
============
Bennett-Brassard 1984 quantum key distribution (BB84 QKD) using single-photon polarization states works as follows [@BB84]. In each time interval allotted for a bit, Alice transmits a single photon in a randomly selected polarization, chosen from horizontal ($H$), vertical ($V$), $+$45$^\circ$, or $-$45$^\circ$, while Bob randomly chooses to detect photons in either the $H$/$V$ or $\pm$45$^\circ$ bases. Bob discloses to Alice the sequence of bit intervals and associated measurement bases for which he has detections. Alice then informs Bob which detections occurred in bases coincident with the ones that she used. These are the *sift events, i.e., bit intervals in which Bob has a detection *andhis count has occurred in the same basis that Alice used. An *error event is a sift event in which Bob decodes the incorrect bit value. Alice and Bob employ a prescribed set of operations to identify errors in their sifted bits, correct these errors, and apply sufficient privacy amplification to deny useful key information to any potential eavesdropper (Eve). At the end of the full QKD procedure, Alice and Bob have a shared one-time pad with which they can communicate in complete security.***
In long-distance QKD systems, most of Alice’s photons will go undetected, owing to propagation loss and detector inefficiencies. Dark counts and, for atmospheric QKD systems, background counts can cause error events in these systems, as can intrusion by Eve. Employing an attenuated laser source, in lieu of a true single-photon source, further reduces QKD performance as such sources are typically run at less than one photon on average per bit interval, and the occurrence of multi-photon events, although rare at low average photon number, opens up additional vulnerability. Security proofs have been published for ideal BB84 [@security1], as have security analyses that incorporate a variety of non-idealities [@security2]. Our attention, however, will be directed toward attacking BB84 QKD, as to our knowledge no such experiments have been performed, although a variety of potentially practical approaches have been discussed [@attacks]. Our particular objective will be to show that current technology permits physical simulation of the Fuchs-Peres-Brandt (FPB) probe [@FPB], i.e., the most powerful individual attack on single-photon BB84, and that developments underway in quantum nondemolition (QND) detection may soon turn this physical simulation into a full implementation of the attack. Thus we believe it is of interest to construct the physical simulation and put BB84’s security to the test: how much information can Eve really derive about the key that Alice and Bob have distilled while keeping Alice and Bob oblivious to her presence.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we review the FPB probe and its theoretical performance. In Sec. III we describe a complete physical simulation of this probe constructed from single-photon two-qubit (SPTQ) quantum logic. We conclude, in Sec. IV, by showing how the addition of polarization-preserving QND measurements of photon number can convert this physical simulation into a true deterministic realization of the FPB attack on polarization-based BB84.
The Fuchs-Peres-Brandt Probe
============================
In an individual attack on single-photon BB84 QKD, Eve probes Alice’s photons one at a time. In a collective attack, Eve’s measurements probe groups of Alice’s photons. Less is known about collective attacks [@collective], so we will limit our consideration to individual attacks. Fuchs and Peres [@FP] described the most general way in which an individual attack could be performed. Eve supplies a probe photon and lets it interact with Alice’s photon in a unitary manner. Eve then sends Alice’s photon to Bob, and performs a probability operator-valued measurement (POVM) on the probe photon she has retained. Slutsky [*et al.*]{} [@Slutsky] demonstrated that the Fuchs-Peres construct—with the appropriate choice of probe state, interaction, and measurement—affords Eve the maximum amount of Rényi information about the error-free sifted bits that Bob receives for a given level of disturbance, i.e., for a given probability that a sifted bit will be received in error. Brandt [@FPB] extended the Slutsky [*et al.*]{} treatment by showing that the optimal probe could be realized with a single CNOT gate. Figure 1 shows an abstract diagram of the resulting Fuchs-Peres-Brandt probe. In what follows we give a brief review of its structure and performance—see [@FPB] for a more detailed treatment—where, for simplicity, we assume ideal conditions in which Alice transmits a single photon per bit interval, there is no propagation loss and no extraneous (background) light collection, and both Eve and Bob have unity quantum efficiency photodetectors with no dark counts. These ideal conditions imply there will not be any errors on sifted bits in the absence of eavesdropping; the case of more realistic conditions will be discussed briefly in Sec. IV.
In each bit interval Alice transmits, at random, a single photon in one of the four BB84 polarization states. Eve uses this photon as the control-qubit input to a CNOT gate whose computational basis—relative to the BB84 polarization states—is shown in Fig. 2, namely $$\begin{aligned}
|0\rangle &\equiv& \cos(\pi/8)|H\rangle + \sin(\pi/8)|V\rangle \\ %[.05in]
|1\rangle &\equiv& -\sin(\pi/8)|H\rangle + \cos(\pi/8)|V\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the $H/V$ basis. Eve supplies her own probe photon, as the target-qubit input to this CNOT gate, in the state $$|T_{\rm in}\rangle \equiv C|+\rangle + S|-\rangle,
\label{probeinput}$$ where $C = \sqrt{1-2P_E}$, $S = \sqrt{2P_E}$, $|\pm\rangle = (|0\rangle \pm |1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, and $0\le P_E\le 1/2$ will turn out to be the error probability that Eve’s probe creates on Bob’s sifted bits [@footnote1]. So, as $P_E$ increases from 0 to 1/2, $|T_{\rm in}\rangle$ goes from $|+\rangle$ to $|-\rangle$. The (unnormalized) output states that may occur for this target qubit are $$\begin{aligned}
|T_\pm\rangle &\equiv& C|+\rangle \pm \frac{S}{\sqrt{2}}|-\rangle \\ %[.05in]
|T_E\rangle &\equiv& \frac{S}{\sqrt{2}}|-\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
Here is how the FPB probe works. When Alice uses the $H/V$ basis for her photon transmission, Eve’s CNOT gate effects the following transformation, $$\begin{aligned}
|H\rangle|T_{\rm in}\rangle &\longrightarrow&
|H\rangle|T_-\rangle + |V\rangle|T_E\rangle \label{Hin_out} \\ %[.05in]
|V\rangle|T_{\rm in}\rangle &\longrightarrow&
|V\rangle|T_+\rangle +|H\rangle|T_E\rangle,\label{Vin_out} %\\[-.075in] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the kets on the left-hand side denote the Alice$\otimes$Eve state of the control and target qubits at the CNOT’s input and the kets on the right-hand side denote the Bob$\otimes$Eve state of the control and target qubits at the CNOT’s output. Similarly, when Alice uses the $\pm 45^\circ$ basis, Eve’s CNOT gate has the following behavior, $$\begin{aligned}
|\mbox{$+$}45^\circ\rangle|T_{\rm in}\rangle &\longrightarrow&
|\mbox{$+$}45^\circ\rangle|T_+\rangle + |\mbox{$-$}45^\circ\rangle|T_E\rangle
\label{plus_in_out}\\ %[.05in]
|\mbox{$-$}45^\circ\rangle|T_{\rm in}\rangle &\longrightarrow&
|\mbox{$-$}45^\circ\rangle|T_-\rangle +|\mbox{$+$}45^\circ\rangle|T_E\rangle.
\label{minus_in_out}\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that Bob measures in the basis that Alice has employed *and his outcome matches what Alice sent. Then Eve can learn their shared bit value, once Bob discloses his measurement basis, by distinguishing between the $|T_+\rangle$ and $|T_-\rangle$ output states for her target qubit. Of course, this knowledge comes at a cost: Eve has caused an error event whenever Alice and Bob choose a common basis and her target qubit’s output state is $|T_E\rangle$. To maximize the information she derives from this intrusion, Eve applies the minimum error probability receiver for distinguishing between the single-photon polarization states $|T_+\rangle$ and $|T_-\rangle$. This is a projective measurement onto the polarization basis $\{|d_+\rangle,|d_-\rangle\}$, shown in Fig. 3 and given by $$\begin{aligned}
|d_+\rangle &=& \frac{|+\rangle + |-\rangle}{\sqrt{2}} = |0\rangle \\
|d_-\rangle &=& \frac{|+\rangle - |-\rangle}{\sqrt{2}} = |1\rangle. \end{aligned}$$*
Two straightforward calculations will now complete our review of the FPB probe. First, we find the error probability that is created by Eve’s presence. Suppose Alice and Bob use the $H/V$ basis and Alice has sent $|H\rangle$. Alice and Bob will incur an error if the control$\otimes$target output from Eve’s CNOT gate is $|V\rangle|T_E\rangle$. The probability that this occurs is $\langle T_E| T_E\rangle = S^2/2 = P_E$. The same conditional error probability ensues for the other three error events, e.g., when Alice and Bob use the $\pm 45^\circ$ basis, Alice sends $|$$+45^\circ\rangle$, and the CNOT output is $|$$-45^\circ\rangle|T_E\rangle$. It follows that the unconditional error probability incurred by Alice and Bob on their sift events is $P_E$.
Now we shall determine the Rényi information that Eve derives about the sift events for which Alice and Bob do not suffer errors. Let $B = \{0,1\}$ and $E = \{0,1\}$ denote the ensembles of possible bit values that Bob and Eve receive on a sift event in which Bob’s bit value agrees with Alice’s. The Rényi information (in bits) that Eve learns about each Alice/Bob error-free sift event is $$\begin{aligned}
I_R &\equiv&
-\log_2\!\left(\sum_{b= 0}^1P^2(b)\right) \nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{e = 0}^1P(e)\log_2\!\left(\sum_{b = 0}^1
P^2(b\mid e)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\{P(b), P(e)\}$ are the prior probabilities for Bob’s and Eve’s bit values, and $P(b\mid e)$ is the conditional probability for Bob’s bit value to be $b$ given that Eve’s is $e$. Alice’s bits are equally likely to be 0 or 1, and Eve’s conditional error probabilities satisfy [@Helstrom] $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{P(e = 1\mid b = 0) = P(e = 0\mid b = 1)} \\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\!\left(1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{|\langle T_+|T_-\rangle|^2}{\langle T_+|T_+\rangle \langle T_-|T_-\rangle}}\right) \\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\!\left(1- \frac{\sqrt{4P_E(1-2P_E)}}{1-P_E}\right).\end{aligned}$$ These results imply that $b$ is also equally likely to be 0 or 1, and that $P(b\mid e) = P(e\mid b)$, whence $$I_R = \log_2\!\left(1 + \frac{4P_E(1-2P_E)}{(1-P_E)^2}\right),$$ which we have plotted in Fig. 4.
Figure 4 reveals several noteworthy performance points for the FPB probe. The $I_R = 0, P_E = 0$ point in this figure corresponds to Eve’s operating her CNOT gate with $|T_{\rm in}\rangle = |+\rangle$ for its target qubit input. It is well known that such an input is unaffected by and does not affect the control qubit. Thus Bob suffers no errors but Eve gets no Rényi information. The $I_R = 1, P_E = 1/3$ point in this figure corresponds to Eve’s operating her CNOT gate with $|T_{\rm in}\rangle = \sqrt{1/3}|+\rangle + \sqrt{2/3}|-\rangle$, which leads to $|T_\pm\rangle \propto |d_\pm\rangle$. In this case Eve’s Fig. 3 receiver makes no errors, so she obtains the maximum (1 bit) Rényi information about each of Bob’s error-free bits. The $I_R = 0, P_E = 1/2$ point in this figure corresponds to Eve’s operating her CNOT gate with $|T_{\rm in}\rangle = |-\rangle$, which gives $|T_+\rangle = |T_-\rangle = |T_E\rangle = \sqrt{1/2}|-\rangle$. Here it is clear that Eve gains no information about Bob’s error-free bits, but his error probability is 1/2 because of the action of the $|-\rangle$ target qubit on the control qubit.
Physical Simulation in SPTQ Logic
=================================
In single-photon two-qubit quantum logic, each photon encodes two independently controllable qubits [@SPTQ1]. One of these is the familiar polarization qubit, with basis $\{|H\rangle,|V\rangle\}$. The other we shall term the momentum qubit—because our physical simulation of the FPB probe will rely on the polarization-momentum hyperentangled photon pairs produced by type-II phase matched spontaneous parametric downconversion (SPDC)—although in the collimated configuration in which SPTQ is implemented its basis states are single-photon kets for right and left beam positions (spatial modes), denoted $\{|R\rangle, |L\rangle\}$. Unlike the gates proposed for linear optics quantum computing [@KLM], which are scalable but non-deterministic, SPTQ quantum logic is deterministic but not scalable. Nevertheless, SPTQ quantum logic suffices for a complete physical simulation of polarization-based BB84 being attacked with the FPB probe, as we shall show. Before doing so, however, we need to comment on the gates that have been demonstrated in SPTQ logic.
It is well known that single qubit rotations and CNOT gates form a universal set for quantum computation. In SPTQ quantum logic, polarization-qubit rotations are easily accomplished with wave plates, just as is done in linear optics quantum computing. Momentum-qubit rotations are realized by first performing a SWAP operation, to exchange the polarization and momentum qubits, then rotating the polarization qubit, and finally performing another SWAP. The SWAP operation is a cascade of three CNOTs, as shown in Fig. 5. For its implementation in SPTQ quantum logic the left and right CNOTs in Fig. 5 are momentum-controlled NOT gates (M-CNOTs) and the middle CNOT is a polarization-controlled NOT gate (P-CNOT). (An M-CNOT uses the momentum qubit of a single photon to perform the controlled-NOT operation on the polarization qubit of that same photon, and vice versa for the P-CNOT gate.) Experimental demonstrations of deterministic M-CNOT, P-CNOT, and SWAP gates are reported in [@SPTQ1; @SPTQ2].
Figure 6 shows a physical simulation of polarization-based BB84 under FPB attack when Alice has a single-photon source and Bob employs active basis selection; Fig. 7 shows the modification needed to accommodate Bob’s using passive basis selection. In either case, Alice uses a polarizing beam splitter and an electro-optic modulator, as a controllable half-wave plate (HWP), to set the randomly-selected BB84 polarization state for each photon she transmits. Moreover, she employs a single spatial mode, which we assume coincides with the $R$ beam position in Eve’s apparatus. Eve then begins her attack by imposing the probe state $|T_{\rm in}\rangle$ on the momentum qubit. She does this by applying a SWAP gate, to exchange the momentum and polarization qubits of Alice’s photon, rotating the resulting polarization qubit (with the HWP in Fig. 6) to the $|T_{\rm in}\rangle$ state, and then using another SWAP to switch this state into the momentum qubit. This procedure leaves Alice’s BB84 polarization state unaffected, although her photon, which will ultimately propagate on to Bob, is no longer in a single spatial mode. Eve completes the first stage of her attack by sending Alice’s photon through a P-CNOT gate, which will accomplish the state transformations given in Eqs. (\[Hin\_out\])–(\[minus\_in\_out\]), and then routing it to Bob. If Bob employs active basis selection (Fig. 6), then in each bit interval he will use an electro-optic modulator—as a controllable HWP—plus a polarizing beam splitter to set the randomly-selected polarization basis for his measurement. The functioning of this basis-selection setup is unaffected by Alice’s photon no longer being in a single spatial mode. The reason that we call Fig. 6 a physical simulation, rather than a true attack, lies in the measurement box. Here, Eve has invaded Bob’s turf, and inserted SWAP gates, half-wave plates, polarizing beam splitters, and additional photodetectors, so that she can forward to Bob measurement results corresponding to photon counting on the polarization basis that he has selected while she retains the photon counting results corresponding to her $\{|d_+\rangle, |d_-\rangle\}$ measurement. Clearly Bob would never knowingly permit Eve to intrude into his receiver box in this manner. Moreover, if Eve could do so, she would not bother with an FPB probe as she could directly observe Bob’s bit values.
If Bob employs passive basis selection (Fig. 7), then he uses a 50/50 beam splitter followed by static-HWP analysis in the $H$-$V$ and $\pm 45^\circ$ bases, with only the former being explicitly shown in Fig. 7. The rest of Eve’s attack mimics what was seen in Fig. 6, i.e., she gets inside Bob’s measurement boxes with SWAP gates, half-wave plates, and additional detectors so that she can perform her probe measurement while providing Bob with his BB84 polarization-measurement data. Because the Fig. 7 arrangement requires that twice as many SWAP gates, twice as many half-wave plates, and twice as many single-photon detectors be inserted into Bob’s receiver system, as compared to what is needed in the Fig. 6 setup, we shall limit the rest of our discussion to the case of active basis selection as it leads to a more parsimonious physical simulation of the Fuchs-Peres-Brandt attack. We recognize, of course, that the decision to use active basis selection is Bob’s to make, not Eve’s. More importantly, however, in Sec. IV we will show how the availability of polarization-preserving QND photon-number measurements can be used to turn Fig. 6 into a true, deterministic implementation of the FPB attack. The same conversion can be accomplished for passive basis selection. Before turning to the true-attack implementation, let us flesh out some details of the measurement box in Fig. 6 and show how SPDC can be used, in lieu of the single-photon source, to perform this physical simulation.
Let $|\psi_{\rm out}\rangle$ denote the polarization$\otimes$momentum state at the output of Eve’s P-CNOT gate in Fig. 6. Bob’s polarization analysis box splits this state, according to the basis he has chosen, so that one basis state goes to the upper branch of the measurement box while the other goes to the lower branch of that box. This polarization sorting does nothing to the momentum qubit, so the SWAP gates, half-wave plates, and polarizing beam splitters that Eve has inserted into the measurement box accomplish her $\{|d_+\rangle, |d_-\rangle\}$ projective measurement, i.e., the horizontal paths into photodetectors in Fig. 6 are projecting the momentum qubit of $|\psi_{\rm out}\rangle$ onto $|d_-\rangle$ and the vertical paths into photodetectors in Fig. 6 are projecting this state onto $|d_+\rangle$. Eve records the combined results of the two $|d_+\rangle$ versus $|d_-\rangle$ detections, whereas Bob, who only sees the combined photodetections for the upper and lower branches entering the measurement box, gets his BB84 polarization data. Bob’s data is impaired, of course, by the effect of Eve’s P-CNOT.
Single-photon on-demand sources are now under development at several institutions [@single], and their use in BB84 QKD has been demonstrated [@singleBB84]. At present, however, it is much more practical to use SPDC as a heralded source of single photons [@herald]. In SPDC, signal and idler photons are emitted in pairs, thus detection of the signal photon heralds the presence of the idler photon. Moreover, with appropriate configurations [@bidirectional], SPDC will produce photons that are simultaneously entangled in polarization and in momentum. This hyperentanglement leads us to propose the Fig. 8 configuration for physically simulating the FPB-probe attack on BB84. Here, a pump laser drives SPDC in a type-II phase matched $\chi^{(2)}$ crystal, such as periodically-poled potassium titanyl phosphate (PPKTP), producing pairs of orthogonally-polarized, frequency-degenerate photons that are entangled in both polarization and momentum. The first polarizing beam splitter transmits a horizontally-polarized photon and reflects a vertically-polarized photon while preserving their momentum entanglement. Eve uses a SWAP gate and (half-wave plate plus polarizing beam splitter) polarization rotation so that her photodetector’s clicking will, by virtue of the momentum entanglement, herald the setting of the desired $|T_{\rm in}\rangle$ momentum-qubit state on the horizontally-polarized photon emerging from the first polarizing beam splitter. Alice’s electronically controllable half-wave plate sets the BB84 polarization qubit on this photon, and the rest of the Fig. 8 configuration is identical to that shown and explained in Fig. 6. Inasmuch as the SPDC source and SPTQ gates needed to realize the Fig. 8 setup have been demonstrated, we propose that such an experiment be performed. Simultaneous recording of Alice’s polarization choices, Bob’s polarization measurements and Eve’s $|d_+\rangle$ versus $|d_-\rangle$ results can then be processed through the BB84 protocol stack to study the degree to which the security proofs and eavesdropping analyses stand up to experimental scrutiny.
The Complete Attack
===================
Although the FPB attack’s physical simulation, as described in the preceding section, is both experimentally feasible and technically informative, any vulnerabilities it might reveal would only be of academic interest were there no practical means to turn it into a true deterministic implementation in which Eve did *not need to invade Bob’s receiver. Quantum nondemolition measurement technology provides the key to creating this complete attack. As shown in the appendix, it is possible, in principle, to use cross-phase modulation between a strong coherent-state probe beam and an arbitrarily polarized signal beam to make a QND measurement of the signal beam’s total photon number while preserving its polarization state. Cross-phase modulation QND measurement of photon number has long been a topic of interest in quantum optics [@Imoto], and recent theory has shown that it provides an excellent new route to photonic quantum computation [@Nemoto]. Thus it is not unwarranted to presume that polarization-preserving QND measurement of total photon number may be developed. With such technology in hand, the FPB-probe attack shown in Fig. 9 becomes viable. Here, Eve imposes a momentum qubit on Alice’s polarization-encoded photon and performs a P-CNOT operation exactly as discussed in conjunction with Figs. 6 and 8. Now, however, Eve uses a SWAP-gate half-wave plate combination so that the $|d_+\rangle$ and $|d_-\rangle$ momentum qubit states emerging from her P-CNOT become $|V\rangle$ and $|H\rangle$ states entering the polarizing beam splitter that follows the half-wave plate. This beam splitter routes these polarizations into its transmitted and reflected output ports, respectively, where, in each arm, Eve employs a SWAP gate, a polarization-preserving QND measurement of total photon number, and another SWAP gate. The first of these SWAPs returns Alice’s BB84 qubit to polarization, so that a click on Eve’s polarization-preserving QND apparatus completes her $\{|d_+\rangle, |d_-\rangle\}$ measurement without further scrambling Alice’s BB84 qubit beyond what has already occurred in Eve’s P-CNOT gate. The SWAP gates that follow the QND boxes then restore definite ($V$ and $H$) polarizations to the light in the upper and lower branches so that they may be recombined on a polarizing beam splitter. The SWAP gate that follows this recombination then returns the BB84 qubit riding on Alice’s photon to polarization for transmission to and measurement by Bob. This photon is no longer in the single spatial mode emitted by Alice’s transmitter, hence Bob could use spatial-mode discrimination to infer the presence of Eve, regardless of the $P_E$ value she had chosen to impose. Eve, however, can preclude that possibility. Because the result of her $\{|d_+\rangle,|d_-\rangle\}$ measurement tells her the value of the momentum qubit on the photon being sent to Bob, she can employ an additional stage of qubit rotation to restore this momentum qubit to the $|R\rangle$ state corresponding to Alice’s transmission. Also, should Alice try to defeat Eve’s FPB probe by augmenting her BB84 polarization qubit with a randomly-chosen momentum qubit, Eve can use a QND measurement setup like that shown in Fig. 9 to collapse the value of that momentum qubit to $|R\rangle$ or $|L\rangle$, and then rotate that momentum qubit into the $|R\rangle$-state spatial mode before applying the FPB-probe attack. At the conclusion of her attack, she can then randomize the momentum qubit on the photon that will be routed on to Bob without further impact—beyond that imposed by her P-CNOT gate—on that photon’s polarization qubit. So, unless Alice and Bob generalize their polarization-based BB84 protocol to include cooperative examination of the momentum qubit, Alice’s randomization of that qubit will neither affect Eve’s FPB attack, nor provide Alice and Bob with any additional evidence, beyond that obtained from the occurrence of errors on sifted bits, of Eve’s presence.*
Some concluding remarks are now in order. We have shown that a physical simulation of the Fuchs-Peres-Brandt attack on polarization-based BB84 is feasible with currently available technology, and we have argued that the development of polarization-preserving QND technology for measuring total photon number will permit mounting of a true deterministic FBP-probe attack. Our analysis has presumed ideal conditions in which Alice employs a single-photon source, there is no propagation loss and no extraneous (background) light collection, and both Eve and Bob have unity quantum efficiency photodetectors with no dark counts. Because current QKD systems typically employ attenuated laser sources, and suffer from propagation loss, photodetector inefficiencies, and extraneous counts, it behooves us to at least comment on how such non-idealities could impact the FPB probe we have described.
The use of an attenuated laser source poses no problem for the configurations shown in Figs. 6–9. This is because the single-qubit rotations and the CNOT gates of SPTQ quantum logic effect the same transformations on coherent states as they do on single-photon states. For example, the same half-wave plate setting that rotates the single-photon $|H\rangle$ qubit into the single-photon $|V\rangle$ qubit will transform the horizontally-polarized coherent state $|\alpha\rangle_H$ into the vertically-polarized coherent state $|\alpha\rangle_V$. Likewise, the SPTQ P-CNOT gate that transforms a single photon carrying polarization ($|H\rangle = |0\rangle, |V\rangle = |1\rangle$) and momentum ($|R\rangle = |0\rangle, |L\rangle = |1\rangle$) qubits according to $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{c_{HR}|HR\rangle + c_{HL}|HL\rangle + c_{VR}|VR\rangle + c_{VL}|VL\rangle \longrightarrow }
\nonumber \\
&&c_{HR}|HR\rangle + c_{HL}|HL\rangle + c_{VR}|VL\rangle + c_{VL}|VR\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ will transform the four-mode coherent-state input with eigenvalues $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\hspace*{-.5in}
\left[\begin{array}{cccc} \langle\hat{a}_{HR}\rangle & \langle\hat{a}_{HL}\rangle & \langle\hat{a}_{VR}\rangle & \langle\hat{a}_{VL}\rangle \end{array}\right] = }\nonumber \\
&&\hspace*{.25in}\left[\begin{array}{cccc} \alpha_{HR} & \alpha_{HL} & \alpha_{VR} & \alpha_{VL}\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}$$ into a four-mode coherent-state output with eigenvalues $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\hspace*{-.5in}\left[\begin{array}{cccc} \langle\hat{a}_{HR}\rangle & \langle\hat{a}_{HL}\rangle & \langle\hat{a}_{VR}\rangle & \langle\hat{a}_{VL}\rangle \end{array}\right] = }\nonumber \\
&&\hspace*{.25in}
\left[\begin{array}{cccc} \alpha_{HR} & \alpha_{HL} & \alpha_{VL} & \alpha_{VR}\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the $\hat{a}$’s are annihilation operators for modes labeled by their polarization and beam positions. It follows that the coherent-state $P_E$ and $I_B$ calculations mimic the qubit derivations that we presented in Sec. III, with coherent-state inner products taking the place of qubit-state inner products. At low average photon number, these coherent-state results reduce to the qubit expressions for events which give rise to clicks in the photodetectors shown in Figs. 6–9.
Finally, a word about propagation loss, detector inefficiencies, and extraneous counts from dark current or background light is in order. All of these non-idealities actually help our Eve, in that they lead to a non-zero quantum bit error rate between Alice and Bob in the absence of the FPB attack. If Eve’s $P_E$ value is set below that baseline error rate, then her presence should be undetectable.
The authors acknowledge useful technical discussions with Howard Brandt, Jonathan Smith and Stewart Personick. This work was supported by the Department of Defense Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative program under Army Research Office grant DAAD-19-00-1-0177 and by MIT Lincoln Laboratory.
QND Measurement
===============
Here we show that it is possible, in principle, to use cross-phase modulation between a strong coherent-state probe beam and an arbitrarily-polarized signal beam to make a QND measurement of the signal beam’s total photon number. Let $\{\hat{a}_H, \hat{a}_V, \hat{a}_P\}$ be the annihilation operators of the horizontal and vertical polarizations of the signal beam and the (single-polarization) probe beam, respectively at the input to a cross-phase modulation interaction. We shall take that interaction to transform these annihilation operators according to the following commutator-preserving unitary operation, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a}_H &\longrightarrow& \hat{a}'_H \equiv \exp(i\kappa \hat{a}_P^\dagger\hat{a}_P)\hat{a}_H \\
\hat{a}_V &\longrightarrow& \hat{a}'_V \equiv \exp(i\kappa \hat{a}_P^\dagger\hat{a}_P)\hat{a}_V\\
\hat{a}_P &\longrightarrow&\hat{a}'_P \equiv \exp[i\kappa(\hat{a}_H^\dagger\hat{a}_H + \hat{a}_V^\dagger\hat{a}_V)]\hat{a}_P, \end{aligned}$$ where $0 < \kappa \ll 1$ is the cross-phase modulation coupling coefficient. When the probe beam is in a strong coherent state, $|\sqrt{N}_P\rangle$ with $N_P\gg 1/\kappa^2$, the total photon number in the signal beam can be inferred from a homodyne-detection measurement of the appropriate probe quadrature. In particular, the state of $\hat{a}'_P$ will be $|\sqrt{N}_P\rangle$ when the signal beam’s total photon number is zero, and its state will be $|(1+i\kappa)\sqrt{N}_P\rangle$ when the signal beam’s total photon number is one, where $\kappa \ll 1$ has been employed. Homodyne detection of the $\hat{a}'_{P2} \equiv {\rm Im}(\hat{a}'_P)$ quadrature thus yields a classical random-variable outcome $\alpha'_{P2}$ that is Gaussian distributed with mean zero and variance 1/4, in the absence of a signal-beam photon, and Gaussian distributed with mean $\kappa\sqrt{N}_P$ and variance 1/4 in the presence of a signal-beam photon. Note that these conditional distributions are independent of the polarization state of the signal-beam photon when it is present. Using the decision rule, “declare signal-beam photon present if and only if $\alpha'_{P2} > \kappa\sqrt{N}_P/2$,” it is easily shown that the QND error probability is bounded above by $\exp(-\kappa^2 N_P/2)/2 \ll 1$.
The preceding polarization independent, low error probability QND detection of the signal beam’s total photon number does *not disturb the polarization state of that beam. This is so because the probe imposes the same nonlinear phase shift on both the $H$ and $V$ polarizations of the signal beam. Hence, if the signal-beam input is in the arbitrarily-polarized single-photon state, $$|\psi_S\rangle = c_H |1\rangle_{H}|0\rangle_{V} + c_V |0\rangle_{H}|1\rangle_{V},
\vspace*{.075in}$$ where $|c_H|^2 + |c_V|^2 = 1$, then, except for a physically unimportant absolute phase, the signal-beam output will also be in the state $|\psi_S\rangle$.*
[2]{} C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, *Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India, 1984, p. 175 (IEEE, New York, 1984); see, e.g., N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74,**]{} 145 (2002) for a review of progress in both theory and experiment. P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85,**]{} 441 (2000); D. Mayers, J. ACM [**48,**]{} 351 (2001); H.-K. Lo, J. Phys. A [**34,**]{} 6957 (2001). B. Slutsky, P.-C. Sun, Y. Mazurenko, R. Rao, and Y. Fainman, J. Modern Opt. [**44,**]{} 953 (1997); G. Brassard, N. Lütkenhaus, T. Mor, and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85,**]{} 1330 (2000); G. Gilbert and M. Hamrick, e-print quant/ph-0009027; V. Makarov and D. R. Hjelme, J. Modern Opt. [**52,**]{} 691 (2005). D. S. Naik, C. G. Peterson, A. G. White, A. J. Berglund, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84,**]{} 4733 (2000); M. Genovese, Phys. Rev. A [**63,**]{} 044303 (2001); M. Williamson and V. Vedral, J. Mod. Opt. [**50,**]{} 1989 (2003). H. E. Brandt, Phys. Rev. A [**71,**]{} 042312 (2005). C. H. Bennett, T. Mor, and J. A. Smolin, Phys. Rev. A [**54,**]{} 2675 (1996); E. Biham and T. Mor, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78,**]{} 2256 (1997); E. Biham, M. Boyer, G. Brassard, J. van de Graaf, and T. Mor, Algorithmica [**34,**]{} 372 (2002). C. A. Fuchs and A. Peres, Phys. Rev. A [**53,**]{} 2038 (1996). B. A Slutsky, R. Rao, P,-C. Sun, and Y. Fainman, Phys. Rev. A [**57,**]{} 2383 (1998). Equation (\[probeinput\]) corrects an error in [@FPB]. Because of an extraneous root problem, the expression for Eve’s target-qubit input state in that paper is only correct for $0\le P_E\le 1/4$. This can be seen by comparing the input probe state $|A_2\rangle$ from Eq. (207) of [@FPB] with our target-qubit input state $|T_{\rm in}\rangle$ from Eq. (\[probeinput\]). The former coincides with the latter for $0\le P_E\le 1/4$, but not for $1/4 < P_E \le 1/2$. Indeed, because Brandt’s $|A_2\rangle$ states for $P_E = 1/4 \pm x$ are identical, for all $0\le x\le 1/4$, it is clear that his two-state FPB probe traces out the *same Rényi information trajectory when $P_E$ increases from 1/4 to 1/2 as it does when $P_E$ decreases from 1/4 to 0. In subsequent work \[H.E. Brandt, “Unambiguous state discrimination in quantum key distribution,” to appear in Quant. Inform. Proc.\], Brandt has recognized this problem, and pointed out that a special case of his third unitary transformation from [@FPB], obtained by collapsing that four-state probe to a two-state probe, achieves the desired Rényi information formula for $0\le P_E\le 1/2$. C. W. Helstrom, Inform. Control [**10,**]{} 254 (1964). M. Fiorentino and F. N. C. Wong, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93,**]{} 070502 (2004). E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature [**409,**]{} 46 (2001); J. D. Franson, M. M. Donegan, M. J. Fitch, B. C. Jacobs, and T. B. Pittman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89,**]{} 137901 (2002); J. L. O’Brien, G. J. Pryde, A. G. White, T. C. Ralph, and D. Branning, Nature [**426,**]{} 264 (2003). M. Fiorentino, T. Kim, and F. N. C. Wong, Phys. Rev. A [**72,**]{} 012318 (2005). C. Santori, M. Pelton, G. Solomon, Y. Dale, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86,**]{} 1502 (2000); S. Noda, A. Chutinan, and M. Imada, Nature [**407,**]{} 608 (2000); A. Beveratos, R. Brouri, T. Gacoin, J.-Ph. Poizat, and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. A [**64,**]{} 061802 (2001); M. Keller, B. Lange, K. Hayasaka, W. Lange, and H. Walther, Nature [**431,**]{} 1075 (2004). A. Beveratos, R. Brouri, T. Gacoin, A. Villing, J.-Ph. Poizat, and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89,**]{} 187901 (2002); E. Waks, K. Inoue, C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vuckovic, G. S. Solomon, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature [**420,**]{} 762 (2002). J. G. Rarity, P. R. Tapster, and E. Jakeman, Opt. Commun. [**62,**]{} 201 (1987). M. Fiorentino, G. Messin, C. E. Kuklewicz, F. N. C. Wong, and J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. A [**69,**]{} 041801(R) (2004). G. J. Milburn and D. F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A [**28,**]{} 2065 (1983); N. Imoto, H. A. Haus, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A [**32,**]{} 2287 (1985); P. Grangier, J. A. Levenson, and J.-Ph. Poizat, Nature [**396,**]{} 537 (1998). W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, and T. P. Spiller, New J. Phys. [**7,**]{} 137 (2005).**
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Direct minimisation of a cost function can in principle provide a versatile and highly controllable route to computational hologram generation. However, to date iterative Fourier transform algorithms have been predominantly used. Here we show that the careful design of cost functions, combined with numerically efficient conjugate gradient minimisation, establishes a practical method for the generation of holograms for a wide range of target light distributions. This results in a guided optimisation process, with a crucial advantage illustrated by the ability to circumvent optical vortex formation during hologram calculation. We demonstrate the implementation of the conjugate gradient method for both discrete and continuous intensity distributions and discuss its applicability to optical trapping of ultracold atoms.'
address: |
$^1$School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS, UK\
$^2$Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PU, UK\
$^3$SUPA Dept. of Physics, University of Strathclyde, 107 Rottenrow, Glasgow, G4 0NG, UK
author:
- 'Tiffany Harte,$^{1,2}$ Graham D. Bruce,$^{1,3}$ Jonathan Keeling$^1$ and Donatella Cassettari$^{1,*}$'
bibliography:
- 'StAndrewsConjugateGradient.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: A conjugate gradient minimisation approach to generating holographic traps for ultracold atoms
---
Introduction
============
In recent years there has been extraordinary progress in cold atom physics and its applications in fields such as quantum computation and simulation of condensed-matter systems, precision measurements, and matter-wave interferometry [@SimRev; @IntRev]. In this context, arbitrary time-dependent optical trapping potentials are particularly appealing, with a variety of geometries including toroids and ring lattices already realised by acousto-optic or holographic means [@henderson_experimental_2009; @Kuhn2012]. Experiments have been performed with discrete arrays of optical dipole traps, loaded with either thermal atoms [@Bergamini; @Kuhn2012] or quantum degenerate atomic gases [@boyer_dynamic_2006; @henderson_experimental_2009; @Esslinger], in which individual trapping sites can be moved, addressed and manipulated. Important too are continuous trapping geometries: the primary subject of the present work are extended (as opposed to diffraction-limited) power-law potentials, proposed both as a static supplement to a trapping potential to cancel unwanted external potentials [@AOD_2013], and in a dynamic sequence as a tool for the efficient production of Bose-Einstein condensates [@Bruce_powerlaw_2011]. Other interesting continuous potentials include engineered waveguides with dynamic bright regions, shown to be suitable for studies of BEC superfluidity [@Bruce_ring_2011].
Technologies employed so far in the realisation of these arbitrary optical trapping patterns include acousto-optic deflection of a laser beam to produce either a composite static intensity distribution [@AOD_2013] or a rapidly-scanned profile [@henderson_experimental_2009; @Arnold_BlueDetunedScanning; @Esslinger], digital micro-mirror devices (DMDs) [@Kuhn2012], and computer-generated holograms implemented with phase-only spatial light modulators (SLMs) [@Dholakia; @Bergamini; @boyer_dynamic_2006; @pasienski; @Bruce_ring_2011; @Bruce_powerlaw_2011; @Gaunt_2012; @Lee_14]. The high phase-resolution available in phase-only SLMs offers significant advantages for versatility of the accessible trapping patterns, though at the cost of lower switching speed between frames if compared to acousto-optic modulators and digital mirror devices. However, with new technologies currently being developed for grey-scale phase-only SLMs with kHz refresh rates [@Warde], this versatility may become accessible at sufficiently high update rates for high-speed dynamic manipulation of trapped atoms. The primary challenge of phase-only SLMs is the computational complexity inherent in reproducing the target intensity distribution on the trapping plane. This paper demonstrates an alternative reliable and efficient method to address this problem.
Our investigation concerns an SLM consisting of $256\times256$ programmable pixels; each pixel is able to impose a phase retardation between $0$ and $2\pi$ in steps of $2\pi /256$ on an incident laser beam. The resulting digital hologram is calculated to reconstruct a given target intensity pattern in the far field, or equivalently in the focal plane of a lens, in which atoms will be trapped. The calculated phase mask $\phi_{pq}$ and the incident laser field $A_{0}S_{pq}$, with indices *p* and *q* denoting pixel position, determine the SLM–plane electric field: $$\label{eqn:Ein}
E_{in} = A_{0} S_{pq}\exp\left(i \phi_{pq}\right).$$
We express this electric field as an array of *N* pixels; propagation through focussing optics can be calculated by a fast Fourier transform. The electric field in the output plane is therefore given by $$\label{eqn:Eout}
E_{out} = \frac{A_{0}}{N} \sum_{pq} S_{pq} \exp\left(i \phi_{pq}\right) \exp\left(- \frac{2 \pi i}{N}\left(pn+qm\right)\right),$$
with output–plane coordinates denoted by *n* and *m*. As only the modulus of $ E_{out}$ is relevant for optical trapping, we have output–plane phase freedom: consequently the phase $\phi_{pq}$ required to recreate a given target intensity is not unique, and solutions are found numerically. The general problem of phase retrieval, which includes both the above case of laser beam shaping where the modulus of the field is known in both planes, and the related problem of image reconstruction where the field modulus is known only in the output plane, can be solved using a variety of methods. These fall broadly into two categories: iterative Fourier transform algorithms (IFTAs), and algorithms based on the minimisation of a cost function. The IFTA calculation encourages convergence from an initial phase guess to one yielding the target intensity using successive Fourier transforms between SLM and output planes, imposing the known or desired electric field amplitude at each step. For the purpose of atom trapping in arbitrary geometries, where smoothness is a primary consideration (as corrugations of the trapping potential cause fragmentation of cold atom clouds [@corrugation]), the best results so far have been achieved by the mixed-region amplitude freedom (MRAF) variant of the IFTA [@pasienski; @Bruce_ring_2011; @Bruce_powerlaw_2011; @Gaunt_2012]. In MRAF, the output plane is divided into two regions: a signal region in which the intensity is restricted to match the target intensity pattern, and a noise region in which the intensity is unconstrained. This separation allows for increased accuracy and smoothness in the signal region, leading to computed intensity patterns with residual root-mean-square (RMS) errors of less than a few percent. A secondary consideration in designing optical traps is the light-usage efficiency of the computer-generated hologram. One motivation for the use of phase-only spatial light modulators rather than amplitude modulators is that the former do not deliberately remove light from the incident beam. However, the MRAF algorithm gains accuracy by deliberately lowering this efficiency. Furthermore, lacking a minimisation principle, IFTA approaches provide no guarantee of converging, and their final state can be highly dependent on the initial phase pattern used.
In contrast, cost function minimisation algorithms are inherently more directional than IFTAs: the cost function encodes all constraints and desired properties of the intensity pattern, and can be designed with terms accounting for specific output plane features (such as high light-usage efficiency) in addition to adherence to the target intensity profile. Within this category, established beam shaping methods include genetic algorithms and direct search algorithms, both of which are less computationally efficient than IFTAs [@pasienski]. Genetic algorithms [@genetic_Mitchell] seek the global minimum of the cost function, and as such are computationally demanding but accurate. Direct search algorithms [@directsearch; @boyer_dbs], in which SLM pixel values are sequentially altered with only changes reducing the cost function being retained, are limited to just a few phase levels due to computational intensity, and as such work well for simple targets but struggle to reproduce more intricate patterns.
In this paper, we consider an alternative approach to the beam shaping problem, in which the cost function is minimised by a conjugate gradient local search algorithm. Conjugate gradient minimisation, a well–established method for minimising high-dimensional smooth functions, is widely used in contexts such as electronic structure [@payne]. Here we find that this approach successfully combines computational efficiency and algorithm versatility, allowing the accurate reproduction of a variety of target intensity profiles relevant for optical trapping of atoms. The simplest cost function we study, a least-squares difference from the desired pattern, leaves localised defects which have low cost but present significant problems for atom trapping. However, these defects can be removed by systematically modifying the cost function, and we discuss the forms of cost functions required to eliminate them. This flexibility in cost function definition, a useful feature common to all minimisation algorithms, also allows us to go beyond the simple definitions of signal and noise regions, and to fine-tune our algorithm for different experimental requirements simply by adding cost function terms and applying different weightings across the output plane.
Laser beam shaping via an algorithm that relies entirely on gradient-based local search has been relatively unexplored so far. Examples of this are found in [@cg_98; @cg_98_2; @colour], where conjugate gradient minimisation is used to generate pseudo-non diffractive beams in which the target is a given axial intensity distribution. Gradient-based local search techniques are also used as part of more complex algorithms, such as hybrid algorithms for beam shaping in which they are combined with genetic algorithms to increase the reliability in locating the global minimum for the generation of flat top laser beams [@dpe; @beam_shaping_hybrid]. The present work shows that gradient-based local search can be applied to a much wider range of beam shaping problems, and that it can be applied on its own: finding a local minimum is sufficient for a good reproduction of a variety of targets.
The conjugate gradient calculation method
=========================================
At the heart of this method is quantifying the error between target and predicted intensity by defining a cost function $C$. Minimisation of $C$ is performed over all SLM pixel phase values, while computational efficiency is ensured by incorporating gradient information. Figure \[fig:cgflow1\] illustrates the application of conjugate gradient minimisation to hologram calculation.
![Block diagram illustrating the conjugate gradient minimisation approach to hologram solution. []{data-label="fig:cgflow1"}](fig1.eps)
The process is initialised by defining a target intensity distribution, an incident laser field amplitude, and an initial phase guess. This may be the summation of analytically-expressed phase patterns to form an educated guess, e.g. quadratic and linear phase gradients giving expansion and position-offset of the intensity in the output plane [@pasienski], or it may be a random array taking values between $0$ and $2\pi$, with each element corresponding to an SLM pixel.
Weighting arrays are also defined during this initialisation stage. This weighting process is significantly more flexible than the simple definition of signal and noise regions characteristic of the MRAF IFTA. Output plane regions can be arbitrarily weighted according to their importance: we can allocate a pixel-dependent prefactor to individual cost function terms according to their relative importance in different output plane regions. For the remainder of this paper, the high-intensity output region forming the trapping pattern is referred to as the trapping region, with the signal and noise regions retaining the same meanings as in MRAF: the signal region is the trapping region plus some border which will remain devoid of light, while the noise region is the remainder of the plane where light may be deposited without adversely affecting the trapping potential. For example, the cost function can be allocated a larger weighting, so greater importance, in the trapping region than the remainder of the output plane, while the highest intensity parts of this region preferentially seen by the atoms can be given yet more prominence than those of lower intensity. With our cost function approach, we can provide a smooth transition between signal and noise region weightings which reduces noise accumulation at the signal region border. By comparison, a typical light pattern calculated using MRAF places much of the noise region light at the boundary of the signal and noise regions.
Upon each iteration, the output electric field corresponding to the current phase profile is calculated, with phase array components generated by the minimisation routine. This multidimensional minimisation is composed of one-dimensional steps, each seeking to minimise the cost function by changing phase values. The initial step minimises the cost function in the local gradient direction; subsequent consecutive minimisation directions are conjugate and independent, to avoid repetition of minimisation directions [@numericalrecipes; @agonisingpain]. Conjugate directions $\mathbf{d}$ are those satisfying [@payne; @agonisingpain]: $$\mathbf{d}_{i} \cdot H_{C} \cdot \mathbf{d}_{j} = 0,$$ where $H_{C}$ is the Hessian matrix of the cost function. However, the power of the conjugate gradient descent approach is that the Hessian does not need to be calculated explicitly, but is rather built up by application of the following procedure. The $i$th direction is calculated using [@payne]: $$\mathbf{d}_i = \mathbf{g}_i+\gamma_{i}\mathbf{d}_{i-1}$$ where $\mathbf{g}_{i}$ is the direction of steepest descent at the termination point of step $i-1$ and $\gamma_{i}$ is the scalar $$\gamma_{i}=\frac{\mathbf{g}_{i} \cdot \mathbf{g}_{i}}{\mathbf{g}_{i-1} \cdot \mathbf{g}_{i-1}}.$$
The fast Fourier transforms used in the calculations map a $N \times N$ array in the SLM plane onto a $N \times N$ array in the output plane. If $N$ is chosen to be the number of pixels in the SLM, then the size of each output plane pixel is exactly the diffraction limit of the system. Aliasing in the output plane is avoided by selecting a value for $N$, in accordance with the Nyquist criterion, of twice the number of pixels in the SLM [@Johansson]. Therefore the phase array is surrounded by zeroes to double its size and optimise output plane sampling at each iteration. Correspondingly enlarging the target array, the resolution of the cost calculation is optimised. Iteration continues until the difference between consecutive cost values stagnates: a minimum of the chosen cost function has been located. Our calculations make use of the libatoms library [@libatoms].
Versatility via cost function definition
========================================
The cost function should be such that its minimum corresponds to the desired pattern. There are however a number of other features required for the algorithm to operate efficiently: it should be efficient to evaluate derivatives of the cost function; the function should not have local minima which give poor trapping profiles. Indeed, as we will see below, a naive choice of cost function leads to local minima containing optical vortices. Furthermore, the conjugate gradient approach assumes an approximately quadratic function [@numericalrecipes]. A simple cost function may purely concern target reproduction accuracy, expressed as a sum over output plane pixels $\left(n,m\right)$ of differences between target $T_{nm}$ and calculated output intensity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cost1}
C = \sum_{nm} \left(T_{nm} - \left|E_{out,nm}\right|^{2}\right)^{2} = \sum_{nm} \left(T_{nm} - \left|A_{0} \tilde{\psi}_{nm}\right|^{2}\right)^{2}
\end{aligned}$$ using $$\tilde{\psi}_{nm} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{pq} \psi_{pq} \exp\left(- \frac{2 \pi i}{N} (pn+qm)\right)% = \frac{E_{out,nm}}{A_{0}}$$ with $\psi_{pq} = S_{pq} \exp\left(i \phi_{pq}\right)$, where indices *p* and *q* indicate general input plane pixels. $A_0$ is a free scale parameter allowing for the fact that the overall scale of the target potential is not necessarily matched to the laser power and $S_{pq}$ allows for the possibility of an input field with a slowly varying intensity, e.g. a Gaussian input beam. The cost function gradient required by the minimisation algorithm must be calculated with respect to $\phi_{rs}$, the phase value at a specific SLM pixel. For this cost function, the corresponding gradient is $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial \phi_{rs}} = 4 A_{0}^{2} \textnormal{Re} \left(i \psi_{rs}^{*} X_{rs}\right)$$ where $$X_{rs} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{nm}\left[ \left(T_{nm} - \left|A_{0} \tilde{\psi}_{nm}\right|^{2}\right) \tilde{\psi}_{nm}^{*} \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i}{N} \left(rn+sm\right)\right)\right].$$
Additional terms in the cost function can incorporate experimentally relevant output plane features. Such features could, for instance, include noise suppression at the signal region boundary to aid trap loading, or in a dynamic sequence for real-time manipulation of trapped atoms, a cost function term could be introduced to reduce intensity fluctuations between consecutive frames in the sequence. The application of additional cost function terms is illustrated here by the suppression of optical vortex formation. We find that the cost function in Eq. (\[eqn:cost1\]) is effective for lattice distributions, but inadequate for large continuous patterns due to the emergence of optical vortices within the trapping region during calculation. These vortices are characterised by a sudden drop in intensity coinciding with a local phase winding by a multiple of $2\pi$, and they arise because they can be initially beneficial to cost function reduction. However, their prevention is imperative to all hologram calculation schemes. From following the evolution of our conjugate gradient minimisation, it appears the local vorticity cannot change, and so these vortices can only be removed by annihilation of oppositely charged vortex pairs, or by moving vortices to regions of low intensity.
Figure \[fig:vortices\] illustrates the vortices formed within the output plane of a second-order power-law intensity distribution calculated using the cost function defined in Eq. (\[eqn:cost1\]) with no regional weightings applied, starting from an educated guess. Since the algorithm has identified a local minimum of the cost function, the observation of these vortices suggest that the cost function does not sufficiently penalise them. Indeed, since the vortex cores are small, they only introduce a very localised deviation from the pattern. Moreover, there is only a small change in cost function as vortices move through the pattern, and hence minimisation of this cost function does not effectively eliminate vortices once formed. In minimising this cost function, vortex removal is principally achieved by gradually shifting them towards lower-intensity regions where their cost is reduced, but this is obstructed in regions of high vortex density where phase contours can become tangled [@Senthilkumaran]. Vortex elimination is therefore only realistically achievable if their early formation is suppressed such that their numbers remain manageable. Given that the cost function can be chosen at will (within the constraints given above), our approach to eliminating vortices becomes a question of choosing a *better* cost function such that vortices do not remain frozen in the final pattern.
![Second-order power-law trapping potential calculated using the cost function in Eq. \[eqn:cost1\]. (left) Two-dimensional profiles and vertical line profiles taken through the centre of the pattern for target (upper inset and cyan line) and calculated output (lower inset and red points). The colorbar applies to the insets and to all subsequent figures. The predicted output is distorted by deep optical vortices. These vortices inhibit further improvements in accuracy, resulting in a poor fit to the target intensity. The root-mean square (RMS) fractional error between target and predicted output is 26%. (right) Vortex locations on the output plane, with red pixels indicating $2\pi$ phase windings and blue pixels $-2\pi$. The black circle indicates the trapping region. While the vortex density is reduced within this region in comparison to the remainder of the output plane, 232 are established within the trapping region with an insignificant fraction removed with further iterations due to the tangled phase contours.[]{data-label="fig:vortices"}](00fig2.eps)
A cost function that penalises large localised deviations more than the simple cost function in Eq. (\[eqn:cost1\]) is $$C_{t} = \sum_{nm} \left(T_{nm} - \left|A_{0} \tilde{\psi}_{nm}\right|^{2}\right)^{t}.
%\equiv \sum_{nm} [f_{nm}]^{t}$$
The higher the value of *t*, the higher the cost of large discrepancies relative to small, increasing the cost contribution of trapping–region vortices. Fewer vortices persist, but at the expense of trap smoothness. In practice we find that powers higher than four produce too rough an intensity distribution with insufficient vortex improvements to justify this sacrifice. The $C_{t}$ gradient is $$\frac{\partial C_{t}}{\partial \phi_{rs}} = 2t A_{0}^{2} \textnormal{Re}\left(i \psi_{rs}^{*} X_{rs}\right).$$
Alternatively, we can also specify cost functions that perform active smoothing by associating a cost with intensity variations between neighbouring pixels. For example, to apply active smoothing over the four nearest-neighbour pixels, we use the cost function
$$\begin{aligned}
C_{s} &= \sum_{nm} \left[ \left(\left|\tilde{\psi}_{nm}\right|^{2}-\left|\tilde{\psi}_{n(m-1)}\right|^{2}\right)^{2} + \left(\left|\tilde{\psi}_{nm}\right|^{2}-\left|\tilde{\psi}_{n(m+1)}\right|^{2}\right)^{2} \right.\nonumber\\ &\qquad \left. {} + \left(\left|\tilde{\psi}_{nm}\right|^{2}-\left|\tilde{\psi}_{(n-1)m}\right|^{2}\right)^{2} + \left(\left|\tilde{\psi}_{nm}\right|^{2}-\left|\tilde{\psi}_{(n+1)m}\right|^{2}\right)^{2}\right].
\end{aligned}$$
The gradient is calculated in the same way for all four terms in $C_{s}$. For instance, the gradient for the first term, $C_{s}^{(1)}~=~\sum_{nm} \left(|\tilde{\psi}_{nm}|^{2}-|\tilde{\psi}_{n(m-1)}|^{2}\right)^{2}$, is $$\frac{\partial C_{s}^{(1)}}{\partial \phi_{rs}} = \frac{4}{N} \textnormal{Re}\left( i \psi_{rs} \left( X_{1rs}^{*} - X_{2rs}^{*}\right) \right)$$ where $$X_{1rs} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{nm} \left[\left(\left|\tilde{\psi}_{nm}\right|^{2}-\left|\tilde{\psi}_{n(m-1)}\right|^{2}\right) \tilde{\psi}_{nm} \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i}{N} (rn+sm)\right)\right]
% \tilde{X}_{1nm} = [g_{nm}] \tilde{\psi}_{nm} \nonumber$$ $$X_{2rs} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{nm} \left[\left(\left|\tilde{\psi}_{nm}\right|^{2}-\left|\tilde{\psi}_{n(m-1)}\right|^{2}\right) \tilde{\psi}_{n(m-1)} \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i}{N} (rn+sm)\right)\right].
% \tilde{X}_{2nm} = [g_{nm}] \tilde{\psi}_{n(m-1)} \nonumber$$
Sequential combination of $C_{t=4}$ and $C_{t=2}$ establishes a vortex-free trap region with subsequent smoothing; as an alternative approach, simultaneous combination of $C_{t=2}$ and $C_{s}$ terms is also successfully implemented to demand both accuracy and smoothness. Calculated outputs corresponding to these examples are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:cterms\] for the same second-order power-law pattern shown in Fig. \[fig:vortices\].
For the sequential $C_{t}$ application shown in Fig. \[fig:cterms\](a), we initially use $C_{t=4}$ to apply coarse corrections to the calculated intensity pattern, then follow this with more refined corrections using $C_{t=2}$. The cost function on signal region pixels is given a weighting of 10 times that of noise region pixels during the $C_{t=4}$ stage; for $C_{t=2}$ application the signal region is weighted by a factor of $10^{12} (1+T)$ relative to the noise region with $T$ the target value of a given pixel, while a linear slope over 8 pixels smooths the weightings between these two regions and discourages noise accumulation near the target intensity distribution. The calculated fractional RMS error is 1.4% after 3000 iterations of $C_{t=4}$ application and 0.07% following an additional 10000 iterations of $C_{t=2}$ smoothing, with 70 vortices remaining in the signal region. However, as they are confined to low-intensity regions these vortices do not degrade the trapping pattern. The efficiency of the algorithm in placing light within the trapping region is 47% prior to smoothing and 45% afterwards. However, efficiency varies widely according to weighting choice: one method of improving efficiency is to demand an accuracy across the entire output plane comparable to that of the signal region, requiring more iterations to achieve the desired trapping region accuracy.
In the combined $C_{t=2}$ and $C_{s}$ approach, the signal and noise regions are not given relative weightings for the $C_{t=2}$ term, but the $C_{s}$ term is weighted according to the target value for each pixel within the signal region and set to zero in the noise region. Competition between the accuracy and smoothing terms reduce accuracy as compared to the pure discrepancy power method, with a fractional RMS error of 0.43% after 30000 iterations in the example shown in Fig. \[fig:cterms\](b). However, appropriate balancing of terms results in effective vortex suppression and sufficient prediction accuracy. 130 vortices remain in the low-intensity region of the trapping pattern, which again is less relevant for atom trapping. Furthermore, regional weightings increase the efficiency to 64%. We also find that this active smoothing method is particularly resilient to initialisation conditions, increasing the chance of success of a given iteration run.
With MRAF, the output quality depends critically on the initial phase guess and on the initialisation parameters, which have to be carefully chosen to suppress the formation of optical vortices during the calculation process [@pasienski]. In contrast, with conjugate gradient minimisation, optical vortex suppression is achieved by a judicious cost function choice. Having determined these cost functions, the output quality is then largely insensitive to the initial phase guess, to the point that high accuracy can be achieved even with a random phase guess. For this reason, while conjugate gradient minimisation converges in more iterations than are required in MRAF, the two methods end up with a comparable computational efficiency, because with conjugate gradient minimisation it is not necessary to run the code for many different choices of initial phase patterns. Initialisation resilience would be of further benefit in dynamical sequences as it increases the chance of success of all frames from a single initialisation step.
Displayed in Fig. \[fig:extrapot\] are examples illustrating the general applicability of the method to both continuous distributions and discrete arrays, showcasing the successful elimination of high-intensity borders next to the signal region. Both patterns are generated from a random initial guess; remarkably, for the ring pattern, we find that an initially random phase pattern results in quicker convergence to the final form than an apparently educated guess. The lattice pattern is calculated using solely a $C_{t=2}$ term: smoothing is found to cause blurring of the pattern edges, and the $C_{t=2}$ term is sufficient to remove vortices from these smaller intensity features before they become established. The small size of the spots allows the vortices to escape more easily and they are therefore not frozen into the final pattern. The signal region is weighted by a factor of $10^{4}$ relative to the noise region, with a linearly sloped border of 4 pixels connecting these two regions sufficient to discourage noise accumulation near the signal region boundary. After 4000 iterations, the RMS signal region error is 0.58%. The stirring ring pattern, so called because it can be used to induce superfluid rotation [@Bruce_ring_2011], has an RMS signal region error of 3.0% after 2500 iterations. This example is calculated using a combination of $C_{t=2}$ and $C_{s}$ terms, with the signal region given an overall weighting of 10 relative to the noise region with a border of 8 pixels connecting these to prevent disruptive noise accumulation, and the smoothing term given a weighting of $(T_{max}-T_{nm})$, with $T_{max}$ the maximum target value and $T_{nm}$ the target values on individual pixels, in the signal region only.
Conclusion
==========
Conjugate gradient minimisation of an appropriate cost function has been verified as a viable alternative to the established methods of hologram generation. By applying well-developed conjugate gradient approaches and optimised numerical libraries, the cost function minimisation approach allows careful guiding of the calculation process by choice of a sensible cost function with an analytical gradient. In particular, we show that tailoring the cost function beyond its simplest form is important and that the flexibility inherent in the cost function definition should be exploited to guide output plane features of interest. We illustrate this by directly suppressing optical vortices in the calculated intensity profiles by associating a cost either with large deviations from the target intensity or with intensity fluctuations between neighbouring pixels. Both methods successfully suppress vortices to optimise trapping potential accuracy, though active smoothing is more appropriate in potentials without sharp features. This precision guiding and the ability to tailor the weightings assigned to each pixel has also allowed us to avoid the formation of the high-intensity signal region border characteristic of the MRAF approach, while retaining the flexibility characteristic of regional definitions and the ability to accurately reproduce a wide range of intensity patterns suitable for trapping ultracold atoms. The method has also proven to be resilient to initialisation conditions, which may be of benefit in designing dynamic sequences of intensity patterns from a single initialisation step.
Further improvements could be achieved by incorporating a measured laser beam profile into the calculation process to correct for beam imperfections, and considering Helmholtz propagation of light within the model [@Gaunt_2012].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present a fabrication scheme and testing results for epitaxial sub-micrometer Josephson junctions. The junctions are made using a high-temperature (1170 K) “via process” yielding junctions as small as 0.8 $\mu$m in diameter by use of optical lithography. Sapphire (Al$_2$O$_3$) tunnel-barriers are grown on an epitaxial Re/Ti multilayer base-electrode. We have fabricated devices with both Re and Al top electrodes. While room-temperature (295 K) resistance versus area data are favorable for both types of top electrodes, the low-temperature (50 mK) data show that junctions with the Al top electrode have a much higher subgap resistance. The microwave loss properties of the junctions have been measured by use of superconducting Josephson junction qubits. The results show that high subgap resistance correlates to improved qubit performance.
Contribution of U.S. government, not subject to copyright.
address:
- '$^1$National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, CO 80305, USA'
- '$^2$MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood Street, Lexington, MA 02420, USA'
- '$^3$Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel'
- '$^4$Raytheon BBN Technologies, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA'
author:
- 'Jeffrey S. Kline$^1$, Michael R. Vissers$^1$, Fabio C. S. da Silva$^1$, David S. Wisbey$^1$[^1], Martin Weides$^1$, Terence J. Weir$^2$, Benjamin Turek$^2$[^2], Danielle A. Braje$^2$, William D. Oliver$^2$, Yoni Shalibo$^3$, Nadav Katz$^3$, Blake R. Johnson$^4$, Thomas A. Ohki$^4$, and David P. Pappas$^1$'
bibliography:
- 'ViaProcess.bib'
title: 'Sub-micrometer epitaxial Josephson junctions for quantum circuits'
---
Introduction
============
Josephson junction superconducting devices are promising candidates for qubits in quantum information circuits [@Clarke:review]. The tunnel-barriers in these junctions are typically amorphous AlO$_x$ made by room-temperature ($T = 295$ K) oxidation of thin films of aluminum. Qubit spectroscopy reveals coupling to stochastically distributed two-level systems (TLS) in the tunnel-barrier [@Simmonds:TLS]. These TLS are observed as avoided level crossings (i.e., splittings) in the qubit spectroscopy. For the amorphous AlO$_x$ tunnel-barrier, the density of TLS splittings is measured to be 0.5 ($\mu$m$^2$GHz)$^{-1}$ [@Martinis:loss; @Kline]. While the physical origin of TLS is still under debate, it is clear that their interaction with the qubit is detrimental because they can absorb energy and decohere the qubit state. These TLS have a random distribution in frequency space and coupling strength. Unless some strategy for reducing the number of TLS is used, it is highly likely that TLS splittings will appear close to the desired operation frequency when circuits with multiple qubits are constructed.
To date, there have been two strategies to reduce the number of TLS in qubit junctions. The first is to reduce the junction area as much as possible. Sub-micrometer Josephson junctions made by use of electron-beam lithography and Al shadow-evaporation [@Dolan77] are highly successful in charge qubits, transmons, flux qubits, and low-impedance flux qubits [@Kim:chgqubit; @SchreierPRB08; @Mooij; @Steffen:Zqubit]. However, the absence of metal cross-overs in electron beam-defined circuits limits the available circuit designs (e.g., no gradiometric flux coils). Step-edge junctions fabricated by use of optical lithography for phase qubits can be made as small as 1 $\mu$m$^2$ [@Steffen:overlap; @Weides_Trilayer]. While cross-overs are part of step-edge technology, multiple qubit circuits will still suffer from the residual stochastic TLS splitting distribution due to the high density of TLS splittings.
The second strategy is to reduce TLS density by use of epitaxial materials. While this typically involves high-temperature processing [@Oh:junctions], it has yielded improved performance. Oh [*et al.*]{} observed an $\sim$80% reduction in the density of TLS in a large-area (70 $\mu$m$^2$) phase qubit with a crystalline Al$_2$O$_3$ tunnel-barrier when compared to amorphous AlO$_x$ [@Oh:TLS]. This technology uses optical lithography, and cross-overs are easily made.
Our goal in this work is to combine these two strategies by developing a process to reduce the size of epitaxial junctions for high-coherence qubits. In addition, we evaluate the efficacy of replacing the Al top electrode with Re. This is motivated by the discussion in [@Oh:TLS], where it was hypothesized that the residual TLS may originate at the Al$_2$O$_3$-Al interface. To test this hypothesis, we studied Re top-electrode junctions and qubits, and compared them to devices with Al top-electrodes.
In order to reduce the junction size, we first tried a standard trilayer process [@Oh:junctions] but the photoresist pillar washed away in the developer rinse for junction sizes smaller than $\sim$2 $\mu$m. While a trilayer process for sub-micrometer junctions does exist [@Berggren], it requires chemical-mechanical planarization and this is not available in our facility. Instead, we developed a high-temperature “via process” similar to a scheme used for masking GaN nanowire growth [@Bertness]. As discussed below, the epitaxial base-electrode is grown on a high-quality substrate, an insulator with a via to the base-electrode is defined, and the epitaxial tunnel-barrier is then grown in the via after heating and recrystallizing the surface. We have measured both the room-temperature ($T = 295$ K) and low-temperature ($T < 100$ mK) properties of these single-junction devices, and we have also fabricated qubit devices and measured their performance.
Substrate preparation and base-electrode growth
===============================================
All of our devices were fabricated on single-crystal Al$_2$O$_3$(0001) sapphire wafers. The wafers are 76.2 mm in diameter and 0.43 mm thick. As received from the manufacturer, the surface of the substrate exhibits no lateral crystalline order when imaged by atomic force microscopy (AFM), i.e., it is amorphous. To improve the crystalline order, we heat the substrate in a tube furnace to 1370 K for 20 hours in a 14:1 nitrogen-to-oxygen gas mixture at atmospheric pressure [@Cuccureddu; @Yoshimoto]. After the furnace treatment, we observe atomic step terraces and lateral order. In addition, we find a correlation between the miscut angle (angle between dicing saw cut and the (0001) crystal plane) and terrace size measured by AFM: even a small, 0.3$^{\circ}$ miscut limits the terraces to $\sim$100 nm wide, while a nominal 0.0$^{\circ}$ miscut yields $\sim$390 nm wide terraces. However, we found that the surface morphology of the Re base-electrode is independent of furnace treatment and miscut angle.
At first we used a 165 nm thick rhenium film for the base-electrode, deposited by use of ultra-high vacuum (UHV) DC sputtering [@Oh:rhenium]. The substrate temperature is held at 1170 K, the deposition rate is 3 nm/min, and the argon sputter gas pressure is 0.7 Pa. For this and all subsequent layers, we rotate the substrate during deposition to improve film thickness uniformity. The magnetron sputter guns are mounted in a sputter-up configuration at 35$^{\circ}$ off normal and 15 cm from the substrate. Using this technique, we obtain crystalline rhenium films. We find that these film are characterized by $\sim$100 nm diameter hexagonal islands with $\sim$15 nm height, as shown in figure \[rhenium\](a). The root mean square (rms) roughness of the Re films is 3.2 nm, and is indicative of step-bunching and limited mobility of the Re during deposition. For comparison, a polycrystalline or crystalline Nb base-electrode suitable for high-quality Nb-Al/AlO$_x$-Nb Josephson junctions has roughness $\leq 0.5$ nm [@Du; @Welander].
In order to obtain a smoother Re surface for subsequent growth of the barrier, we found that it is possible to reduce the rms roughness of the base-electrode film while maintaining crystallinity by using a Re/Ti multilayer. In this process, we deposit a 10 nm Re layer and then cap it with 1.5 nm of Ti. Both films are UHV sputtered at 1170 K. Titanium has a lower surface free energy (1.9 J/m$^2$) than rhenium (2.2 J/m$^2$) and acts as a wetting layer, resulting in a significantly smoother surface, as shown in figures \[rhenium\] (a) and (c). By repeating the Re/Ti unit cell structure twelve times and then capping with a 10 nm Re top layer (i.e., (Re/Ti)$_{12}$Re), we obtain base-electrode films 150 nm thick with an rms roughness of only 0.6 nm. Line scans from the respective AFM images are shown in figures \[rhenium\] (b) and (d), illustrating that the multilayer film is much smoother, with fewer vertical edges, than the pure Re film. Reflection high energy electron diffraction (RHEED) patterns (not shown) from pure Re and (Re/Ti)$_{12}$Re films are indistiguishable, indicating that base-electrode crystallinity is not degraded by using the Re/Ti multilayer. This base-electrode surface is much more favorable for tunnel-barrier growth with a sharp metal-insulator interface [@Du; @Kohlstedt; @Kominami].
Tunnel-barrier and top-electrode growth
=======================================
Once the base-electrode is grown, we proceed to define the tunnel junction and top-electrode by use of the via process. This process is illustrated in figure \[fabcartoon\]. The tunnel-barrier and top-electrode are deposited after the insulator and via are defined. To accomplish this, we remove the wafer (with the epitaxial base-electrode already grown) from the UHV sputter tool. The first step of the process is shown in figure \[fabcartoon\](a), where the (Re/Ti)$_{12}$Re base-electrode is patterned by use of a 500 V SF$_6$ RIE at 2 Pa, etching all the way down to the substrate. The base-electrode is then covered with a 220 nm thick cross-over insulator, either SiO$_x$ or SiN$_x$, by use of plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition at $T = 295$ K.
Vias are then etched in the insulator by use of a 240 V RIE, shown in figure \[fabcartoon\](b). We use CHF$_3$ + O$_2$ at 13 Pa for the SiO$_x$ insulator and CF$_4$ + O$_2$ at 2 Pa for SiN$_x$. This step defines the tunnel junction size and shape. This RIE has a 3:1 (5:1) selectivity in etch rate between SiO$_x$ (SiN$_x$) and Re, allowing us to stop fairly effectively when we reach the top of the crystalline Re base-electrode. Minimizing the over-etch into the base-electrode is critical, as it could create vertical walls around the edge of the via and it also could etch down to the Ti wetting layer. Tunnel-barrier coverage on these vertical sidewalls would be problematic and prone to pinholes and uneven coverage. We use a laser interferometer endpoint-detection scheme to minimize the over-etch (typically $< 10$ % of the total etch time). We estimate the maximum amount of Re removed by the via over-etch and RF-clean (see below) is $\sim$5 nm. This leaves $\sim$5 nm of Re covering the nearest Ti wetting layer, so that our tunnel barriers are grown on Re, not Ti. This assertion is also confirmed by RHEED patterns: Re and Ti have distinct patterns.
After the via etch, the base-electrode in the bottom of the via has been amorphized due to the over-etch portion of the via etch. This surface needs to be cleaned and recrystallized before a tunnel junction can be grown on it. We do this by loading the wafer back into the UHV sputter tool, performing an argon RF-clean to remove $\sim$2 nm of material, and then heating the wafer to 1170 K for 1 hour as shown in figure \[fabcartoon\](c). RHEED image shown in the inset of \[fabcartoon\](c) and *ex-situ* AFM images (not shown) indicate that the Re surface is clean and re-crystallized. The epitaxial Al$_2$O$_3$ tunnel-barrier is then grown [*in situ*]{} by use of UHV RF magnetron-sputtering from a sintered Al$_2$O$_3$ sputter target [@Barner1; @Barner:tunneling]. For this deposition, the substrate temperature is held at 1170 K, the deposition rate is 0.9 nm/min, and the sputter gas pressure is 0.7 Pa argon with 5 mPa oxygen. The oxygen gas is necessary to prevent oxygen loss from the aluminum oxide at high-temperature and to obtain fully stoichiometric Al$_2$O$_3$. The thickness of the tunnel-barrier is monitored [*in situ*]{} by use of spectroscopic ellipsometry. We grow crystalline aluminum oxide films $1.8\pm0.2$ nm thick as tunnel-barriers. We find that they are conformal to the Re base-electrode, as evaluated by comparing AFM images and finding them to be indistinguishable from those of the base-electrode. In addition, we note here that other barrier growth conditions were explored, for example, growing at 1170 K without oxygen and also growth at $T = 295$ K followed by an 1170 K anneal in oxygen. These resulted in a low resistance$\times$area (RA)-product $<$ 400 $\Omega$$\mu$m$^2$ for tunnel-barriers up to 9 nm in thickness, and the RA-product was independent of barrier thickness. From this, we conclude that tunnelling was not the dominant transport mechanism for barriers grown without oxygen or at $T = 295$ K with an anneal. According to AFM and electrical-isolation measurements of metallic cross-overs, the SiO$_x$ and SiN$_x$ cross-over insulators are stable (i.e., no flowing of insulator material) and isolate well even after the 1170 K processing.
The top-electrode (either Re or Al) is then deposited [*in situ*]{} by use of UHV DC magnetron-sputtering after the wafer is cooled to room-temperature ($T = 295$ K) in a 5 mPa oxygen background. The Al is deposited at a rate of 3 nm/min, and the argon sputter gas pressure is 0.7 Pa. For the Re top-electrode, we use xenon sputter gas instead of argon to avoid the creation of energetic neutral sputter-gas atoms, which act as an unintentional mill of the tunnel-barrier during the first few atomic layers of top-electrode deposition. This is because energetic neutrals are created when there is a large mismatch in atomic mass between the sputter gas and the target material [@Window]. The use of xenon instead of argon for Re sputtering reduces the fractional energy of neutrals from 0.42 to 0.03. According to RHEED and AFM (not shown), the Al and Re top-electrodes exhibit moderately textured in-plane crystalline order, but small $\sim 30$ nm grain-size due to the low 295 K deposition temperature. In the final step, figure \[fabcartoon\](d), the Re top-electrode is patterned by use of a 500 V SF$_6$ RIE at 2 Pa. If the top-electrode is Al, we use a 200 V argon ion mill at 0.4 Pa (oriented 20 degrees from substrate normal with sample rotation).
Electrical Characterization
===========================
We measure the room-temperature ($T =$ 295 K) resistance of octagonal test junctions ranging in designed minimal diameter $d$ from 0.5 $\mu$m to 15 $\mu$m (area: 0.2 $\mu$m$^2$ to 186 $\mu$m$^2$). This provides three important pieces of information, including the process bias $d_0$. First, for medium and large junction sizes ($d >> d_0$), the RA-product should be flat when plotted versus designed area if there are no spurious transport channels at the perimeter of the junction. Second, by plotting RA-product versus electrical area $0.827(d-d_0)^2$ and adjusting $d_0$ so that we obtain a flat RA-product curve for small junction sizes ($d \sim d_0$), we extract $d_0$. This gives us information concerning how the actual size of the junction differs from the designed size. Third, if the superconducting gaps of the top and base-electrodes are known, the critical current density for the junctions in the superconducting regime can be calculated [@Ambegaokar]. This gives us feedback to adjust the RA-product by changing the tunnel-barrier deposition time for subsequent wafers.
Figure \[RA\] shows a plot of RA-product versus electrical area for junctions with Re and Al top-electrodes. For both types, the curve is flat for medium and large junctions, so we expect no significant perimeter transport. Both types of junctions have a process bias of -0.3 $\mu$m, meaning that the junctions are 0.3 $\mu$m larger in diameter than designed. This agrees well with the SEM image in figure \[fabcartoon\](d), where a junction that was designed as 0.5 $\mu$m was measured to be 0.8 $\mu$m (area = 0.5 $\mu$m$^2$). In order to account for the observed spread in RA-product, we designed qubit circuits with various sized junctions, as described in [@Kline]. Based on measurements at $T = 295$ K, both types of top-electrodes appear favorable for use as Josephson junctions.
Low-temperature ($T$ $\sim$ 50 mK) measurements were then conducted for both the Re and Al top-electrode devices in an adiabatic demagnetization refrigerator using a commercial data-acquisition card and preamplifier. Figure \[LTIV\] shows IV curves for two junctions of nominally equal area ($\sim$60 $\mu$m$^2$) and RA product ($\sim$2000 $\Omega$$\mu$m$^2$). While the normal-state resistances, i.e., the inverse slope of the curves above the superconducting gaps, are nearly the same, a dramatic difference in the subgap structure is observed. For the Re top-electrode junction, we see low subgap resistance $R_{sg} = 226$ $\Omega$, indicating some transport mechanism other than pure tunnelling. The subgap resistance is only five times higher than the normal-state resistance. The Al top-electrode junction shows a sharp corner, high subgap resistance and a re-trapping current that is limited by system noise, indicative of a high-quality junction [@Kirtley_subgap_PRL88]. We measured tunnel junctions ranging in size from $0.5-186$ $\mu$m$^2$ from five wafers with Re top-electrodes and six wafers with Al top-electrodes: all measurements exhibit the same qualitative behavior where the Re top-electrode junctions have low subgap resistance and the Al top-electrode junctions have high subgap resistance. We conclude that junctions made using Re top-electrodes have inherently poor subgap properties.
We measured the superconducting critical temperatures of the electrodes: $1.1$ K (Al), $2.5$ K (Re) and $2.4$ K ((Re/Ti)$_{12}$Re multilayer), corresponding to superconducting gaps $\Delta$ of $0.17$ meV (Al), $0.38$ meV (Re) and $0.36$ meV ((Re/Ti)$_{12}$Re), using BCS theory [@BCS]. The measured values $\Delta_1 + \Delta_2$ of $0.75$ meV for (Re/Ti)$_{12}$Re-Al$_2$O$_3$-Re and $0.45$ meV for (Re/Ti)$_{12}$Re-Al$_2$O$_3$-Al from the IV curves in figure \[LTIV\] are in good agreement with theory.
We also measured superconducting qubits made using the via process with both Re and Al top-electrodes. We first describe a flux-biased phase qubit with Re top-electrode. The circuit design is similar to [@Kline] with qubit state measurement performed using a DC SQUID. For a device with a 4 $\mu$m$^2$ qubit junction with capacitance $\sim200$ fF, critical current $= 2$ $\mu$A, 700 fF shunt (Re/Ti)$_{12}$Re interdigitated capacitor, loop inductance $L = 720$ pH, and 1 fF SiO$_x$ cross-over insulator, we measured an energy relaxation time $T_1$ = 15 ns, as shown in figure \[T1\](a). We hypothesize that $T_1$ is limited by the relatively low subgap resistance of the qubit junction with Re top-electrode; the classical $RC$ decay time for the qubit is $\tau=C R_{sg}\sim 2$ ns, where $C = 900$ fF is the total qubit capacitance. We measured two phase qubits from two wafers and both yielded similar results. We were unable to detect TLS splittings in the spectroscopy data due to the broad linewidth caused by the short relaxation time of these qubits.
A qubit fabricated with an Al top-electrode showed a much longer $T_1$ time of 500 ns, as shown in figure \[T1\](b). These data were taken from a transmission-line shunted plasma oscillation qubit (transmon) with dispersive qubit state readout using a half-wave resonator [@Koch]. The total qubit capacitance is given by two $1$ $\mu$m$^2$ junctions with $\sim100$ fF capacitance (critical current = 0.1 $\mu$A), $60$ fF shunt (Re/Ti)$_{12}$Re interdigitated capacitor, and 1 fF cross-over SiN$_x$ insulator. The half-wave resonator frequency is 8.3 GHz and the $T_1$ measurement was performed at the 7.3 GHz flux “sweet spot”. We measured two transmon qubits from one wafer and both yielded similar results. Based on the qubit-resonator coupling of $ g/2\pi = 85$ MHz, qubit-resonator detuning $ \Delta/2\pi = 1$ GHz, and resonator photon loss rate $\kappa/2\pi = 0.8$ MHz: the Purcell effect limit on $T_1$ is $(\Delta/g^2)/\kappa = 27$ $\mu$s, so our devices are not limited by the Purcell effect. We observed three TLS splittings in the spectroscopy measurement over a 0.5 GHz range (not shown), with maximum splitting size = 7 MHz.
Table \[Participation\] shows an analysis of the loss in each element of the transmon circuit: Josephson junction, interdigitated capacitor, and SiN$_x$ insulator. The participation ratio of each element is given by $p_i = C_i/C_{tot}$, where $C_i$ is the capacitance of element $i$ and $C_{tot}$ is the total qubit capacitance. The contributed loss is given by the microwave dielectric loss tangent (tan $\delta$) times $P_i$. Here we consider only the low-power loss tangent, i.e., the loss tangent measured when the TLS are unsaturated by the applied electric field [@Martinis:loss]. We use independently measured values of tan $\delta$ for the interdigitated capacitor and the SiN$_x$ insulator. We use the measured $T_1 = 500$ ns to calculate the total loss tangent of the transmon as $4.3 \times10^{-5}$ through $T_1 = 1/(2 \pi f_r$tan $\delta)$, where $f_r$ is the 7.3 GHz resonance frequency. We find that the performance of the qubit is limited primarily by loss in the Josephson junction and the interdigitated capacitor. Other loss mechanisms, such as non-equilibrium quasiparticles, are not considered in this analysis.
------------------- ------------ ----------- -------------------- --------------------- --
Element $C_i$ (fF) $P_i$ (%) tan $\delta$ Contributed loss
Junction 100 62.1 $3.5\times10^{-5}$ $2.2\times10^{-5}$
IDC $\0$60 37.3 $4.0\times10^{-5}$ $1.5\times10^{-5}$
SiN$_x$ $\0$$\0$1 $\0$0.6 $1.0\times10^{-3}$ $6.2\times10^{-6}$
Total loss $4.3 \times10^{-5}$
\[Participation\]
------------------- ------------ ----------- -------------------- --------------------- --
: Transmon loss analysis. The capacitance of element $i$ is $C_i$, the participation ratio of element $i$ is $P_i$, the loss tangent is tan $\delta$, and the contributed loss is given by tan $\delta \times P_i$.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a recipe for the fabrication of sub-micrometer epitaxial Josephson junctions with Al$_2$O$_3$ tunnel-barriers. The substrate crystallinity has been improved by a furnace anneal, and the base-electrode has been smoothed through the use of a (Re/Ti)$_{12}$Re multilayer base-electrode. The epitaxial Al$_2$O$_3$ tunnel-barrier is deposited at the bottom of a via in either SiO$_x$ or SiN$_x$. The top-electrodes are made from either Re or Al.
We find that Josephson junctions fabricated using the via process with Re top-electrodes have low subgap resistance and phase qubit energy relaxation time $T_1 = 15$ ns. This energy relaxation time is much smaller than the $T_1 = 500$ ns measured on a large area ($49$ $\mu$m$^2$) epitaxial Re-Al$_2$O$_3$-Al phase qubit [@Kline] fabricated using a trilayer process in the same laboratory as the devices studied in this work and also the best amorphous-barrier phase qubit with $T_1 = 600$ ns [@Martinis-QIP]. We find that our Al top-electrode devices have a high junction subgap resistance and transmon qubit energy relaxation time $T_1 = 500$ ns. We note that the best amorphous-barrier transmon, with junction area $\sim 0.1$ $\mu$m$^2$, has $T_1 = 2000$ ns for operation at $f \sim 6$ GHz [@Houck].
We gratefully acknowledge the fabrication assistance of Farnaz Farhoodi. The devices were fabricated at NIST. Room-temperature junction measurements were performed at MIT Lincoln Laboratory. The phase qubits were measured at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the transmons were measured at Raytheon BBN Technologies. This work was funded by the NIST Quantum Information initiative and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) through the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA). All statements of fact, opinion, or conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the official views or policies of ODNI or IARPA.
References
==========
[10]{}
J. Clarke and F. K. Wilhelm. . , [453]{}([7198]{}):[1031–1042]{}, Jun 19 [2008]{}.
R. W. Simmonds, K. M. Lang, D. A. Hite, S. Nam, D. P. Pappas, and J. M. Martinis. . , 93(7):077003, Aug 2004.
J. M. Martinis, K. B. Cooper, R. McDermott, M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, K. D. Osborn, K. Cicak, S. Oh, D. P. Pappas, R. W. Simmonds, and Clare C. Yu. . , 95(21):210503, Nov 2005.
J. S. Kline, H. Wang, S. Oh, J. M. Martinis, and D. P. Pappas. Josephson phase qubit circuit for the evaluation of advanced tunnel barrier materials. , 22(1):015004, 2009.
G. J. Dolan. . , 31(5):337–339, 1977.
Z. Kim, V. Zaretskey, Y. Yoon, J. F. Schneiderman, M. D. Shaw, P. M. Echternach, F. C. Wellstood, and B. S. Palmer. . , 78(14):144506, Oct 2008.
J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, Jens Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Majer, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf. . , 77(18):180502, May 2008.
J. E. Mooij, T. P. Orlando, L. Levitov, L. Tian, C. H. van der Wal, and S. Lloyd. Josephson persistent-current qubit. , 285(5430):1036–1039, 1999.
M. Steffen, S. Kumar, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, and M. B. Ketchen. High-coherence hybrid superconducting qubit. , 105(10):100502, Sep 2010.
M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, R. McDermott, N. Katz, Radoslaw C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, E. M. Weig, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis. State tomography of capacitively shunted phase qubits with high fidelity. , 97(5):050502, Aug 2006.
M. Weides, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, Matteo Mariantoni, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, J. Wenner, T. Yamamoto, Y. Yin, A. N. Cleland, and J. Martinis. . , 24(5):055005, May 2011.
S. Oh, K. Cicak, R. McDermott, K. B. Cooper, K. D. Osborn, R. W. Simmonds, M. Steffen, J. M. Martinis, and D. P. Pappas. . , 18(10):1396, 2005.
S. Oh, K. Cicak, J. S. Kline, M. A. Sillanpää, K. D. Osborn, J. D. Whittaker, R. W. Simmonds, and D. P. Pappas. Elimination of two level fluctuators in superconducting quantum bits by an epitaxial tunnel barrier. , 74(10):100502, Sep 2006.
K. K. Berggren, E. M. Macedo, D. A. Feld, and J. P. Sage. . , 9(2):3271 – 3274, Jun 1999.
K. A. Bertness, A. W. Sanders, D. M. Rourke, T. E. Harvey, A. Roshko, J. B. Schlager, and N. A. Sanford. . , 20(17):2911–2915, 2010.
F. Cuccureddu, S. Murphy, I. V. Shvets, M. Porcu, H. W. Zandbergen, N. S. Sidorov, and S. I. Bozhko. . , [604]{}([15-16]{}):[1294–1299]{}, [Aug 15]{} [2010]{}.
M. Yoshimoto, T. Maeda, T. Ohnishi, H. Koinuma, O. Ishiyama, M. Shinohara, M. Kubo, R. Miura, and A. Miyamoto. Atomic-scale formation of ultrasmooth surfaces on sapphire substrates for high-quality thin-film fabrication. , 67(18):2615, 1995.
S. Oh, D. A. Hite, K. Cicak, K. D. Osborn, R. W. Simmonds, R. McDermott, K. B. Cooper, M. Steffen, J. M. Martinis, and D. P. Pappas. Epitaxial growth of rhenium with sputtering. , 496(2):389, 2006.
J. Du, A. D. M. Charles, K. D. Petersson, and E. W. Preston. . , [20]{}([11, Sp. Iss. SI]{}):[S350–S355]{}, Nov [2007]{}.
P. B. Welander, T. J. McArdle, and J. N. Eckstein. . , 97(23):233510, 2010.
H. Kohlstedt, F. Konig, P. Henne, N. Thyssen, and P. Caputo. . , 80(9):5512, 1996.
S. Kominami, H. Yamada, N. Miyamoto, and K. Takagi. . , 3(1):2182 –2186, Mar 1993.
J. Barner and S. Ruggiero. . , 23(2):854 – 858, Mar 1987.
J. B. Barner and S. T. Ruggiero. . , 39(4):2060–2071, Feb 1989.
B. Window. Removing the energetic neutral problem in sputtering. , 11(4):1522–1527, 1993.
V. Ambegaokar and A. Baratoff. Tunneling between superconductors. , 10(11):486–489, Jun 1963.
J. R. Kirtley, C. D. Tesche, W. J. Gallagher, A. W. Kleinsasser, R. L. Sandstrom, S. I. Raider, and M. P. A. Fisher. . , 61(20):2372–2375, November 1988.
J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer. Theory of superconductivity. , 108(5):1175–1204, Dec 1957.
J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf. . , 76(4):042319, Oct 2007.
John Martinis. Superconducting phase qubits. , 8:81–103, 2009. 10.1007/s11128-009-0105-1.
A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, Jens Koch, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf. Controlling the spontaneous emission of a superconducting transmon qubit. , 101:080502, Aug 2008.
[^1]: Present address: Department of Physics, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO 63103, USA
[^2]: Present address: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, Laurel, MD 20723, USA
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'references\_rev2.bib'
---
1.cm
**Pulsating Strings on $AdS_5 \times S^5$**
M. Smedbäck[^1]
*Department of Theoretical Physics*
*Box 803, SE-751 08 Uppsala, Sweden*
July 12, 2004
**Abstract**
We find the anomalous dimension and the conserved charges of an R-charged string pulsating on $AdS_5$. The analysis is performed both on the gauge and string side, where we find agreement at the one-loop level. Furthermore, the solution is shown to be related by analytic continuation to a string which is pulsating on $S^5$, thus providing an example of the close relationship between the respective isometry groups.
Introduction {#intro}
============
The AdS/CFT conjecture [@AdS1; @AdS2; @AdS3] has lead to a better understanding of both conformal gauge theories as well as string theory in curved spaces. Within this framework, the seminal work of [@BMN] included a discussion of operators of the form Tr$Z^{J_1}W^{J_2}+\cdots$ (built up from the scalars $Z$ and $W$ of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM supermultiplet) where $J_1 \ll J_2$. The dots indicate other permutations of the fields $Z$ and $W$ inside the trace, and in general these states mix among themselves under scaling; only certain linear combinations are eigenstates to the scaling operator. Semiclassical string configurations which usually go beyond the BMN limit (e.g. by taking both $J_1$ and $J_2$ to be large) have since been studied extensively [@semiclass1; @semiclass2; @semiclass3; @semiclass4; @semiclass5; @semiclass6; @semiclass7; @semiclass8; @semiclass9; @semiclass10; @semiclass11; @semiclass12; @semiclass14; @semiclass15] (see also [@scalso1; @scalso2; @scalso3; @scalso4]), and are reviewed in [@semiclass13].
The observation of [@YM1] that the matrix of anomalous dimensions could be mapped to an integrable Bethe spin chain [@bethe] simplified and extended the studies of the corresponding gauge theory [@YM2; @YM3; @YM4; @YM7; @YM8; @YM9; @YM10; @YM12; @YM13; @YM15; @YM17; @YM18] (see also [@YMalso1; @YMalso2]), reviewed in [@faddeev]. The original results of [@YM1] were restricted to the group $SO(6)$ at 1-loop level, but were later extended to the full 1-loop $SU(2,2|4)$ chain [@YM5; @YM6], taking advantage of previous results on integrability in QCD amplitudes [@QCD1; @QCD2] and the QCD dilatation operator [@QCDdilop1; @QCDdilop2; @QCDdilop3] (see also [@QCDmixed1; @QCDmixed2; @QCDmixed3; @QCDintegrab1; @QCDintegrab2]). Progress on higher orders in closed subsectors has also been made [@YM2extra; @YM11; @YM14; @YM16; @priv].
The integrable spin chain formulation exposes the conserved charges. Conserved charges in the sigma model were first discussed in [@HCC1; @HCC2] (see also [@HCC3; @HCC4]). Progress on relating the conserved charges on either side to each other by viewing (subsectors of) both sides of the duality as an integrable system was made in [@HCC5; @HCC6; @HCC7; @HCC8] (see also [@Roiban]). The work on finding descriptions of the AdS/CFT duality in terms of integrable systems are reviewed in [@review].
In this paper, we will analyse a string pulsating on $AdS_5$ and whose centre of mass is revolving on $S^5$, both from the gauge and string side (assuming large quantum numbers). From the AdS/CFT conjecture, we expect that the anomalous dimension of the corresponding operator will coincide with the first order energy correction on the string side. Another motivation for studying this configuration is that the conserved charges on either side of the duality can be matched explicitly using integrability.
A third motivation is that our solution will be shown to be related by an analytic continuation to the solution of [@YM9] for a string pulsating and revolving on $S^5$. This provides an example of the close mathematical relationship between the isometry groups of $AdS_5$ and $S^5$; $SO(4,2)$ and $SO(6)$, respectively. Such relations were discussed in [@YM7], where a first example was given; a string rotating in two planes on $S^5$ was shown to be related by analytic continuation to a string whose centre of mass is revolving in one plane on $S^5$ and with one spin in $AdS_5$. One may speculate that tying together seemingly different solutions in this way may help in providing a bridge between duality checks at the level of individual solutions and higher-level checks. An example of the latter is the recent analysis of the duality at the level of actions [@al1; @al2; @al3; @al4; @al5; @al6].
We will analyse the case at hand from the gauge side and string side in sections \[gauge\] and \[string\], respectively. In section \[conserved\] we exhibit the conserved charges on the string side. Our conclusions are presented in section \[conclusions\].
Gauge Side {#gauge}
==========
In this section, we will consider operators of the form Tr$(D\bar{D})^B Z^J$, which are charged under $SO(2,2)$. Here, $D \equiv D_1 +iD_2$, (where $D_i$ are covariant derivatives) and $Z$ is one of the three complex scalars of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ supermultiplet. Individual operators are formed by linear combinations of different distributions of the $D$’s and $\bar{D}$’s over the $Z$’s. In general mixing occurs under scaling within the full $SO(4,2)$. However, in the semiclassical limit it turns out that it [*will*]{} be sufficient to consider the bosonic subgroup $SO(2,2)$ [@priv], cf. what happens in the $SO(6)$ case [@YM9; @HCC8]. The mapping of the matrix of anomalous dimensions to a Hamiltonian of a spin chain will then allow us to find the the eigenvalues of the diagonalized system.
The simple roots of $SO(2,2)$ are $\overrightarrow{\alpha}_1 = (1,1)$ and $\overrightarrow{\alpha}_2 = (1,-1)$. In the infinite-dimensional representation of highest weight $\overrightarrow{w} = (-1,0)$, the Bethe equations are $$\left( \frac{u_{q,i}+i\overrightarrow{\alpha}_q \cdot \overrightarrow{w}/2}
{u_{q,i}-i\overrightarrow{\alpha}_q \cdot \overrightarrow{w}/2}
\right)^L =
\prod_{j \neq i}^{n_q}
\frac{u_{q,i}-u_{q,j}+i\overrightarrow{\alpha}_q \cdot \overrightarrow{\alpha}_q/2}
{u_{q,i}-u_{q,j}-i\overrightarrow{\alpha}_q \cdot \overrightarrow{\alpha}_q/2}
\prod_{q' \neq q} \prod_j^{n_{q'}}
\frac{u_{q,i}-u_{q',j}+i\overrightarrow{\alpha}_q \cdot \overrightarrow{\alpha}_q'/2}
{u_{q,i}-u_{q',j}-i\overrightarrow{\alpha}_q \cdot \overrightarrow{\alpha}_q'/2},$$ as written in [@YM1] for an arbitrary Lie group, and $$\label{bethe}
\begin{split}
\left( \frac{u_{1,i}-i/2}{u_{1,i}+i/2} \right)^L
& = \prod_{j \neq i}^{n_1} \frac{u_{1,i}-u_{1,j}+i}{u_{1,i}-u_{1,j}-i} \\
\left( \frac{u_{2,i}-i/2}{u_{2,i}+i/2} \right)^L
& = \prod_{j \neq i}^{n_2} \frac{u_{2,i}-u_{2,j}+i}{u_{2,i}-u_{2,j}-i}
\end{split}$$ for $SO(2,2)$. The anomalous dimension is $$\label{andim}
\gamma = \frac{\lambda}{8\pi^2} \left(
\sum_{i=1}^{n_1} \frac{1}{u_{1,i}^2 + 1/4}
+\sum_{i=1}^{n_2} \frac{1}{u_{2,i}^2 + 1/4} \right) .$$ As indicated, there are $n_q$ roots of the type $q$. The form of the operator we are looking for is Tr$(D\bar{D})^B Z^J$, so the number of sites is $L=J$. The two root types essentially correspond to creation of $D$’s and $\bar{D}$’s, respectively, so we set $n \equiv n_1 = n_2 = B$.
Assuming that the number of roots is large (so that they can be approximated by a continuous distribution) in the thermodynamic limit (i.e. a large number of sites $L$) the log of the Bethe equation for the first type of root (after a rescaling $u \rightarrow uL$) is $$\label{thermo}
\frac{2}{\alpha} \left( -\frac{1}{u} + 2\pi m \right) =
2 -\hspace{-0.48cm}\int_C \frac{\sigma(u')du'}{u-u'},$$ where the line through the integral sign indicates that the singularity at $u'=u$ is resolved by taking the principal value of the integral. The contour $C$ is defined by the support of the root density $\sigma(u')$ and its endpoints are $a$ and $b$. We have defined $\alpha \equiv n/L$. The integer $m$ corresponds to different branches of the $\log$. The root density is normalized as $$\label{norm}
\int_C \sigma(u') du' = 2.$$ Reading (\[thermo\]) as a force balancing equation, we conclude that the roots are repelled from each other but attracted to the point $u=1/2 \pi m$. We therefore expect that the roots will spread out along the contour $C$ passing through this point.
Performing an inverse Hilbert transform on (\[thermo\]), the root density is $$\sigma(u) = - \frac{1}{\pi^2 \alpha} \left[ (u-a)(u-b) \right]^{1/2}
-\hspace{-0.48cm}\int_C du' \left( \frac{1}{u'} - 2\pi m \right) \frac{1}{u'-u}
\frac{1}{ \left[(u'-a)(u'-b) \right]^{1/2} }.$$ The multivalued function $[\cdots]^{1/2}$ has a cut along the segment of the real axis coinciding with the contour $C$. Calculating the integral by deforming the contour and picking up the residue at $u'=0$, we get $$\label{sigma}
\sigma(u) = - \frac{i}{\pi \alpha u \sqrt{ab}}
\left[ (u-a)(u-b) \right]^{1/2}.$$
The endpoints $a$ and $b$ of the contour $C$ are determined by inserting (\[sigma\]) into equations (\[thermo\]) and (\[norm\]). This results in the two equations $$\begin{split}
\sqrt{ab} & = \frac{1}{2\pi m} \\
a + b & = \frac{1+2 \alpha}{\pi m}
\end{split}.$$ In particular, this means that for non-negative (i.e. physical) values of $\alpha$, the endpoints of the contour will lie on the positive real axis (for positive $m$) and the contour will pass through the point $u=1/2 \pi m$, as expected.
Now define the resolvent $$W(u') \equiv \int_C du \frac{\sigma(u)}{u'-u}.$$ By deforming the contour and picking up residues at $u=0$, $u=u'$ and $u=\infty$, the resolvent becomes [@YM9; @HCC6] $$\label{resolvent}
-\alpha W(u') = \frac{1}{u'} \left[ 1 -
\sqrt{(1-2\pi mu')^2-2\alpha(4\pi mu')} \right] + \pi m.$$ The square root denotes the branch which coincides with the principal branch for small $u'$. One of the virtues of the resolvent is that it determines the first part of the anomalous dimension (\[andim\]) in the thermodynamic limit: $$\label{anom}
\gamma_1 = -\frac{\lambda \alpha}{16 \pi^2 L} W'(0)$$ Inserting (\[resolvent\]) into (\[anom\]), we get $$\gamma_1 = + \frac{\lambda m^2}{2L} \alpha (1 + \alpha).$$ According to (\[bethe\]), the two root types behave symmetrically and do not interact. Due to the trace condition, which in this case takes the form $$\label{trace}
\prod_{j=1}^{j=L}
\frac{(u_{1,j}+i/2)(u_{2,j}+i/2)}{(u_{1,j}-i/2)(u_{2,j}-i/2)} = 1,$$ the second type of roots spread out along along the segment $[-b,-a]$ of the negative real axis, so (\[andim\]) becomes $$\gamma = \gamma_1 + \gamma_2 = 2\gamma_1
= + \frac{\lambda m^2}{L} \alpha (1 + \alpha)
= + \frac{\lambda m^2 B}{J^2} \left( 1 + \frac{B}{J} \right).$$ The conformal dimension is $\Delta = 2B+J$, in terms of which $$\label{anomdim}
\gamma = m^2 \lambda \frac{\Delta^2-J^2}{4J^3}.$$
String Side {#string}
===========
In [@semiclass4], a string pulsating on $AdS_5$ or $S^5$ was considered. In [@YM9], the latter configuration was generalized to include a rotation in one plane on $S^5$. In this section, we will consider the closely related sigma model description of a string pulsating on $AdS_5$ and whose centre of mass is revolving on $S^5$. Restricting the motion to the subspace $AdS_3 \times S^1$ means that the isometry group contains a factor isomorphic to $SO(2,2)$, hence matching the set of operators considered in section \[gauge\].
The metric on $AdS_5 \times S^5$ will be written $$\begin{split}
ds^2_{AdS_5} & = d\rho^2 -\cosh^2 \rho dt^2 + \sinh^2 \rho
( d \theta^2 + \cos^2 \theta d\Phi_1^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\Phi_2^2 ) \\
ds^2_{S^5} & = d \gamma^2 + \cos^2 \gamma d\phi_3^2 + \sin^2 \gamma
( d\Psi^2 + \cos^2 \Psi d\phi_1^2 + \sin^2 \Psi d\phi_2^2)
\end{split}.$$ We will use the notation $\phi \equiv \phi_3$. The relevant metric for the $AdS_3 \times S^1$ subspace of the full space is $$ds^2 = d\phi^2 + d\rho^2 - \cosh^2 \rho dt^2 + \sinh^2 \rho d\theta^2.$$ We assume that the string is wrapped around the azimuthal angle $\theta$ on $AdS_3$. We then use the ansatz $$\phi=\phi(\tau), \rho=\rho(\tau), t=\tau, \theta=m \sigma.$$ The integer $m$ allows for multi-wrapping. We will consider $t$ and $\theta$ to be gauge fixed. The Nambu-Goto action is $$S = -m\sqrt{\lambda} \int dt \sinh \rho
\sqrt{\cosh^2 \rho -\dot{\phi}^2 - \dot{\rho}^2}.$$ The energy $\pi_t \propto H$ and the spin $\pi_\phi$ are conserved. The dynamical momenta are $$\pi_\rho = \frac{m \sqrt{\lambda}\dot{\rho}\sinh \rho}
{\sqrt{\cosh^2 \rho -\dot{\phi}^2 - \dot{\rho}^2}}$$ and $$\pi_\phi = \frac{m \sqrt{\lambda}\dot{\phi}\sinh \rho}
{\sqrt{\cosh^2 \rho -\dot{\phi}^2 - \dot{\rho}^2}}.$$ The Hamiltonian is then given by $$H^2 = (\pi_\rho \dot{\rho} + \pi_{\phi} \dot{\phi} - L)^2
= \cosh^2 \rho (\pi_\rho^2 + \pi_\phi^2 + m^2 \lambda \sinh^2 \rho).$$ Following [@YM9], we now consider the term $V(\rho) = m^2 \lambda \cosh^2 \rho \sinh^2 \rho$ to be a perturbation. A Hermitian form of the unperturbed Hamiltonian operator acting on a wave function is then $\hat{H}_0^2 \Psi(\rho) =
\cosh \rho (\hat{\pi}_\rho^2 + \hat{\pi}_\phi^2) \cosh \rho \Psi(\rho)$, i.e. $$\label{startekv}
\Delta^2 \Psi(\rho) = -(\cosh \rho) \nabla^2 (\cosh \rho) \Psi(\rho)
+ J(J+4) \cosh^2 \rho \Psi(\rho),$$ where $$\nabla^2 = \frac{1}{\sinh^3 \rho \cosh \rho}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \rho}
\sinh^3 \rho \cosh \rho \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho}.$$ $J$ and $\Delta$ are non-negative integers. Introducing $x=\frac{1}{\cosh^2 \rho}$ and restricting to even integers $J=2j$, $\Delta=2a$ transforms (\[startekv\]) into $$-\frac{x^{7/2}}{1-x} \frac{d}{dx} \frac{(1-x)^2}{x} \frac{d}{dx}
\frac{1}{x^{1/2}} \Psi(x) + j(j+2) \Psi(x) - a^2 \Psi(x) = 0.$$ The power series ansatz $$\label{ansatz}
\Psi(x) = \sum_{\lambda=0}^{\lambda=\infty} a_\lambda x^{k+\lambda}$$ results in an indicial equation with two solutions. The solution which keeps all terms finite on the interval $0 \le x \le 1$ is $k = j+5/2 $. Hence, the recursion relation becomes $$a_\lambda = - a_{\lambda-1} \frac{(a+1+\lambda+j) (a-1-\lambda-j)}
{\lambda (\lambda+2+2j)},$$ whose solution is $$a_p = (-1)^p
\left(\hspace{-0.20cm}
\begin{array}{cc}
a-j-2 \\
p
\end{array}
\hspace{-0.20cm} \right)
\frac{(a+j+1+p)!}{(p+2j+2)!}.$$ Inserting this into (\[ansatz\]) gives the wave functions, whose normalized forms are $$\Psi(x) = \frac{2\sqrt{a(a-j-1)}}{(a-j-1)!\sqrt{a+j+1}}
\frac{1}{x^{j-1/2}} \left( \frac{d}{dx} \right)^{a-j-1}x^{a+j+1}
(1-x)^{a-j-2}.$$ The first order correction to the energy is $$\Delta E^2 = \int d\tau \Psi(x) V(x) \Psi(x)
= \frac{2a(a+j+1)(a-j-1)}{(j+1)(2j+1)(2j+3)},$$ where $d\tau$ is the volume element. The energy to first order and for large quantum numbers is then $E=\Delta+\gamma$, where $$\label{energycorr}
\gamma = m^2 \lambda \frac{\Delta^2-J^2}{4J^3}.$$ This agrees with the expected anomalous dimension (\[anomdim\]).
Conserved Charges {#conserved}
=================
On the gauge side, the mapping of the matrix of anomalous dimensions to a Hamiltonian of an integrable spin chain immediately provides all conserved charges in terms of the resolvent. Following [@HCC6], the recent paper [@HCC7] demonstrates that for the R-charge assignment $(J_1,J_2,J_2)$ on $S^5$, the charges on the string side precisely match those on the gauge side (at the 1-loop level). In our case, the 1-loop resolvent is (\[resolvent\]). On the string side, the corresponding generator is essentially given by the quasi-momentum, as discussed in [@HCC8]. In this section, we will follow the procedure outlined in [@HCC8] to exhibit the quasi-momentum for the case at hand.
We are assuming that the string is moving on an $AdS_3 \times S^1$ subspace. The $AdS_3$ space can be described as the hypersurface $-X_1^2 -X_2^2 + X_3^2 + X_4^2 = 1$ in $\mathbb{R}^4$. Defining $W \equiv X_1 + iX_2$ and $Z \equiv X_3 +iX_4$, this space can be equivalently described as an $SU(1,1)$ group manifold using the map $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
Z & W \\
\bar{W} & \bar{Z} \\
\end{array}
\right)
= g \in SU(1,1).$$ As an ansatz for the string pulsating on $AdS_3$ and revolving on $S^1$ we use $$\begin{array}{cc}
W & = \sinh \rho e^{i \theta} \\
Z & = \cosh \rho e^{i t}
\end{array}.$$ In this section we will use the Polyakov action in unit gauge, $$\label{action}
\begin{array}{cc}
S & = \frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{4\pi} \int d\sigma d\tau
\left[
\partial Z \partial \bar{Z} - \partial W \partial \bar{W}
-(\partial X_5)^2
\right] \\
& = - \frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{4\pi} \int d\sigma d\tau
\left[
\frac{1}{2} \mbox{Tr} (g^{-1}\partial_\alpha g)^2
+(\partial X_5)^2
\right]
\end{array}$$ (hence choosing $X_3$ and $X_4$ to be time-like). In this description, we will no longer consider $t(\tau)$ to be gauge fixed. By the equations of motion, $\phi \equiv X_5 = Q \tau$. The action is invariant under constant shifts along the circle, so $Q\sqrt{\lambda} \equiv J$ is the conserved charge corresponding to the spin.
The action (\[action\]) is also invariant under constant left and right shifts of the group elements, $g \rightarrow hg$ and $g \rightarrow gh$. The corresponding charge is the energy $$E = +\sqrt{\lambda} Q_l = -\sqrt{\lambda}Q_r = -\sqrt{\lambda} \dot{t} \cosh^2 \rho.$$ In the following, we will restrict our considerations to the time $\tau$ when $\rho(\tau)=t(\tau)=0$. Then $$\frac{E^2}{\lambda} = \dot{t}^2 = \dot{\rho}^2 + Q^2,$$ where the last equality follows from the constraint corresponding to fixing the gauge in the Polyakov action.
Defining $\partial_{\pm} \equiv \partial_\tau \pm \partial_\sigma$ and currents $j_{\pm} \equiv g^{-1} \partial_{\pm} g$, it follows from the constraint $Z\bar{Z}-W \bar{W}=\det(g)=1$ that $$0 = \partial_+ j_- - \partial_- j_+ + [j_+,j_-].$$ This coincides with the consistency condition $[L,M]=0$ for the linear problem $L\Psi = M\Psi = 0$, where $$\begin{array}{cc}
L & = \partial_\sigma +\frac{1}{2}
\left( \frac{j_+}{1-x} - \frac{j_-}{1+x} \right) \\
M & = \partial_\tau +\frac{1}{2}
\left( \frac{j_+}{1-x} + \frac{j_-}{1+x} \right)
\end{array}.$$ Explicitly, the first equation is $$\label{sigmaprob}
\partial_\sigma \Psi = \frac{x}{x^2-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
iQ_l & \dot{\rho}e^{im\sigma} \\
\dot{\rho}e^{-im\sigma} & -iQ_l
\end{array}
\right)
\Psi$$ Considering $\Psi$ to be a vector of the type $$\Psi = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A e^{ip_{+} \sigma/2\pi} \\
B e^{ip_{-} \sigma/2\pi}
\end{array}
\right)$$ provides a family of solutions[^2] to (\[sigmaprob\]), provided that the condition $$\left[ \frac{x^2-1}{2\pi} (p_{\pm} \mp \pi m) \right]^2
+ (x\dot{\rho})^2
= \left[ \frac{m(x^2-1)}{2} - xQ_l \right]^2$$ is satisfied. Consequently, each root $p_\pm(x)$ will be double-valued. Subtracting the poles from one of the sheets of $p_-$ (with a branch cut along the positive real axis), the resolvent is $$G(x) = \frac{2\pi}{x^2-1} \left[
-xQ + \left\{ \left[ \frac{m}{2}(x^2-1)-xQ_l \right]^2 - (x\dot{\rho})^2 \right\}^{1/2}
\right]
-\pi m.$$ Rescaling $x \rightarrow 4\pi Qx$, the leading contribution for large quantum numbers ($\lambda \rightarrow 0$ in $Q=J/\sqrt{\lambda}$ and $Q_l = E/\sqrt{\lambda}$) is $$\label{resolvent_string}
-G_0(x) = \frac{1}{2x} \left[
1-\sqrt{(1-2\pi mx)^2 - 2\alpha (4\pi mx)}
\right] + \pi m.$$ The square root denotes the branch which coincides with the principal branch for small $x$. It is proportional to the resolvent (\[resolvent\]) on the gauge theory side. Since the charges are generated by the odd part of the resolvent, this shows that the charges on the gauge and string side match.
Conclusions
===========
We considered a string pulsating on $AdS_5$ and revolving on $S^5$. The anomalous dimension (\[anomdim\]) agrees with the first order energy correction (\[energycorr\]), as expected from the AdS/CFT conjecture. In terms of $\alpha \equiv \frac{n}{J} = \frac{\Delta-J}{2J}$, these results become $$\label{energycorr}
\gamma = m^2 \lambda \frac{1}{J} \alpha (1+\alpha).$$
Consider analytically continuing this result to the unphysical region $\alpha < 0$ by $\Delta \rightarrow - J_1$ and $J \rightarrow -L$. This takes $\alpha \rightarrow -\alpha_{EMZ} \equiv \frac{J_1-L}{2L}$, i.e. $$\label{energycorr}
\gamma \rightarrow m^2 \lambda \frac{1}{L} \alpha_{EMZ} (1-\alpha_{EMZ}).$$ This is the result[^3] of [@YM9] for a string pulsating and revolving on $S^5$, which together with our result provides a complete description for all real values of $\alpha$; for $\alpha < 0$, the string pulsates and revolves on $S^5$. As $\alpha$ is turned to positive values[^4], the string starts pulsating on $AdS_5$ instead (while still revolving on $S^5$). On the gauge side, the corresponding operator forms are Tr$(Z\bar{Z})^{(L-J_1)/2} X^{J_1}$ and Tr$(D\bar{D})^{(\Delta-J)/2} Z^J$, respectively.
This description can be compared to the extension of [@YM7] to the results of [@YM4]. In [@YM4], operators of the form Tr$Z^{J_1}W^{J_2}$ were considered, corresponding to strings rotating in two planes on $S^5$. It was shown in [@YM7] that the replacements $J_1 + J_2 \rightarrow - J$, $J_2 \rightarrow S$ and $\gamma \rightarrow - \gamma$ turned the system of Bethe equations[^5] and anomalous dimensions into a description of operators of the form Tr$D^S Z^J$, corresponding to strings rotating both on $AdS_5$ and $S^5$.
Let us also mention that the presence of an integrable structure on both sides of the duality is manifested in our case by the agreement of the corresponding generators of conserved charges, (\[resolvent\]) and (\[resolvent\_string\]). For the string pulsating on $S^5$, considered in [@YM9], the corresponding check was carried out in [@HCC8].
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} I am very grateful to J. Minahan for helpful discussions and support during the course of this work, and for useful comments on the manuscript. I would also like to thank J. Engquist, L. Freyhult and K. Zarembo for conversations.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: The ansatz $p_\pm(x)=a(x) \pm \pi m$ is helpful.
[^3]: Our definition of $\alpha_{EMZ}$ differs by a factor of 2 from that of [@YM9].
[^4]: Note that we assumed large quantum numbers. As $J \rightarrow 0$, the thermodynamic limit is no longer valid. The behaviour of the anomalous dimension in the strong coupling region is discussed in [@semiclass4]. A similar phenomenon occurs in [@YM7].
[^5]: In the present case and on the level of Bethe equations in the thermodynamic limit, taking $\alpha \rightarrow -\alpha_{EMZ}$ turns (\[thermo\]) into the corresponding equation in [@YM9].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study two-component growth that mixes random deposition (RD) with a correlated growth process that occurs with probability $p$. We find that these composite systems are in the universality class of the correlated growth process. For RD blends with either Edwards-Wilkinson or Kardar-Parisi-Zhang processes, we identify a nonuniversal parameter in the universal scaling in $p$.'
author:
- 'A. Kolakowska'
- 'M. A. Novotny'
- 'P. S. Verma'
title: Universal Scaling in Mixing Correlated Growth with Randomness
---
Many properties of complex systems can be uncovered by statistical analysis of some representative nonequilibrium interfaces. Mainstream studies of surface growth and interface roughening focus on one-component growth, or homoepitaxy, and large-scale properties. On the microscopic level, nonequilibrium interfaces have been studied in a variety of discrete simulation models such as ballistic deposition (BD), Eden or solid-on-solid models. While one-component growths are well understood [@BS95], the same can not be claimed about composite systems, even as simple as binary growth in one spatial dimension. Several mixed-growth models studied in the recent decade [@HA03; @mix10] reveal new and nontrivial properties. But the theory behind these is in the initial stages.
In this first systematic study of two-component growth, we examine a system whose dynamics is governed by two simultaneously present processes: one is a process that builds up correlations (a pure-correlated growth) and the other process is totally uncorrelated, i.e., random deposition (RD). The pure-correlated growth occurs with probability $p$. Questions that we address here concern the universality of such composite systems. As we shall show, the presence of randomness slows down the dynamics of the correlation processes. Nevertheless, the universality class of the combined processes is the same as the universality class of a correlation process. This is an outcome of scaling in $p$. One consequence of this observation is a magnifying-glass effect that RD-blending has on the time-evolution of the surface roughness. This effect can be useful in revealing hidden features of a correlated growth when designing simulation models. Intuitively, since RD carries no correlations of its own, it may be expected that its admixtures should not lead to a new universality class. Yet, demonstration of this is not so trivial since, as we shall make evident by the results of several simulations, some of the parameters involved in the universal scaling may be nonuniversal. Results presented here for $(1+1)$ dimensions can be easily extended to multidimensions.
Consider aggregation models where particles fall onto a one-dimensional substrate of $L$ sites, where they may be accepted in accordance to a rule that generates correlations among the sites. This pure-correlated growth occurs with probability $p$ and competes with RD growth that occurs with probability $q=1-p$. When a particle is accepted at a site, the site increases its height by $\Delta h$. Roughness of the growing surface is measured by the interface width $w(t)$ at time $t$: $\langle w^2(t) \rangle = \langle L^{-1} \sum_{k=1}^{k=L} [h_k(t)-\bar{h}(t)]^2 \rangle$, where $h_k(t)$ is the height at site $k$ and $\bar{h}(t)$ is its mean over $L$ sites (angular brackets denote the mean over $N$ configurations).
In a pure-correlated growth ($p=1$), assuming elementary linear and nonlinear models, the self-affined roughness obeys the Family-Vicsek (FV) scaling [@FV85], $$\label{FV-1}
w^2(t) = L^{2\alpha} F(t/L^z),$$ where $F(y)$ gives two evolution limits: $F(y) \sim y^{2\alpha/z}$ if $y \ll 1$ (growth); and, $F(y) \sim \textrm{const}$ if $y \gg 1$ (saturation). The cross-over time $t_\times$ from growth to saturation is given by the dynamic exponent $z$, $t_\times \sim L^z$ (Fig. 1). At saturation the width does not depend on time, $w^2 \sim L^{2\alpha}$, where $\alpha$ is the roughness exponent. During the growth $w^2(t) \sim t^{2\beta}$, where $\beta = \alpha/z$. Exponents $z$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are universal. This means, two different simulation models of two different correlation mechanisms will generate the same type of scaling, with consistent values of exponents, provided these mechanisms represent the same type of correlation process, i.e., belong to one universality class. Dynamics of the buildup of correlations and dynamical scaling are described within a continuum model by a stochastic growth equation. One example is the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) equation [@KPZ86] $$\label{KPZ-1}
h_t = v(t) + \nu_0 h_{xx} + ( \lambda_0 /2 ) h_{x}^2 + \eta (x,t),$$ where $h=h(x,t)$ is the height field (subscripts denote partial derivatives; $x$ is the coordinate along the substrate), $v$ is the mean interface velocity, and $\eta$ is the white noise ($\nu_0$ and $\lambda_0$ are coefficients). In the KPZ universality class, governed by Eq. (\[KPZ-1\]), $\alpha + z = 2$ and $\alpha = 1/2$. When $\lambda_0=0$, Eq. (\[KPZ-1\]) becomes the Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) equation [@EW82], defining the EW universality with $2\alpha +1 =z$ and $\alpha = 1/2$. When $\nu_0=\lambda_0=0$, Eq. (\[KPZ-1\]) describes uncorrelated processes of RD universality, characterized by $\beta =1/2$, $t_\times = \infty$, and the absence of scaling in $L$. For EW processes, Eq. (\[FV-1\]) expresses the invariance of the EW equation under the scaling [@BS95] $$\label{transform-1}
x \to Lx \, , \; h \to L^\alpha h \, , \; t \to L^z t \, .$$ Similarly, for KPZ processes it expresses the invariance of the convective derivative in the Burger’s equation.
![\[fig-1\] [*Model B*]{} for pure-correlated growth: (a) Time evolutions of the interface width ($t_0$ marks the end of the initial nonscaling regime); (b) Scaling function for $t>t_0$. $z$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are consistent with the EW universality. Here, $N \approx 100$. ](prl05f01.eps){width="6.0cm"}
In simulations, $t$ is the number of deposited monolayers. The first step is RD to a flat substrate. The system retains the memory of this initial condition for $t_0$ steps, where $t_0$ depends on the particulars of the model, i.e., $t_0$ is a nonuniversal parameter. In this start-up regime $w(t)$ does not scale [@KNV04]; scaling occurs only for $t>t_0$ (Fig. 1).
In deriving the scaling hypotheses, we are guided by the following four models. ***Model A***: for $p=1$ is RD with surface relaxation where $\Delta h=1$ [@BS95; @Fam86], known to be in the EW universality class (for $p<1$, studied in [@HA03; @HMA01]). In ***Model B***, being introduced here, $\Delta h$ is sampled from a uniform distribution of unit mean and the substrate is sampled sequentially at each $t$. When $p=1$: particles that fall on the local interface minima are always accepted; particles that fall on local maxima slide down to either of the neighboring sites with probability $1/2$; and, particles that fall on local slopes slide down to nearest-neighbor sites. [*Model B*]{} for $p=1$ is in the EW class (Fig. 1). It simulates, e.g., deposition of a sticky non-granular material of variable droplet size. ***Model C***: for $p=1$ is BD with $\Delta h=1$, known to be of KPZ universality [@BS95] (for $p<1$, studied in [@HA03; @HA01]). In ***Model D***, $\Delta h$ is sampled from a Poisson distribution of unit mean, and each monolayer is obtained by sequential sampling. When $p=1$ in [*Model D*]{}, particles are deposited only to local surface minima. This case is in the KPZ universality class [@KNV04]. [*Model D*]{} simulates, e.g., conservative updates in a system of asynchronous processors [@KNV04; @KN05]. We stress that, although in one universality class for $p=1$, [*Models C*]{} and [*D*]{} are [*essentially different*]{} simulations (as is the pair [*A*]{} and [*B*]{}).
![\[fig-2\] Scaled widths at saturation vs parameter $1/p^{2\delta}$: (a) and (b) are for [*Models A*]{} and [*B*]{}, respectively (mix of RD with EW processes); (c) and (d) are for [*Models C*]{} and [*D*]{}, respectively (mix of RD with KPZ). Reference lines have slope $1$. Data are scaled with the exponent values shown here. ](prl05f02.eps){width="8.0cm"}
In all models, evolutions $w^2(t)$ form two-parameter families of curves ($L$ and $p$ being parameters) that for any $p \in (0;1]$ look like those in Fig. 1 but with $t_0 \equiv t_0(p) \ge t_0(1)$, $t_\times \equiv t_\times (p) \ge t_\times (1)$, and at saturation $w^2(p) \ge w^2(1)$. The curves saturate due to [*only one*]{} component, the pure-correlated deposition, since the other component, RD, introduces no correlations. At saturation, the observed lateral correlation length is $\xi_\parallel (p) \sim L$ and $t_\times (p) \sim L^z$; thus, $\xi_\parallel (p) \sim t_\times^{1/z}(p)$; and, the widths scale in $L$ as $w^2(p) \sim L^{2\alpha}$. Plots of the scaled widths $\langle w^2(p) \rangle /L^{2\alpha}$ (Fig. 2) show that they generally scale in $p$ as $w^2 \sim L^{2\alpha}/p^{2\delta}$, where $\delta$ is some parameter. Is $\delta$ a universal exponent? [*Models A*]{} and [*B*]{} (Figs. 2a-b) may suggest a universal value $\delta =1$ for the RD-EW mix. But [*Models C*]{} and [*D*]{} (Figs. 2c-d) show that $\delta_D \approx 2 \delta_C$. Accordingly, $\delta$ is not universal because for the RD-KPZ mix its value is clearly related to the technicalities of these models. In the RD-EW case there is no reason to believe that $\delta=1$ is not accidental. Scale invariance of the EW equation is not sufficient to furnish $\delta$.
Since $t_\times (p) \sim L^z$ and $w^2 \sim L^{2\alpha}/p^{2\delta}$ for any $p \ne 0$, the roughness must scale as $w^2 (t)/w^2 \sim F(t(p)/L^z)$. This scaling in $L$ collapses all curves $w^2(t)$ to one-parameter families ($p$ being the only parameter now) presented in Figs. 3a, 4a, 5a and 6a. As RD components do not build correlations, this collapse is obtained with the scaling laws from the corresponding universality classes of processes that build up correlations. Explicitly, $z=2\alpha +1$ and $z=2-\alpha$ for blending RD with EW and KPZ processes, respectively. To further collapse the data in $p$, i.e., to find $t(p)$ in the argument of function $F$, we analyze the invariance of the corresponding continuum equations under simultaneous affine transformations: $$\label{transform-2}
x \to Lx \, , \; h \to h L^\alpha /g \, , \; t \to t L^z / f \, ,$$ assuming $g$ and $f$ being arbitrary suitable functions of $p$.
![\[fig-3\] Scaling for [*Model A*]{}: (a) in $L$; (b) in $p$ of the data in Fig. (a). $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are consistent with the EW universality class. Data labels are common for both figures. $N \approx 100$. ](prl05f03.eps){width="6.2cm"}
Scaling (\[transform-2\]) is the superposition of scaling (\[transform-1\]) with $$\label{transform-3}
x \to x'=x \, , \; h \to h'= h/g(p)\, , \; t \to t'= t/f(p) \, .$$ Invariance analysis under the component scaling (\[transform-1\]) leads to Eq. (\[FV-1\]) and signature-scaling laws of KPZ and EW processes. This justifies the data collapse in $L$. The component scaling (\[transform-3\]) transforms Eq. (\[KPZ-1\]) to: $h'_{t'}=v' + \nu'(p) h'_{x'x'} + (\lambda' (p) /2) h'^2_{x'}+ \eta'(x',t')$, where $h'_{t'}=h_t f/g$, $v'=v f/g$, $h'_{x'x'}= h_{xx}/g$, and $\eta' (x',t')= \sqrt{f} \eta (x,t)$. Its invariance under (\[transform-3\]) implies: $$\begin{aligned}
f(p) &=& g^2(p) \label{result-a} \\
\nu'(p) &=& \nu_0 f(p) \label{result-b} \\
\lambda'(p) &=& \lambda_0 g(p) f(p) \label{result-c}.\end{aligned}$$ From scaling at saturation we obtained $g(p)=p^\delta$. Thus, the continuum equation for the RD-KPZ mix is $$\label{KPZ-2}
h_t = v(t) + \nu_0 p^{2\delta} h_{xx}+
(\lambda_0/2) p^{3\delta} h^2_x +\eta (x,t).$$ In the limits $p \to 1$ and $p \to 0$ Eq. (\[KPZ-2\]) describes the dynamics of pure processes, i.e., the KPZ-type and RD, respectively. Similarly, the invariance of the EW equation under scaling (\[transform-3\]) gives Eqs. (\[result-a\])-(\[result-b\]). This leads to the continuum equation for the RD-EW mix: $$\label{EW-2}
h_t = v(t) + \nu_0 p^{2\delta} h_{xx}+ \eta (x,t).$$
![\[fig-4\] Scaling for [*Model B*]{}: (a) in $L$; (b) in $p$ of the data in Fig. (a). As in [*Model A*]{}, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ indicate the EW universality class. Data labels are common for both figures. $N \approx 100$. ](prl05f04.eps){width="6.2cm"}
The inverse of the scaling (\[transform-2\]) is the desired contraction that gives the full data collapse described by the FV function. The inverse of the scaling (\[transform-3\]) alone ($x \to x$, $h \to p^\delta h$, $t \to p^{2\delta}t$) gives $t(p)$ in the argument of $F(y)$: $y=p^{2\delta}t/L^z$. Finally, the FV scaling for any two-component process, one of which is RD, is $$\label{FV-2}
w^2(t) = \frac{L^{2\alpha}}{p^{2\delta}} F \left( \frac{p^{2\delta}}{L^z} t \right),$$ where $\alpha$ and $z$ are universal exponents of the component process that builds up correlations, and $\delta$ is nonuniversal. This result is illustrated in Figs. 3b, 4b, 5b and 6b.
Our results, Eqs. (\[KPZ-2\])-(\[FV-2\]), show that mixing RD with a correlated growth preserves the universality of the correlated growth. Physical justification is in the uncorrelated nature of RD. As can be seen from Eqs. (\[KPZ-2\])-(\[EW-2\]), RD blending reduces the values of coefficients $\nu$ and $\lambda$ relative to the original noise strength. In other words, the net outcome is a noisier dynamics. The analysis presented here by the examples of EW and KPZ processes in ($1+1$) dimensions is easily extended to other growth processes in ($1+n$) dimensions. It is enough to notice that Eq. (\[result-a\]) is generally valid when scaling (\[transform-3\]) applies to growth equations of the type $h_t (\vec{x}, t) = (\textrm{operator})h + \eta(\vec{x}, t)$, where $\vec{x}$ is $n$ dimensional. Hence the conclusion: if a correlated growth belongs to a given universality class, its mix with RD will remain in the same class. The only effects of the RD admixture are the simultaneous dilatations of the fundamental time and height scales in accordance with scaling (\[transform-3\]) (and Eq. (\[result-a\])). The net consequence of these is a slowdown in the dynamics of buildingup the correlations, reflected in the change of the lateral correlation length $\xi_\parallel (p) \sim t(p)^{1/z} = \xi_\parallel (1)/ \sqrt[z]{f(p)}$. In a sense, RD blending is like applying a magnifying glass to the evolution curves $w(t)$: the smaller the $p$ the better the magnification. In particular, in a two-component growth that mixes RD with either EW or KPZ processes, these dilatations explicitly are $h \to h/p^\delta$ and $t \to t/p^{2\delta}$, where $\delta$ is nonuniversal and reflects the particulars of the deposition. The stretching in time causes the initial nonscaling regime $t_0 (1)$ in curves $w(t)$ to be amplified as $t_0 (p) = t_0 (1) /p^{2\delta}$. One consequence of this amplification is a clear observation of the RD growth (with $\beta = 1/2$) for initial times $t<t_0$ when the growth starts from a flat substrate (e.g., observed in [@HA03; @HMA01; @HA01]). Note, if $p \to 0$ this initial phase becomes infinitely long as this is the limit of RD growth. In simulations, when $p$ is known, by a prudent design of a model, magnifying effects of RD blending may prove advantageous in revealing hidden features of a correlated growth. However, in the laboratory, the presence of randomness in the growth process will obscure a clear-cut observation of the expected scaling.
![\[fig-5\] Scaling for [*Model C*]{}: (a) in $L$; (b) in $p$ of the data in Fig. (a). $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are consistent with the KPZ universality. Data labels are common for both figures. Here, $N \approx 100$. ](prl05f05.eps){width="6.2cm"}
![\[fig-6\] Scaling for [*Model D*]{}: (a) in $L$; (b) in $p$ of the data in Fig. (a). $\alpha$ and $\beta$ indicate the KPZ universality, but $\delta_D \approx \delta_C/2$. Data labels are common for both figures. $N \approx 1000$. ](prl05f06.eps){width="6.2cm"}
This work is supported by NSF grant DMR-0426488, and by the ERC CCS at MSU. It used resources of the NERSC Center, supported by the Office of Science of the US DoE under contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.
[99]{}
A.-L. Barabasi and H. E. Stanley, [*Fractal Concepts in Surface Growth*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
C. M. Horowitz and E. V. Albano, Eur. Phys. J. B [**31**]{}, 563 (2003).
F. D. A. Aarao Reis, Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{}, 027101 (2002); A. Chame and F. D. A. Aarao Reis, Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{}, 051104 (2002); T. J. Da Silva and J. G. Moreira, Phys. Rev. E [**63**]{}, 041601 (2001); B. Drossel and M. Kardar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 614 (2000); H. F. El-Nashar and H. A. Cerdeira, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 6149 (2000); M. Kotrla, F. Slanina, and M. Predota, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 100003 (1998); W. Wang and H. A. Cerdeira, Phys. Rev. E [**47**]{}, 3357 (1993); M. Ausloos, N. Vandewalle, and R. Cloots, Europhys. Lett. [**24**]{} 629 (1993); P. Pelligrini and R. Jullien, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{} 1745 (1990).
F. Family and T. Vicsek, J. Phys. A [**18**]{}, L75 (1985).
M. Kardar, G. Parisi, and Y.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 889 (1986).
S. F. Edwards and D. R. Wilkinson, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A [**381**]{}, 17 (1982).
A. Kolakowska, M. A. Novotny, and P. S. Verma, Phys. Rev. E [**70**]{}, 051602 (2004).
F. Family, J. Phys. A [**19**]{}, L441 (1986).
C. M. Horowitz, R. A. Monetti, and E. V. Albano, Phys. Rev. E [**63**]{}, 066132 (2001).
C. M. Horowitz and E. V. Albano, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**34**]{}, 357 (2001).
A. Kolakowska and M. A. Novotny, in [*Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science*]{}, edited by S. Shannon (Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, 2005), p.151.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Extremal compact hyperbolic surfaces contain a packing of discs of the largest possible radius permitted by the topology of the surface. It is well known that arithmetic conditions on the uniformizing group are necessary for the existence of a second extremal packing in the same surface, but constructing explicit examples of this phenomenon is a complicated task. We present a brute force computational procedure that can be used to produce examples in all cases.'
author:
- 'Ernesto Girondo[^1] and Cristian Reyes[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
date: |
Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)\
\
[email protected], [email protected]
title: A brute force computer aided proof of an existence result about extremal hyperbolic surfaces
---
Introduction
============
It is well known that the radius of a metric disc embedded in a compact hyperbolic surface cannot be larger than certain bound depending only in the topology of the surface (cf. [@Bavard_1996], [@Girondo_Gonzalez-Diez_1999], [@Girondo_Nakamura_2007]). Recently, this result has been extended to embeddings of $k$-packings (i.e. collections of a number $k$ of pairwise disjoint metric discs of given radius) in hyperbolic surfaces, first in the orientable case (see [@Girondo_2018]) and then in the non-orientable case ([@preprint]). By the term *extremal surface* we mean a (orientable or non-orientable) surface $S$ with an embedded $k$-packings realizing the upper bound for the radius, given by $$\cosh R = \frac{1}{2\sin \frac{k\pi}{6(k-\chi)} }.$$
Extremal surfaces may be studied from the point of view of discrete groups of Möbius transformations. We can regard such a surface $S$ as a quotient $S \simeq \mathbb{D} / K$ of the universal covering space $\mathbb{D}$, the unit disc, by a *uniformizing group* $K$, which is a Fuchsian group or a proper NEC group depending on whether $S$ is orientable or not.
It has been observed that extremality translates into algebraic, and even arithmetic properties of the group $K$. First, a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of an extremal $k$-packing in $S$ is that the group $K$ must be contained in a (Fuchsian or NEC) triangle group $\Delta=\Delta(2,3,N)$ where $N=6(k-\chi)/k$, the index being $6(k-\chi)$ or $12(k-\chi)$ for the orientable and the non-orientable case, respectively ([@Girondo_2018], [@preprint]). It follows that topology does not impose any restriction to extremality for $k=1,2,3$ and $6$. On the other hand, when $k$ does not divide $6\chi$, embedded $k$-packings cannot be as dense as they are in hyperbolic space, and therefore extremal $k$-packings do not exist for such topological classes of hyperbolic surfaces.
Actual existence of extremal surfaces for the admissible pairs $(k,\chi)$ (or, equivalently $(k, g)$, where $g$ stands for the orientable or non-orientable genus) has been shown either as a consequence of known results about inclusions of Fuchsian groups ([@Girondo_2018], where a well-known theorem by Edmonds et al. [@Edmonds_Ewing_Kulkarni_1982] is used) or as a result of a clever combinatorial procedure called *edge-grafting* ([@preprint]).
There is a natural question where, surprisingly, arithmetic seems to play a role related to extremality. Asking if a extremal surface of genus $g$ may contain several distinct extremal $k$-packings translates into asking if the uniformizing group $K$ can be contained in two different (conjugate) copies of the corresponding triangle group $\Delta$. A combination of known results by Margulis, Singerman and Takeuchi shows that extremal $k$-packings are often necessarily unique within their surfaces, the possible exceptions corresponding to values $(k, g)$ such that the triangle group $\Delta$ is arithmetic (see [@Takeuchi_1977_a] for the definition of arithmeticity). This way, first in [@Girondo_2018] for the orientable case and later in [@preprint] for the non-orientable case, it was proved the following
If $X$ is a compact hyperbolic $k$-extremal surface of genus $g$ and $$N:=\frac{6(k-\chi)}{k} \not\in\{7,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,18,24,30\}$$ then the extremal $k$-packing is unique in $X$.
Summarizing, a combination of topology/combinatorics and arithmetics restricts the possible pairs $(k,g)$ for which there could be an extremal $k$-surface of genus $g$ with several extremal $k$-packings to values such that
- Orientable case: $k$ divides $12g+6k-12$ and $N=\frac{12g+6k-12}{k} \in\{7,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,18,24,30\}$
- Non orientable case: $k$ divides $6g+6k-12$ and $N=\frac{6g+6k-12}{k} \in\{7,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,18,24,30\}$.
Notice that these are necessary conditions. Showing that they are also sufficient is far from being obvious. In the first cases considered in the literature, namely those with $k=1$, see [@Girondo_Gonzalez-Diez_2002_2], [@Girondo_Nakamura_2007]) the strategy employed was as follows. First, determine all possible extremal surfaces, something that can be done by finding a representative of all conjugacy classes of Fuchsian/proper NEC groups of the appropriate index inside the triangle group $\Delta$ with the help of some algebra package such as GAP. Then, perform an exhaustive metric study (similar to what was done for instance in [@Girondo_Gonzalez-Diez_2002_2]; see Section \[sec:brute\] below for some hints about what we mean with this) in order to determine if a second extremal $k$-packing exists in any of the surfaces.
The serious problem for extending this strategy to $k>1$ is that sometimes it is virtually impossible to list the huge number of subgroups $K<\Delta$ involved.
The main result
===============
We shall prove the following theorem:
\[th\_main\] Let $g\ge 3$ and $k \ge 1$ be such that $k$ divides $6g+6k-12$. Then there exists a compact non-orientable $k$-extremal surface of genus $g$ with more than one extremal $k$-packing if and only if $$N:=\frac{6g+6k-12}{k} \in\{7,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,18,24,30\}.$$ In all other cases extremal $k$-packings are unique within compact non-orientable $k$-extremal surfaces of genus $g$.
A direct consequence, given by a simple argument involving the orientable double cover of non-orientable, $k$-extremal surfaces (see the last section of [@preprint]), is
\[th\_main2\] Let $g \ge 2 $ and $k \ge 1$ be such that $k$ divides $12g+6k-12$. Then there exists a compact Riemann surface of genus $g$ that is $k$-extremal and has more than one extremal $k$-packing if and only if $$N:=\frac{12g+6k-12}{k} \in\{7,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,18,24,30\}.$$ In all other cases extremal $k$-packings are unique within compact non-orientable $k$-extremal surfaces of genus $g$.
Note that by the characterization of compact non-orientable $k$-extremal surfaces in terms of triangle groups (cf. [@preprint]), we know that if such a surface $S\simeq \mathbb{H}\slash K$ admits two extremal $k$-packings, then we must have two inclusions $$K\le \Delta_1^{\pm}=\Delta_1^{\pm}\left(2,3,\frac{6g+6k-12}{k}\right),\quad K\le \Delta_2^{\pm}=\Delta_2^{\pm}\left(2,3,\frac{6g+6k-12}{k}\right)$$ both with index $12g+12k-24$.
As a consequence, a compact non-orientable $k$-extremal surface whose NEC group $K$ is contained in a non-arithmetic extended triangle group $\Delta^{\pm}$, has a unique extremal $k$-packing (see [@preprint]). This happens whenever $$\frac{6g+6k-12}{k}\not\in\{7,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,18,24,30\}$$
The difficult statement is the converse, since there is apparently no theoretical reason ensuring the existence of the uniformizing group $K$ with the required properties for all the pairs $(k,g)$ involved. We are forced to find explicitly one example for every such pair $(k,g)$.
Taking the terminology from [@preprint], for $N\in\{7,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,18,24,30\}$ a pair $(k, g)$ such that $\frac{6g+6k-12}{k}=N$ is called *primitive* if both $k$ and $g$ are minimal among all the pairs $(k,g)$ verifying the same relation with $N$. We denote $(k_N,g_N)$ the primitive pair for a given $N$. The existence of extremal non-orientable $k_N$-extremal surfaces of genus $g_N$ for the eleven primitive pairs (one for each of the relevant values of $N$) is enough to ensure the existence of $k$-extremal surfaces of genus $g$ for all the pairs $(k,g)$ in Theorem \[th\_main\], see [@preprint].
Notice that four of the eleven required surfaces can be found already in the literature, since they correspond to the cases for which $k_N=1$ (see [@Girondo_Nakamura_2007], [@Nakamura_2009], [@Nakamura_2012], [@Nakamura_2013] and [@Nakamura_2016]). These surfaces correspond to $N=12, 18, 24$ or $30$. For the cases $N=8,9,10$ it is still possible to do an exhaustive analysis of all compact non-orientable $k_N$-extremal of genus $g_N$ (similar to that one done in [@Girondo_Nakamura_2007]), since we can compute all proper NEC uniformizing subgroups of the extended triangle group $\Delta^{\pm}(2,3,N)$ with the required index. But the computation of all the corresponding subgroups of $\Delta^{\pm}(2,3,N)$ with $N=7, 11,14,16$ is a inadequate approach, since there are sometimes hundreds of thousands of such surfaces. We propose a different strategy, that is the brute-force procedure we refer to in the title of this paper, and we devote the rest of the paper to explain the details.
The brute force construction {#sec:brute}
============================
For a given $N$, any compact non-orientable $k_N$-extremal surface of genus $g_N$ is uniformized by a proper NEC subgroup $K$ of index $2k_NN$ inside a triangle group $\Delta^{\pm}(2,3,N)$. Such a group admits a fundamental domain $F$ consisting of a union of $k_N$ regular $N$-gons of angle $2\pi /3$, the extremal $k_N$-packing being simply induced by the discs inscribed to these polygons.
![A primitive example with two different extremal $k$-packings for the case $N=7$. The figure shows two different fundamental domains for the same proper NEC uniformizing group $K$, both decomposed as the union of six regular heptagons of angle $2\pi /3$. The numbers indicate side-pairing transformations generating $K$, and a minus sign means that the corresponding transformation is orientation-reversing. Surprisingly, both sets of side pairings generate the same group $K$.[]{data-label="N7"}](N7ejemplo_variosi.png){width="90.00000%"}
If the resulting extremal surface $S\simeq \mathbb{D}/K$ admits a second extremal $k_N$-packing, the group $K$ would have a second fundamental domain $F'$ isometric to $F$ but not $K$-related to it (Figure \[N7\] shows an example of this phenomenon in the case $N=7$, where $k_7=6$ and $g_7=3$). The main remark here is that the $k_N$ centers of the $N$-gons forming $F'$ must be very special points, since they must respect very strong metric conditions with respect to $K$. The following lemma, taken from [@Girondo_Nakamura_2007], describes such conditions.
\[lemadist\] Let $S$ be a compact non-orientable $k$-extremal surface of genus $g$ uniformized by $K$, and let $\pi:\mathbb{D}\longrightarrow \mathbb{D}/K \simeq S$ be the natural projection. Let $p=[z]_K$ be the center of one of the $k$ discs forming an extremal $k$-packing inside $S$, and denote $N=\frac{6g+6k-12}{k}$ and $\mathcal{T}$ a tessellation of $\mathbb{D}$ by regular $N$-gons of angle $2\pi / 3$. Then, for every $\gamma \in K$ the distance $d(z, \gamma(z))$ must agree with the distance between some pair of polygon centers of $\mathcal{T}$. We call these *admissible distances*.
We need to compute as many admissible distances as we can, in order to have a precise idea about the possible displacement of centers of discs belonging to *hidden* extremal $k_N$-packings. The following observation is useful for this purpose:
\[le:dists\] Consider a tessellation $\mathcal{T}$ of $\mathbb{D}$ given by copies of a regular $N$-gon $P_0$ of angle $\frac{2\pi}{3}$ centered at the origin $0$. Consider a triangle $\triangle ABC$ of angles $\pi/3, \pi / N$ and $\pi / 2$ with vertices at a vertex $A$ of $P_0$, the origin $B=0$ and an edge midpoint $C$. Denote by $a,b,c$ the reflections with respect to the lines $\overline{BC},\overline{CA}$ and $\overline{AB}$ respectively, and let $R_{m}=(ca)^{m}ab$.
Given any polygon $P$ in $\mathcal{T}$, there is a transformation of the form $R_{i_1}R_{i_2}\cdots R_{i_k}$ that sends $P_0$ to $P$, where $0 \le i_j < N$ for $j=1, \ldots, k$.
If we select an arbitrary polygon $P$ in the tessellation, we can always connect the origin to its center by a hyperbolic polygonal curve $\Gamma$ joining centers of a sequence of pairwise adjacent polygons $P_0 , P_1, \ldots , P_k=P$. Figure \[14-7\] illustrates the construction for an example in the case $N=7$.
![The tesselation $\mathcal{T}$ and a sketch of the construction for the case $N=7$. In this case $k=5$ and $i_1=1, i_2=6,
i_3=4, i_4=1, i_5=5$.[]{data-label="14-7"}](14-7.png){width="40.00000%"}
Now, label the edges of the central polygon counterclockwise, with the label $0$ at the edge containing the point $C$, and let $i_1$ be the label of the edge $e$ where $\Gamma$ cuts the central polygon $P_0$. We assign then the label $0$ to $e$ considered as an edge of the polygon $P_1$ meeting $P_0$ along $e$, and complete the labelling $1,2,\ldots$ of the remaining edges of $P_1$ counterclockwise. Next, define $i_2$ as the label of the edge of $P_1$ where $\Gamma$ leaves $P_1$, and so on. This way we construct a sequence of numbers $i_1, i_2, \ldots, i_k$. We claim that the transformation $R_{i_1}R_{i_2}\cdots R_{i_k}$ sends $P_0$ to $P_k=P$.
The proof can be done by induction in the index $k$. Taking $k=1$ corresponds to the case when $P$ is a direct neighbor of the central polygon $P_0$, therefore this case is absolutely obvious.
Now, assume that the statement is true for polygons whose center can be joined to the origin by polygonal lines with $k$ segments. Assume $\Gamma$ is a polygonal line connecting the origin to the center of certain polygon $P$, crossing the sequence $P_0, P_1, \ldots , P_{k}, P_{k+1}=P$, and define $R_{i_1}R_{i_2}\cdots R_{i_k}R_{i_{k+1}}$ as above. By the induction hypothesis, the transformation $R=R_{i_1}R_{i_2}\cdots R_{i_k}$ sends $P_0$ to $P_k$, therefore $RR_{i_{k+1}}$ sends $P_0$ to one of the neighbors of $P_k$ that, by construction, is precisely $P_{k+1}$.
Note that the set of $N^k$ transformations $\mathcal{R}_k = \{R_{m_1}R_{m_2}\cdots R_{m_k} , \ 0\le m_i < N \}$ contains elements that move the central polygon $P_0$ to any polygon that can be connected to $P_0$ with a polygonal $\Gamma$ of $k$ steps. A collection of admissible distances of the tessellation $\mathcal{T}$ can be constructed by computing the distance $d(0, R(0))$ for every $R$ in $\mathcal{R}_k$. Larger values of $k$ yield larger subsets of the full set of admissible distances.
The locus of points which are moved certain prescribed distance by a hyperbolic transformation can be expressed in terms of distance to the so-called axis of the transformation (invariant geodesic), by the following well-known formula for the displacement function (cf. [@Beardon_1983]).
If $g$ is a hyperbolic transformation with translation length $T$ and axis $A$, then $$\sinh \frac{d(z,g(z))}{2} =\cosh d(z,A) \sinh \frac{T}{2}.$$
One can easily prove a similar result for glide-reflections, for which we still call translation length the displacement of points belonging to the axis:
If $g$ is a glide-reflection with translation length $T$ and axis $A$, then $$\cosh \frac{d(z,g(z))}{2} =\cosh d(z,A) \cosh \frac{T}{2} .$$
Since any glide reflection is conjugate to a map of the form $h:z\mapsto -k\overline{z},\ k>1$, all we have to do is to prove the result for such transformations $h$. In order to check that the formula holds, we compute the three magnitudes involved using well-known expressions for the hyperbolic sine or cosine of the hyperbolic distance between points of the upper half-plane $\mathbb{H}$ (see [@Beardon_1983], Theorem 7.2.1).
First, for the term on the left of the equation we have $$\cosh \frac{d(z,h(z))}{2}=\frac{|z-\overline{h(z)}|}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{Im}(z)\mathrm{Im}(h(z))}}= \frac{|z||1+k|}{|y|2\sqrt{k}},$$ where $z=x+iy$. Now, since the axis $A'$ of $h$ is the imaginary axis, we can compute $$\cosh d(z,A')= \cosh d(z,i|z|)=
1+\frac{|z-i|z||^2}{2 \mathrm{Im}(z) \mathrm{Im}(i|z|)}=\frac{|z|}{y}$$ and, finally, we obtain $T$ using that $z=i$ belongs to the axis, so that $$\cosh \frac{T}{2} =\cosh \frac{d(i, ki)}{2} =\frac{|i+ki|}{2 \sqrt{\mathrm{Im}(i)} \sqrt{\mathrm{Im}(ki)}}=\frac{(1+k)}{2\sqrt{k}}.$$
From the last two propositions we see that the locus of points with a prescribed displacement under a hyperbolic isometry or a glide reflection coincides with the locus of points at certain distance from the axis of the transformation. This set has two components, one at each side of the axis, which are arcs of generalized circles (i.e. arcs of circumference or of straight lines), see [@Beardon_1983], Section 7.20. We call such sets *bananas* for obvious reasons (see Figure \[14-3\]).
We have now all the ingredients needed for our brute force project. Assume we want to decide if there exists a compact hyperbolic $k$-extremal surface $S$ of genus $g$ with more than one extremal $k$-packing. The plan is as follows:
1. We know that $S\simeq \mathbb{D}/K$, and that we can obtain a fundamental domain $F$ for $K$ joining $k$ regular $N$-gons of angle $2\pi/3$, where $N:=\frac{6(k-\chi)}{k} $. There are different possible combinatorial configurations for the relative position of the $k$ polygons, so we choose one to start with. Note that we may need to change to a different configuration if the process is not successful in the end.
2. For the chosen fundamental domain, we compute the set $\mathcal{P}$ of all the possible side-pairing transformations between all the possible pairs of edges of the polygons, admitting orientation reversing transformations if we want to construct a non-orientable surface. The set $\mathcal{P}$ is usually very large.
3. We compute a set as large as possible of admissible distances associated to a tessellation by regular $N$-gons of angle $2\pi /3$.
4. We choose a starting pair of transformations $p_1, p_2 \in \mathcal{P}$, and compute the set $\mathcal{C}$ of points of $F$ that show certain admissible displacements under $p_1$ and $p_2$, which will be our *candidates*. By what has been said above, there are finitely many candidate points for every choice of $F, p_1$ and $p_2$, and there are finitely many choices of such a triple. Again, if our construction does not produce the surface we look for with this choice of $p_1, p_2$, we change to a different starting pair.
5. We compute the displacement of every point $c \in \mathcal{C}$ under all the transformations in $ \mathcal{P}$, in order to determine the subset $ \mathcal{P}_c \subset \mathcal{P}$ consisting of those transformations moving $c$ an admissible distance.
6. We check if there are enough transformations in $ \mathcal{P}_c $ in order to construct a full set of side-pairing transformations between pairs of edges of $F$ such that every vertex cycle is surrounded by a full $2\pi $ angle. If this is the case, the group $K$ generated by these transformations uniformizes a $k$-extremal surface of genus $g$, with an obvious extremal $k$-packing formed by the discs inscribed to the $k$-polygons that form $F$. Additionally, the point $c$ may be the center of one of the discs of a second *hidden* $k$-extremal disc.
7. We determine if there exists another configuration $F'$ of $k$ regular $N$-polygons which is also a fundamental domain for $K$, one of the polygon centers being the candidate $c$. If this is the case, a second extremal $k$-packing exists in $S=\mathbb{D}/K$. In practice this is a difficult step unless we can show the existence of an automorphism of $S$ moving the obvious $k$-packing to the hidden one.
An explicit example: the case $N=14$.
=====================================
We illustrate now our strategy for the case $N=14$, and recall our study can be easily adapted with minor modifications to the seven relevant values of $N$, namely $N=7,8,9,10,11,14$ and $16$.
The primitive $N=14$ example we are looking for is a $3$-extremal compact non-orientable surface $S$ of genus $6$, which has as fundamental region the connected union $F$ of three regular $14$-gons with angle $\frac{2\pi}{3}$.
1. We begin with the region $F$ in Figure \[14-1\], consisting of three regular $14$-gons with angle $\frac{2\pi}{3}$. We label the edges of each polygon counterclockwise from $0$ to $13$. There is no guarantee about being able to construct our surface starting with the domain $F$: if the rest of the process would fail, we would have to come back to this point and start again with a different shaped $F$.
![The starting fundamental region $F$.[]{data-label="14-1"}](14-1.png){width="50.00000%"}
2. We compute all the conformal and anticonformal transformations that can be used to identify edges of $F$, collecting all this information in a list that we call $L$ (see [@webpage] for the computer code and the results). The elements of $L$ are encoded with information like $$[\text{'hyperbolic'},\ \text{'de pol1 a pol3'},\ 8,\ 11]$$ this example meaning a conformal transformation which sends the inner triangle based at the edge $8$ of polygon $1$ to the outer triangle based at the edge $11$ of polygon $3$; see Figure \[14-2\].
![Example of a transformation $\gamma$ in $L$, together with its axis. Here $\gamma$ sends the edge 8 of pol1 to the edge 11 of pol3.[]{data-label="14-2"}](14-2.png){width="50.00000%"}
3. We compute a set $D$ of admissible distances provided by the transformations in $\mathcal{R}_5$ (recall the notation for $\mathcal{R}_5$ after the proof of Lemma \[le:dists\]). See [@webpage] again to see the code employed and the data obtained.
4. We choose the following starting pair of side-pairing transformations:
$p_1=$ \[’orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol1’, 13, 10\]
$p_2=$ \[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol2’, 2, 7\]
Now we compute the set of points showing an admissible displacement under $p_1$ and $p_2$; in Figure \[14-3\] we show some of the corresponding bananas (the code is once more available at [@webpage]).
![The starting set of bananas corresponding to $p_1$ (left) and $p_2$ (right). The dashed lines indicate the axes of these transformations.[]{data-label="14-3"}](14-3.png){width="80.00000%"}
Figure \[14-4\] shows some of the points in the set $\mathcal{C}$ of candidate points obtained as intersection of the bananas of $p_1$ and $p_2$.
![The construction of the set $\mathcal{C}$ of candidate points via intersection of bananas of $p_1$ and $p_2$.[]{data-label="14-4"}](14-4.png){width="60.00000%"}
5. For each of the points $c \in \mathcal{C}$, we collect in a list $L_c$ all the side pairings $p$ in $L$ which have a banana that passes through $c$ (computationally, we work up to an error $<10^{-4}$, see the code in [@webpage]). For example, the list for the candidate closer to the bottom of Figure \[14-4\], which has coordinates $c\simeq 0.324 - 0.478i$, is
\[’orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol1’, 10, 13\]
\[’orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol1’, 13, 10\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol2’, 2, 7\]
\[orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol2’, 11, 1\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol2 a pol3’, 8, 13\]
6. In the case of $c\simeq 0.324 - 0.478i$, we see for instance that $L_c$ does not contain a side pairing involving the edge 3 of pol1, so this point $c$ fails to be a good candidate.
Only two of the points of $\mathcal{C}$ marked in Figure \[14-4\] satisfy the needed condition that $L_c$ contains enough transformations so that we can choose a side-pairing for every edge of $F$. One is obviously the origin, and the other one is $c\simeq 0.516-0.248i$ marked $\star$ in Figure \[14-4\].
The list $L_c$ is huge, and contains several side pairings for every edge. For example, if we focus on edge $3$ of pol1, we find in $L_c$ the following side pairings:
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol1’, 3, 11\]
\[’orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol1’, 3, 8\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol2’, 3, 10\]
\[’orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol2’, 3, 7\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol3’, 3, 11\]
\[’orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol3’, 3, 8\]
Considering all the elements of $L_c$ that correspond to each edge, all we have to do is to choose, by direct inspection, a set of transformations that would pair all the edges of $F$ and generate a group uniformizing a compact surface. The precise set we find is:
\[’orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol1’, 13, 10\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol2’, 2, 7\]
\[’orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol2 a pol1’, 1, 11\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol3 a pol2’, 13, 8\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol1’, 12, 7\]
\[’orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol2’, 8, 2\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol2’, 5, 3\]
\[’orientation-reversing hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol1’, 9, 6\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol3’, 4, 5\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol1 a pol2’, 3, 10\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol2 a pol3’, 9, 6\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol3 a pol3’, 12, 7\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol2 a pol2’, 6, 11\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol2 a pol3’, 4, 4\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol3 a pol3’, 3, 11\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol2 a pol3’, 5, 10\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol2 a pol3’, 12, 9\]
\[’hyperbolic’, ’de pol3 a pol3’, 2, 8\]
7. We have constructed a surface $S=\mathbb{D}/K$ that has a point $P\simeq [0.516-0.248i]_K$ that may play a special role, as it satisfies the metric requirements that a center of one of the three discs of an extremal $3$-packing should satisfy. Showing that this second $3$-packing actually exists could be quite difficult, but before trying anything more sophisticated it is worth checking if, as it happens in the classical $k=1$ case (cf. [@Girondo_Gonzalez-Diez_2002_2]), an automorphism of $S$ is sending the original $3$-packing somewhere else.
![Our example for $N=14$.[]{data-label="14-5"}](14-5.png){width="50.00000%"}
This is exactly what happens also in this case: if we denote $O':=(ca)^2b(0)$ we can show, after some computational work, that the elliptic element $\tau$ of order 2 fixing the midpoint between $P$ and $O'$ normalizes the group $K$, thus it induces an automorphism of $S$. The way how we show it is by conjugating every side-pairing of $F$ generating $K$ and checking that the resulting hyperbolic isometry also belongs to $K$ (see [@webpage] for the data).
In order to have a nicer image of the surface, we replace pol2 by the (equivalent) polygon centered at $O'$ (see the left side of Figure \[14-8\]). Even better, if we move the domain to be centered in the disc, we obtain our final picture (at the right side of Figure \[14-8\]), where the side-pairing generators of the uniformizing group are also indicated. We recall that an order two automorphism transposes $P$ and $O'$.
![Two fundamental domains for the group uniformizing the compact non-orientable $3$-extremal surface of genus 6 constructed. The labels on the right side describe the side-pairing transformations.[]{data-label="14-8"}](14-8.png){width="100.00000%"}
[^1]: Partially supported by grant MTM2016-79497-P
[^2]: This work was funded by the CONICYT PFCHA/Becas Chile 72180175
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A code $C$ in the Hamming graph $\varGamma=H(m,q)$ is *$2$-neighbour-transitive* if $\operatorname{Aut}(C)$ acts transitively on each of $C=C_0$, $C_1$ and $C_2$, the first three parts of the distance partition of $V\varGamma$ with respect to $C$. Previous classifications of families of $2$-neighbour-transitive codes leave only those with an affine action on the alphabet to be investigated. Here, $2$-neighbour-transitive codes with minimum distance at least $5$ and that contain “small” subcodes as blocks of imprimitivity are classified. When considering codes with minimum distance at least $5$, completely transitive codes are a proper subclass of $2$-neighbour-transitive codes. Thus, as a corollary of the main result, completely transitive codes satisfying the above conditions are also classified.'
author:
- 'Neil I. Gillespie$^1$'
- 'Daniel R. Hawtin$^2$'
- 'Cheryl E. Praeger$^3$'
date:
title: ' $2$-Neighbour-Transitive Codes with Small Blocks of Imprimitivity[^1] '
---
Introduction
============
Classifying classes of codes is an important task in error correcting coding theory. The parameters of perfect codes over prime power alphabets have been classified; see [@tietavainen1973nonexistence] or [@Zinoviev73thenonexistence]. In contrast, for the classes of *completely regular* and *$s$-regular* codes, introduced by Delsarte [@delsarte1973algebraic] as a generalisation of *perfect* codes, similar classification results have only been achieved for certain subclasses. Recent results include [@borges2000nonexistence; @borgesrho1; @borges2012new; @Borges201468]. For a survey of results on completely regular codes see [@borges2017survey]. Classifying families of *$2$-neighbour transitive* codes has been the subject of [@ef2nt; @aas2nt].
A subset $C$ of the vertex set $V\varGamma$ of the Hamming graph $\varGamma=H(m,q)$ is a called *code*, the elements of $C$ are called *codewords*, and the subset $C_i$ of $V\varGamma$ consisting of all vertices of $H(m,q)$ having nearest codeword at Hamming distance $i$ is called the *set of $i$-neighbours* of $C$. The definition of a completely regular code $C$ involves certain combinatorial regularity conditions on the *distance partition* $\{C,C_1,\ldots, C_\rho\}$ of $C$, where $\rho$ is the *covering radius*. The current paper concerns the algebraic analogues, defined directly below, of the classes of completely regular and $s$-regular codes. Note that the group $\operatorname{Aut}(C)$ is the setwise stabiliser of $C$ in the full automorphism group of $H(m,q)$.
\[sneighbourtransdef\] Let $C$ be a code in $H(m,q)$ with covering radius $\rho$, let $s\in\{1,\ldots,\rho\}$, and $X{\leqslant}\operatorname{Aut}(C)$. Then $C$ is said to be
1. *$(X,s)$-neighbour-transitive* if $X$ acts transitively on each of the sets $C,C_1,\ldots, C_s$,
2. *$X$-neighbour-transitive* if $C$ is $(X,1)$-neighbour-transitive,
3. *$X$-completely transitive* if $C$ is $(X,\rho)$-neighbour-transitive, and,
4. *$s$-neighbour-transitive*, *neighbour-transitive*, or *completely transitive*, respectively, if $C$ is $(\operatorname{Aut}(C),s)$-neighbour-transitive, $\operatorname{Aut}(C)$-*neighbour-transitive*, or $\operatorname{Aut}(C)$-*completely transitive*, respectively.
A variant of the above concept of complete transitivity was introduced for linear codes by Sol[é]{} [@sole1987completely], with the above definition first appearing in [@Giudici1999647]. Note that non-linear completely transitive codes do indeed exist; see [@gillespie2012nord]. Completely transitive codes form a subfamily of completely regular codes, and $s$-neighbour transitive codes are a sub-family of $s$-regular codes, for each $s$. It is hoped that studying $2$-neighbour-transitive codes will lead to a better understanding of completely transitive and completely regular codes. Indeed a classification of $2$-neighbour-transitive codes would have as a corollary a classification of completely transitive codes.
Completely-transitive codes have been studied in [@Borges201468; @Gill2017], for instance. Neighbour-transitive codes are investigated in [@ntrcodes; @gillespiediadntc; @gillespieCharNT]. The class of $2$-neighbour-transitive codes is the subject of [@ef2nt; @aas2nt], and the present work comprises part of the first author’s PhD thesis [@myphdthesis]. Recently, codes with $2$-transitive actions on the entries of the Hamming graph have been used to construct families of codes that achieve capacity on erasure channels [@Kudekar:2016:RCA:2897518.2897584], and many $2$-neighbour-transitive codes indeed admit such an action; see Proposition \[ihom\].
The study of $2$-neighbour-transitive codes has been partitioned into three subclasses, as per the following definition. For definitions and notation see Section \[prelimsect\].
\[efaasaadef\] Let $C$ be a code in $H(m,q)$, $X{\leqslant}\operatorname{Aut}(C)$ and $K$ be the kernel of the action of $X$ on the set of entries $M$. Then $C$ is
1. *$X$-entry-faithful* if $X$ acts faithfully on $M$, that is, $K=1$,
2. *$X$-alphabet-almost-simple* if $K\neq 1$, $X$ acts transitively on $M$, and $X_i^{Q_i}$ is a $2$-transitive almost-simple group, and,
3. *$X$-alphabet-affine* if $K\neq 1$, $X$ acts transitively on $M$, and $X_i^{Q_i}$ is a $2$-transitive affine group.
Note that Propositions \[ihom\] and \[x12trans\], and the fact that every $2$-transitive group is either affine or almost-simple (see [@burnside1911theory Section 154]), ensure that every $2$-neighbour-transitive code satisfies precisely one of the cases given in Definition \[efaasaadef\].
Those $(X,2)$-neighbour transitive codes that are also $X$-entry-faithful and have minimum distance at least $5$ are classified in [@ef2nt]; while those that are $X$-alphabet-almost-simple and have minimum distance at least $3$ are classified in [@aas2nt]. Hence, it is assumed here that the action on the alphabet is affine and the kernel of the action on entries is non-trivial. Here, $T_W$ denotes the group of translations by elements of a subspace $W$, $K$ denotes the kernel of the action of the group $X$ on entries, and $K=X\cap B$, where $B\cong \operatorname{S}_q^m$ is the base group in $\operatorname{Aut}(\varGamma)$, the full automorphism group of the Hamming graph; see Section \[prelimsect\].
\[xntextensiondef\] Let $q=p^d$, $V={\mathbb{F}}_p^{dm}$ and $W$ be a non-trivial ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-subspace of $V$. Identify $V$ with the vertex set of the Hamming graph $H(m,q)$. An *$(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extension* of $W$ is an $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive code $C$ containing ${\mathbf}0$ such that $T_W{\leqslant}X$ and $K=K_W$, where $K=X\cap B$, $T_W$ is the group of translations by elements of $W$ and $K_W$ is the stabiliser of $W$ in $K$. Note that $T_W{\leqslant}X$ and ${\mathbf}0\in C$ means that $W\subseteq C$. If $C\neq W$ then the extension is said to be *non-trivial*.
Identify $V={\mathbb{F}}_p^{dm}$ with the vertex set of the Hamming graph $H(m,q)$, where $q=p^d$. The main result for this chapter classifies all $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extensions of $W$, supposing $W$ is a $k$-dimensional ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-subspace of $V$, where $k{\leqslant}d$.
\[onedimensionaltheorem\] Let $V={\mathbb{F}}_p^{dm}$ be the vertex set of the Hamming graph $H(m,p^d)$ and $C$ be an $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extension of $W$, where $C$ has minimum distance $\delta{\geqslant}5$ and $W$ is an ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-subspace of $V$ with ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-dimension $k{\leqslant}d$. Then $p=2$, $d=1$, $W$ is the binary repetition code in $H(m,2)$, and one of the following holds:
1. $C=W$, with $\delta=m$;
2. $C={\mathcal H}$, where ${\mathcal H}$ is the Hadamard code of length $12$, as in Definition \[hadamarddef\], with $\delta=6$; or,
3. $C={\mathcal P}$, where ${\mathcal P}$ is the punctured code of the Hadamard code of length $12$, as in Definition \[hadamarddef\], with $\delta=5$.
A corollary of Theorem \[onedimensionaltheorem\] regarding completely transitive codes is stated below. This result was originally proved in [@neilphd Theorem 10.2] using somewhat different methods, with the problem first being posed in [@michealmast Problem 6.5.4]. The group $\operatorname{Diag}_m(G)$, where $G{\leqslant}\operatorname{Sym}(Q)$, is defined in Section \[hamminggraphautoprelim\].
\[comptranscorr\] Let $C$ be an $X$-completely transitive code in $H(m,2)$ with minimum distance $\delta{\geqslant}5$ such that $K=X\cap B=\operatorname{Diag}_m(S_2)$. Then $C$ is equivalent to one of the codes appearing in Theorem \[onedimensionaltheorem\], each of which is indeed completely transitive.
Section \[prelimsect\] introduces the notation used throughout the paper and Section \[extsection\] proves the main results.
Notation and preliminaries {#prelimsect}
==========================
Let the *set of entries* $M$ and the *alphabet* $Q$ be sets of sizes $m$ and $q$, respectively, both integers at least $2$. The vertex set $V\varGamma$ of a Hamming graph $\varGamma=H(m,q)$ consists of all functions from the set $M$ to the set $Q$, usually expressed as $m$-tuples. Let $Q_i\cong Q$ be the copy of the alphabet in the entry $i\in M$ so that the vertex set of $H(m,q)$ is identified with the product $$V\varGamma=\prod_{i\in M}Q_i.$$ An edge exists between two vertices if and only if they differ as $m$-tuples in exactly one entry. Note that $S^\times$ will denote the set $S\setminus \{0\}$ for any set $S$ containing $0$. In particular, $Q$ will usually be a vector-space here, and hence contains the zero vector. A code $C$ is a subset of $V\varGamma$. If $\alpha$ is a vertex of $H(m,q)$ and $i\in M$ then $\alpha_i$ refers to the value of $\alpha$ in the $i$-th entry, that is, $\alpha_i\in Q_i$, so that $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m)$ when $M=\{1,\ldots,m\}$. For more in depth background material on coding theory see [@cameron1991designs] or [@macwilliams1978theory].
Let $\alpha,\beta$ be vertices and $C$ be a code in a Hamming graph $H(m,q)$ with $0\in Q$ a distinguished element of the alphabet. A summary of important notation regarding codes in Hamming graphs is contained in Table \[hammingnotation\].
Notation Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
${\mathbf}0$ vertex with $0$ in each entry
$(a^k,0^{m-k})$ vertex with $a\in Q$ first $k$ entries and $0$ otherwise
$\operatorname{diff}(\alpha,\beta)=\{i\in M\mid \alpha_i\neq\beta_i\}$ set of entries in which $\alpha$ and $\beta$ differ
$\operatorname{supp}(\alpha)=\{i\in M\mid \alpha_i\neq 0\}$ support of $\alpha$
$\operatorname{wt}(\alpha)=|\operatorname{supp}(\alpha)|$ weight of $\alpha$
$d(\alpha,\beta)=|\operatorname{diff}(\alpha,\beta)|$ Hamming distance
$\varGamma_s(\alpha)=\{\beta\in V\varGamma \mid d(\alpha,\beta)=s\}$ set of $s$-neighbours of $\alpha$
$\delta=\min\{d(\alpha,\beta)\mid \alpha,\beta\in C,\alpha\neq\beta\}$ minimum distance of $C$
$d(\alpha,C)=\min\{d(\alpha,\beta) \mid \beta\in C\}$ distance from $\alpha$ to $C$
$\rho =\max\{d(\alpha,C)\mid\alpha\in V\varGamma\}$ covering radius of $C$
$C_s=\{\alpha\in V\varGamma \mid d(\alpha,C)=s\}$ set of $s$-neighbours of $C$
$\{C=C_0,C_1,\ldots, C_\rho\}$ distance partition of $C$
: Hamming graph notation.[]{data-label="hammingnotation"}
Note that if the minimum distance $\delta$ of a code $C$ satisfies $\delta{\geqslant}2s$, then the set of $s$-neighbours $C_s$ satisfies $C_s=\cup_{\alpha\in C}\varGamma_s(\alpha)$ and if $\delta{\geqslant}2s+1$ this is a disjoint union. This fact is crucial in many of the proofs below; it is often assumed that $\delta{\geqslant}5$, in which case every element of $C_2$ is distance $2$ from a unique codeword.
A *linear* code is a code $C$ in $H(m,q)$ with alphabet $Q={\mathbb{F}}_q$ a finite field, so that the vertices of $H(m,q)$ from a vector space $V$, such that $C$ is an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-subspace of $V$. Given $\alpha,\beta\in V$, the usual inner product is given by $\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle=\sum_{i\in M}\alpha_i\beta_i$. The *dual* code of $C$ is $C^\perp=\{\beta\in V\mid \forall \alpha\in C,\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle=0\}$.
The *Singleton bound* (see [@delsarte1973algebraic 4.3.2]) is a well known bound for the size of a code $C$ in $H(m,q)$ with minimum distance $\delta$, stating that $|C|{\leqslant}q^{m-\delta+1}$. For a linear code $C$ this may be stated as $\delta^\perp-1{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}m-\delta+1$, where $k$ is the dimension of $C$, $\delta$ is the minimum distance of $C$ and $\delta^\perp$ is the minimum distance of $C^\perp$.
A vertex or an entire code from a Hamming graph $H(m,q)$ may be projected into a smaller Hamming graph $H(k,q)$. For a subset $J=\{j_1,\ldots,j_k\}\subseteq M$ the *projection of $\alpha$*, with respect to $J$, is $\pi_J(\alpha)=(\alpha_{j_1},\ldots,\alpha_{j_k})$. For a code $C$ the *projection of $C$*, with respect to $J$, is $\pi_J(C)=\{\pi_J(\alpha)\mid \alpha\in C\}$.
Automorphisms of a Hamming graph {#hamminggraphautoprelim}
--------------------------------
The automorphism group $\operatorname{Aut}(\varGamma)$ of the Hamming graph is the semi-direct product $B\rtimes L$, where $B\cong \operatorname{Sym}(Q)^m$ and $L\cong \operatorname{Sym}(M)$ (see [@brouwer Theorem 9.2.1]). Note that $B$ and $L$ are called the *base group* and the *top group*, respectively, of $\operatorname{Aut}(\varGamma)$. Since we identify $Q_i$ with $Q$, we also identify $\operatorname{Sym}(Q_i)$ with $\operatorname{Sym}(Q)$. If $h\in B$ and $i\in M$ then $h_i\in \operatorname{Sym}(Q_i)$ is the image of the action of $h$ in the entry $i\in M$. Let $h\in B$, $\sigma\in L$ and $\alpha\in V\varGamma$. Then $h$ and $\sigma$ act on $\alpha$ explicitly via: $$\alpha^h =(\alpha_1^{h_1},\ldots,\alpha_m^{h_m})\quad\text{and}\quad
\alpha^\sigma=(\alpha_{1{\sigma^{-1}}},\ldots,\alpha_{m{\sigma^{-1}}}).$$ The automorphism group of a code $C$ in $\varGamma=H(m,q)$ is $\operatorname{Aut}(C)=\operatorname{Aut}(\varGamma)_C$, the setwise stabiliser of $C$ in $\operatorname{Aut}(\varGamma)$.
A group acting on a set $\varOmega$ with an element or subset of $\varOmega$ appearing as a subscript denotes a setwise stabiliser subgroup, and if the subscript is a set in parantheses it is a point-wise stabiliser subgroup. A group with a set appearing as a superscript denotes the subgroup of the symmetric group on the set induced by the group. (For more background and notation on permutation groups see, for instance, [@dixon1996permutation].) In particular, let $X$ be a subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(\varGamma)$. Then the *action of $X$ on entries* is the subgroup $X^M$ of $\operatorname{Sym}(M)$ induced by the action of $X$ on $M$. Note that an element of the pre-image, inside $X$, of an element of $X^M$ does not necessarily fix any vertex of $H(m,q)$. The kernel of the action of $X$ on entries is denoted $K$ and is precisely the subgroup of $X$ fixing $M$ point-wise, that is, $K=X_{(M)}=X\cap B$. The subgroup of $\operatorname{Sym}(Q_i)$ induced on the alphabet $Q_i$ by the action of the stabiliser $X_i{\leqslant}X$ of the entry $i\in M$ is denoted $X_i^{Q_i}$. When $X^M$ is transitive on $M$, the group $X_i^{Q_i}$ is sometimes referred to as the *action on the alphabet*.
Given a group $H{\leqslant}\operatorname{Sym}(Q)$ an important subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(\varGamma)$ is the *diagonal* group of $H$, denoted $\operatorname{Diag}_m(H)$, where an element of $H$ acts the same in each entry. Formally, define $g_h$ to be the element of $B$ with $(g_h)_i=h$ for all $i\in M$, and $\operatorname{Diag}_m(H)=\{g_h \mid h\in H\}$.
It is worth mentioning that coding theorists often consider more restricted groups of automorphisms, such as the group $\operatorname{PermAut}(C)=\{\sigma\mid h\sigma\in\operatorname{Aut}(C), h=1\in B, \sigma\in L\}$. The elements of this group are called *pure permutations* on the entries of the code.
Two codes $C$ and $C'$ in $H(m,q)$ are said to be *equivalent* if there exists some $x\in \operatorname{Aut}(\varGamma)$ such that $C^x=\{\alpha^x\mid\alpha\in C\}=C'$. Equivalence preserves many of the important properties in coding theory, such as minimum distance and covering radius, since $\operatorname{Aut}(\varGamma)$ preserves distances in $H(m,q)$.
s-Neighbour-transitive codes {#sntr}
----------------------------
This section presents preliminary results regarding $(X,s)$-neighbour-transitive codes, defined in Definition \[sneighbourtransdef\]. The next results give certain $2$-homogeneous and $2$-transitive actions associated with an $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive code.
[@ef2nt Proposition 2.5]\[ihom\] Let $C$ be an $(X,s)$-neighbour-transitive code in $H(m,q)$ with minimum distance $\delta$, where $\delta{\geqslant}3$ and $s{\geqslant}1$. Then for $\alpha\in C$ and $i{\leqslant}\min\{s,\lfloor\frac{\delta-1}{2}\rfloor\}$, the stabiliser $X_\alpha$ fixes setwise and acts transitively on $\varGamma_i(\alpha)$. In particular, the action of $X_\alpha$ on $M$ is $i$-homogeneous.
[@ef2nt Proposition 2.7]\[x12trans\] Let $C$ be an $(X,1)$-neighbour-transitive code in $H(m,q)$ with minimum distance $\delta{\geqslant}3$ and $|C|>1$. Then $X_i^{Q_i}$ acts $2$-transitively on $Q_i$ for all $i\in M$.
The next result gives information about the order of the stabiliser of a codeword in the automorphism group of a $2$-neighbour-transitive code and is a strengthening of [@ef2nt Lemma 2.10].
\[xtpitrans\] Let $C$ be an $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive code in $H(m,q)$ with $\delta{\geqslant}5$ and ${{\mathbf}0}\in C$, and let $i,j\in M$ be distinct. Then the following hold:
1. The stabiliser ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$ acts transitively on each of the sets $Q_i^\times$ and $Q_j^\times$.
2. Moreover, ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$ has at most two orbits on ${ {Q_i^\times \times Q_j^\times} }$, and if ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$ has two orbits on ${ {Q_i^\times \times Q_j^\times} }$ then both orbits are the same size and $X_{{\mathbf}0}$ acts $2$-transitively on $M$.
3. The order of $X_{{\mathbf}0}$, and hence $|X|$, is divisible by $\binom{m}{2} (q-1)^2$.
4. If $|X_{{\mathbf}0}|=\binom{m}{2}$ then $q=2$.
Now $X_{{\mathbf}0}$ acts transitively on $\varGamma_2({\mathbf}0)$, by Proposition \[ihom\], since $\delta{\geqslant}5$. Since $|\varGamma_2({{\mathbf}0})|=\binom{m}{2} (q-1)^2$, parts 3 and 4 hold. Also, we have that the stabiliser $X_{{{\mathbf}0},\{i,j\}}$ of the subset $\{i,j\}\subseteq M$ is transitive on the set of weight $2$ vertices with support $\{i,j\}$. Hence ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$ has at most two orbits on ${ {Q_i^\times \times Q_j^\times} }$ and if there are two they have equal size. Note that if ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$ has one orbit on ${ {Q_i^\times \times Q_j^\times} }$ then ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$ acts transitively on each of $Q_i^\times$ and $Q_j^\times$. Suppose that ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$ has two orbits on ${ {Q_i^\times \times Q_j^\times} }$, and hence that ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}\neq X_{{{\mathbf}0},\{i,j\}}$. By Proposition \[ihom\], $X_{{\mathbf}0}$ acts $2$-homogeneously on $M$. Since ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}\neq X_{{{\mathbf}0},\{i,j\}}$, we have that $X_{{\mathbf}0}$ is in fact $2$-transitive on $M$, proving part 2. Let $k$ be the number of ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$-orbits on $Q_i^\times$. Since $X_{{\mathbf}0}$ is $2$-transitive on $M$, it follows that ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}^{Q_i^\times}}$ is permutation isomorphic to ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}^{Q_j^\times}}$ and hence ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$ has the same number of orbits on each of $Q_i^\times$ and $Q_j^\times$. Since each orbit of ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$ on ${ {Q_i^\times \times Q_j^\times} }$ is contained in the Cartesian product of an orbit on $Q_i^\times$ with an orbit on $Q_j^\times$, it follows that ${X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}}$ has at least $k^2$ orbits on ${ {Q_i^\times \times Q_j^\times} }$. However, $k{\geqslant}2$ implies $k^2{\geqslant}4$, contradicting part 2, and hence part 1 holds.
The concept of a design, introduced below, comes up frequently in coding theory. Let $\alpha\in H(m,q)$ and $0\in Q$. A vertex $\nu$ of $H(m,q)$ is said to be *covered* by $\alpha$ if $\nu_i=\alpha_i$ for every $i\in M$ such that $\nu_i\neq 0$. A binary design, obtained by setting $q=2$ in the below definition, is usually defined as a collection of subsets of some ground set, satisfying equivalent conditions where the concept of covering a vertex corresponds to containment of a subset. We refer to the latter structures as *combinatorial designs*.
\[desdef\] A *$q$-ary $s$-$(v,k,\lambda)$ design* in $\varGamma=H(m,q)$ is a subset $\mathcal{D}$ of vertices of $\varGamma_k({\mathbf}0)$ (where $k{\geqslant}s$) such that each vertex $\nu \in\varGamma_s({\mathbf}0)$ is covered by exactly $\lambda$ vertices of $\mathcal{D}$. When $q=2$, ${\mathcal{D}}$ is simply the set of characteristic vectors of a combinatorial $s$-design. The elements of ${\mathcal{D}}$ are called *blocks*.
The following equations can be found, for instance, in [@stinson2004combinatorial]. Let ${\mathcal{D}}$ be a binary $s$-$(v,k,\lambda)$ design with $|{\mathcal{D}}|=b$ blocks and let $r$ be the number of blocks incident with a point. Then $vr=bk$, $r(k-1)=\lambda(v-1)$ and $$b=\frac{v(v-1)\cdots(v-s+1)}{k(k-1)\cdots(k-s+1)}\lambda.\label{designparams}$$
The definition below is required in order to state the remaining two results of this section.
\[regcodedefinition\] Let $C$ be a code in $H(m,q)$ with covering radius $\rho$, and $s$ be an integer with $0{\leqslant}s{\leqslant}\rho$. Then,
1. $C$ is *$s$-regular* if, for each $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,s\}$, each $k\in\{0,1,\ldots,m\}$, and every vertex $\nu\in C_i$, the number $|\varGamma_k(\nu)\cap C|$ depends only on $i$ and $k$, and,
2. $C$ is *completely regular* if $C$ is $\rho$-regular.
[@ef2nt Lemma 2.16]\[design\] Let $C$ be an $(X,s)$-neighbour transitive code in $H(m,q)$. Then $C$ is $s$-regular. Moreover, id $C$ has with minimum distance $\delta{\geqslant}2s$ and contains ${\mathbf}0$, then for each $k{\leqslant}m$ the set of codewords of weight $k$ forms a $q$-ary $s$-$(m,k,\lambda)$ design, for some $\lambda$.
[@ef2nt Definition 4.1]\[hadamarddef\] Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the punctured Hadamard $12$ code, obtained as follows (see [@macwilliams1978theory Part 1, Section 2.3]). First, we construct a normalised Hadamard matrix $H_{12}$ of order $12$ using the Paley construction.
1. Let $M={\mathbb{F}}_{11}\cup \{*\}$ and let $H_{12}$ be the $12\times 12$ matrix with first row $v$, where $v_a=-1$ if $a$ is a square in ${\mathbb{F}}_{11}$ (including $0$), and $v_a=1$ if $a$ is a non-square in ${\mathbb{F}}_{11}$ or $a=*\in M$, taking the orbit of $v$ under the additive group of ${\mathbb{F}}_{11}$ acting on $M$ to form $10$ more rows and adding a final row, the vector $((-1)^{12})$.
2. The Hadamard code ${\mathcal H}$ of length $12$ in $H(12,2)$ then consists of the vertices $\alpha$ such that there exists a row $u$ in $H_{12}$ or $-H_{12}$ satisfying $\alpha_a=0$ when $u_a=1$ and $\alpha_a=1$ when $u_a=-1$.
3. The punctured code ${\mathcal P}$ of ${\mathcal H}$ is obtained by deleting the coordinate $*$ from $M$. The weight $6$ codewords of ${\mathcal P}$ form a binary $2$-$(11,6,3)$ design, which we denote throughout by ${\mathcal{D}}$. The code ${\mathcal P}$ consists of the following codewords: the zero codeword, the vector $(1^{11})$, the characteristic vectors of the $2$-$(11,6,3)$ design ${\mathcal{D}}$, and the characteristic vectors of the complement of that design, which forms a $2$-$(11,5,2)$ design. (Both ${\mathcal{D}}$ and its complement are unique up to isomorphism [@todd1933].)
4. The even weight subcode $\mathcal E$ of $\mathcal P$ is the code consisting of the zero codeword and the $2$-$(11,6,3)$ design.
[@ef2nt Proposition 4.3]\[equivpunchad\] Let $C$ be a $2$-regular code in $H(11,2)$ with $\delta{\geqslant}5$ and $|C|{\geqslant}2$. Then one of the following holds:
1. $\delta=11$ and $C$ is equivalent to the binary repetition code,
2. $\delta=5$ and $C$ is equivalent to the punctured Hadamard code ${\mathcal P}$, or
3. $\delta=6$ and $C$ is equivalent to the even weight subcode $\mathcal{E}$ of ${\mathcal P}$.
Extensions of the binary repetition code {#extsection}
========================================
In this section it will be shown that the hypotheses of Theorem \[onedimensionaltheorem\] imply that $W$ is the binary repetition code in $H(m,q)$. From there, all $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extensions of the binary repetition code are classified. First, a more general result regarding $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive codes. Note that a *system of imprimitivity* for the action of a group $G$ on a set $\varOmega$ is a non-trivial partition of $\varOmega$ preserved by $G$, and a part of the partition is called a *block of imprimitivity*.
\[blockofimpis2nt\] Suppose $C$ is an $(X,2)$-neighbour transitive code with $\delta{\geqslant}5$ and that $\Delta$ is a block of imprimitivity for the action of $X$ on $C$. Then $\Delta$ is an $(X_\Delta,2)$-neighbour transitive code with minimum distance $\delta_\Delta{\geqslant}5$.
Since $\Delta$ is a block of imprimitivity for the action of $X$ on $C$, it follows that $X_\Delta$ is transitive on $\Delta$. Since $\delta{\geqslant}5$ and $\Delta\subseteq C$ it follows that $\delta_\Delta{\geqslant}5$. Since $X_\Delta$ fixes $\Delta$, we have that $X_\Delta$ fixes $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$. It remains to show that $X_\Delta$ is transitive on $\Delta_i$ for $i=1,2$. Let $i\in\{1,2\}$ and $\mu,\nu\in\Delta_i$. Then, since $\delta_\Delta{\geqslant}5$, there exists $\alpha,\beta\in \Delta$ such that $\mu\in\varGamma_i(\alpha)$ and $\nu\in\varGamma_i(\beta)$. Moreover, $\mu,\nu\in C_i$ since $\delta{\geqslant}5$. Hence, there exists $x\in X$ such that $\mu^x=\nu$ and, since $\delta{\geqslant}5$, $\alpha^x=\beta$ and so lies in $\Delta\cap\Delta^x$. Since $\Delta$ is a block of imprimitivity, it follows that $x$ fixes $\Delta$ setwise, so that $x\in X_\Delta$. Thus $X_\Delta$ is transitive on $\Delta_i$ for $i=\{1,2\}$.
\[Wis2nt\] Let $C$ be an $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extension of $W$ such that $C$ has minimum distance $\delta{\geqslant}5$. Then $W$ is a block of imprimitivity for the action of $X$ on $C$ and $W$ is $(X_W,2)$-neighbour-transitive with minimum distance $\delta_W{\geqslant}5$.
Now, $K=K_W$ is normal in $X$ and $T_W{\leqslant}K_W$ is transitive on $W$ from which it follows that $W$ is an orbit of $K$ on $C$ and hence, by [@dixon1996permutation Theorem 1.6A (i)], is a block of imprimitivity for the action of $X$ on $C$. Thus, the result is implied by Lemma \[blockofimpis2nt\].
The next result shows that the binary repetition code is the only $2$-neighbour-transitive code which is a $k$-dimensional ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-subspace of $V={\mathbb{F}}_p^{dm}$, identified with the vertex set of $H(m,p^d)$, such that $1{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}d$.
\[onedimbinaryrep\] Let $q=p^d$ and $V={\mathbb{F}}_p^{dm}$ be the vertex set of the Hamming graph $H(m,q)$ and let $W$ be a $k$-dimensional ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-subspace of $V$, with $1{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}d$, such that $W$ is an $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive code with minimum distance $\delta{\geqslant}5$. Then $q=2$ and $W$ is the binary repetition code in $H(m,2)$.
We claim that $\delta=m$. As any $(X,2)$-neighbour transitive code is also $2$-regular, by Lemma \[design\], and ${{\mathbf}0}\in W$, proving the claim implies the result, by [@ef2nt Lemma 2.15]. Suppose for a contradiction that $\delta<m$. It follows that there exists a weight $\delta$ codeword $\alpha\in W$ and distinct $i,j\in M$ such that $\alpha_i=0$ and $\alpha_j\neq 0$. Now, $X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}$ acts transitively on $Q_j^\times$, by Lemma \[xtpitrans\], so that for all non-zero $a\in{\mathbb{F}}_p^d$ there exists some $x_a\in X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}$ such that $\alpha^{x_a}\in W$ with $(\alpha^{x_a})_j=a$. As $a$ ranges over all non-zero $a\in{\mathbb{F}}_p^d$ this gives $p^d-1$ distinct codewords. Since $|W|=p^k{\leqslant}p^d$, and ${{\mathbf}0}\in W$, it follows that $|W|=p^d$ and $k=d$. Note that since $\alpha_i=0$ and $x_a\in X_{{{\mathbf}0},i,j}$ this implies that every element of $W$ has $i$-th entry $0$. By Proposition \[ihom\], $X_{{\mathbf}0}$ is, in particular, transitive on $M$. Hence, there exists some $y=h\sigma\in X_{{\mathbf}0}$, with $h\in B$ and $\sigma\in L$, such that $j^\sigma=i$. Thus $\alpha^y\in W$ with $(\alpha^y)_i\neq 0$. This gives a contradiction, proving the claim that $\delta=m$.
Lemma \[onedimbinaryrep\] implies part 1 of Theorem \[onedimensionaltheorem\] and also that, given the hypotheses of Theorem \[onedimensionaltheorem\], it can be assumed that $q=2$ and $W$ is the repetition code in $H(m,2)$.
\[kernelistranslations\] Let $C$ be an $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extension of $W$, where $W$ is the repetition code in $H(m,2)$, with $\delta{\geqslant}5$. Then $X_{{\mathbf}0}\cong X_{{\mathbf}0}^M=X_W^M$, $K=T_W$ and $X_W=T_W\rtimes X_{{\mathbf}0}$.
Let $W$ be the repetition code in $H(m,2)$. If $x=h\sigma\in X_{{\mathbf}0}$, with $h\in B$ and $\sigma\in L$, then $q=2$ implies $h_i=1$ for all $i\in M$. Thus $X_{{\mathbf}0}\cong X_{{\mathbf}0}^M$. By Corollary \[Wis2nt\], $W$ is a block of imprimitivity for the action of $X$ on $C$, from which it follows that $X_W=T_W\rtimes X_{{\mathbf}0}$, since $T_W$ acts transitively on $W$. Thus, $X_{{\mathbf}0}\cong X_{{\mathbf}0}^M= X_W^M$ and $K=T_W$.
\[2transitive\] Suppose $C$ is a non-trivial $(X,2)$-neighbour transitive extension of the repetition code $W$ in $H(m,2)$, where $C$ has minimum distance $\delta{\geqslant}5$. Then $\delta\neq m$, $X^M$ acts $2$-transitively on $M$ and $X_W^M$ acts $2$-homogeneously on $M$. Moreover, if $X_W^M$ acts $2$-transitively on $M$ then $X_{i,j}^M$ has a normal subgroup of index $2$, where $i,j\in M$ and $i\neq j$.
First, note that $\omega\in W$ if and only if $\omega_i=\omega_j$ for all $i,j\in M$. Since $C\neq W$ there exists a codeword $\alpha\in C\setminus W$ and distinct $i,j\in M$ such that $\alpha_i=0$ and $\alpha_j=1$, since otherwise $\alpha\in W$. Note that this implies that $\delta\neq m$. Let $J=\{i,j\}\subseteq M$ and consider the projection code $P=\pi_J(C)$. Now, $\pi_J(W)=\{(0,0),(1,1)\}\subseteq P$ and $\pi_J(\alpha)=(0,1)\in P$. Also, $\beta=\alpha+(1,\ldots,1)\in C$, since $T_W{\leqslant}X$, which implies $\pi_J(\beta)=(1,0)\in P$. Thus, $P$ is the complete code in the Hamming graph $H(2,2)$. By [@ef2nt Corollary 2.6], $X_{\{i,j\}}$ acts transitively on $C$, from which it follows that $X_{\{i,j\}}^P$ acts transitively on $P$. Thus $|P|=4$ divides $|X_{\{i,j\}}^P|$ and hence also divides $|X|$. By Lemma \[kernelistranslations\], $K=T_W$ so that $|K|=2$. Thus $2$ divides $|X/K|$. Proposition \[ihom\] and [@dixon1996permutation Exercise 2.1.11] then imply that $X/K=X^M$ is $2$-transitive.
By Corollary \[Wis2nt\], $W$ is $(X_W,2)$-neighbour-transitive. Thus, by Proposition \[ihom\], $X_W^M$ is $2$-homogeneous on $M$. Suppose $X_W^M$ is $2$-transitive on $M$. Since $X_{W,\{i,j\}}^P$ contains $K$ and interchanges $i$ and $j$, $|X_{W,\{i,j\}}^P|$ is divisible by $4$. Now, $|X_{\{i,j\}}^P|{\leqslant}8$, since $\operatorname{Aut}(H(2,2))=(\operatorname{S}_2\times \operatorname{S}_2)\rtimes \operatorname{S}_2$. Furthermore, $|X_{\{i,j\}}^P:X_{W,\{i,j\}}^P|=2$, since $X_{\{i,j\}}^P$ acts transitively on $P$. Thus $X_{\{i,j\}}^P=(\operatorname{S}_2\times \operatorname{S}_2)\rtimes \operatorname{S}_2$, and so $|X_{i,j}^P|=4$. Let $H$ be the kernel of the action of $X_{i,j}$ on $P$. Since the only non-identity element of $K=T_W$ acts non-trivially on $P$, we deduce that $|K^P|=2$ and $H\cap K=1$. Hence, $$\frac{X_{i,j}^P}{K^P} \cong \frac{X_{i,j}/H}{HK/H} \cong \frac{X_{i,j}}{HK} \cong \frac{X_{i,j}/K}{HK/K} \cong \frac{X_{i,j}^M}{H^M}.$$ Therefore, $X_{i,j}^M$ has a quotient of size $2$, since $|X_{i,j}^P/K^P|=2$, and thus $H^M$ is a normal subgroup of $X_{i,j}^M$ of index $2$.
The socle of a finite group is the product of all its minimal normal subgroups. If $C$ is an $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extension of the binary repetition code $W$ in $H(m,2)$ then the next two results show that the socles of $X^M$ and $X_W^M$ cannot be equal and that the socle of $X^M$ cannot be $\operatorname{A}_m$.
\[unequalsocles\] Let $W$ be the repetition code in $H(m,2)$ and $C$ be a non-trivial $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extension of $W$ with $\delta{\geqslant}5$. Then $\operatorname{soc}(X/K)\neq \operatorname{soc}(X_W/K)$.
Let $H{\leqslant}X$ such that $K<H$ and $H/K=\operatorname{soc}(X/K)$. Note that this implies that $H{\trianglelefteq}X$. By Lemma \[kernelistranslations\], $X_W=K\rtimes X_{{\mathbf}0}$. Suppose $H/K=\operatorname{soc}(X_W/K)$, and note that by Lemma \[2transitive\], $X_W^M=X_W/K$ acts $2$-homogeneously on $M$ and $X^M\cong X/K$ acts $2$-transitively on $M$ with the same socle.
By considering vertices as characteristic vectors of subsets of $M$, we may identify the set of all subsets of $M$ with the vertex set $V\cong{\mathbb{F}}_2^m$ of $H(m,2)$. By Lemma \[kernelistranslations\], $K=T_W\cong{\mathbb{Z}}_2$. Consider the quotient of $H(m,2)$ by the orbits of $K$, thereby identifying each subset $J$ of $M$ with its complement ${\bar J}$. In particular, $W$ is identified with $\{\emptyset,M\}$. This gives induced actions of $X$, $X_W$ and $X_{{\mathbf}0}$ on the set: $${\mathcal O}=\left\{\{J,{\bar J}\}\mid J\in C\right\}.$$ Note that ${\mathcal O}$ is a set of partitions of $M$, and $x\in X\setminus X_W$ does not necessarily fix $\{|J|,|{\bar J}|\}$. Since the single non-trivial element of $K$ maps $J\subseteq M$ to ${\bar J}$, for each $J$, it follows that $K$ fixes every element of ${\mathcal O}$. Thus, $K$ is in the kernel $X_{({\mathcal O})}$ of the action of $X$ on ${\mathcal O}$. If $x\in X\setminus X_W$, then $\{\emptyset,M\}^x\neq \{\emptyset,M\}$, so that $X_{({\mathcal O})}{\leqslant}X_W$. By Lemma \[kernelistranslations\], $X_W=K\rtimes X_{{\mathbf}0}$. It follows that $X_{({\mathcal O})}/K{\trianglelefteq}X_W/K$, and, since $H/K=\operatorname{soc}(X_W/K)$, either $X_{({\mathcal O})}/K=1$, or $H/K{\trianglelefteq}X_{({\mathcal O})}/K$.
Suppose that $H/K{\leqslant}X_{({\mathcal O})}/K$. Note that, by assumption, $C\neq W$. As $H/K$ fixes ${\mathcal O}$ element-wise, $H/K$ fixes the non-trivial partition $\{J,{\bar J}\}$, for each $J\in C\setminus W$. Since $H/K=\operatorname{soc}(X_W/K)$ acts transitively on $M$, we have that $H/K$ acts imprimitively on $M$ and $|J|=|{\bar J}|$, so that $2$ divides $m$ and $\delta=m/2$. By [@Kantor1969], a $2$-homogeneous but not $2$-transitive group has odd degree, and hence the fact that $2\mid m$ implies that $X_{{\mathbf}0}$ acts $2$-transitively on $M$. By [@burnside1911theory Section 134 and Theorem IX, p. 192], a $2$-transitive group with an imprimitive socle has a normal subgroup of prime power order. Thus, by [@dixon1996permutation Section 7.7], we deduce that $X_W^M$ is affine and, since $2\mid m$, we have that $X_W^M{\leqslant}\operatorname{AGL}_d(2)$ and $M\cong {\mathbb{F}}_2^d$. Since $X_W^M$ and $X^M$ have the same socle, $X^M$ is also an affine $2$-transitive group. Now, if $U=\{J,{\bar J}\}$ is fixed by the group of translations of ${\mathbb{F}}_2^d$ acting on $M$, then either $J$ or ${\bar J}$ is a $(d-1)$-space of $M$. Let $i=0\in M$. Then $X_{W,i}$ acts transitively on $M\setminus \{i\}$, that is, on the set of $1$-spaces of $M$. Since each $1$-space is orthogonal to a $(d-1)$-space, it follows that $X_{W,i}$ also acts transitively on the set of $(d-1)$-spaces of $M$. This implies $|{\mathcal O}\setminus\{\emptyset,M\}|=2^d-1$, the number of $(d-1)$-spaces in $M$. Thus, $|C|=2^d|W|$. Now $K{\leqslant}X_W{\leqslant}X$ implies $|C|/|W|=|X|/|X_W|=|X^M|/|X_W^M|$, that is, $|X^M|=2^d|X_W^M|$. This gives a contradiction, as there is no finite transitive linear group acting on $2^d-1$ points with an index $2^d$ subgroup that remains transitive on $2^d-1$ points (see [@liebeckaffinerank3 Hering’s Theorem]). Thus, $X_{({\mathcal O})}/K=1$.
By Lemma \[2transitive\], $X^M$ acts $2$-transitively on $M$. Since $H/K=\operatorname{soc}(X/K)$, it follows that $H/K$ acts transitively on $M$. As $X$ acts transitively on ${\mathcal O}$, the stabiliser in $X/K$ of any element of ${\mathcal O}$ is conjugate in $X/K$ to the stabiliser $X_W/K$ of $\{\emptyset,M\}\in{\mathcal O}$. It follows from this that $H/K$ fixes every element of ${\mathcal O}$, since $H/K{\trianglelefteq}X/K$ and $H{\leqslant}X_W/K$. If $H/K$ fixes each element of ${\mathcal O}$ then $H/K{\leqslant}X_{({\mathcal O})}/K$, giving a contradiction. Thus $\operatorname{soc}(X/K)\neq\operatorname{soc}(X_W/K)$.
\[onedimsocnotam\] Let $C$ be a non-trivial $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extension of $W$ with $\delta{\geqslant}5$, where $W$ is the repetition code in $H(m,2)$. Then $\operatorname{soc}(X^M)\neq \operatorname{A}_m$.
Suppose $\operatorname{soc}(X^M)=\operatorname{A}_m$. By Lemma \[2transitive\], $X_W/K\cong X_W^M$ is a $2$-homogeneous group and thus primitive, and, by Lemma \[unequalsocles\], $\operatorname{soc}(X_W/K)\neq\operatorname{soc}(X/K)$. By Lemma \[kernelistranslations\], $|C|=|X:X_{{\mathbf}0}|=2|X:X_W|=2|X/K:X_W/K|$. Now, [@bochert1889ueber] (see also [@wielandt2014finite Theorem 14.2]) gives a lower bound on the index of a primitive non-trivial subgroup $G$ of the symmetric group $\operatorname{S}_m$, with $G$ not containing the alternating group, of $|\operatorname{S}_m:G|{\geqslant}\lfloor(m+1)/2\rfloor!$. Since $X_W^M$ is primitive and $X/K\cong \operatorname{A}_m$ or $\operatorname{S}_m$, it follows that $$|C|=2|X/K:X_W/K|{\geqslant}t|X/K:X_W/K|=|\operatorname{S}_m:X_W^M|{\geqslant}\lfloor(m+1)/2\rfloor!,$$ where $t=1$ or $2$. However, by the Singleton bound we have $|C|{\leqslant}2^{m-\delta+1}{\leqslant}2^{m-4}$. Combining these two inequalities, we have $\lfloor(m+1)/2\rfloor!{\leqslant}2^{m-4}$, which does not hold when $m{\geqslant}5$.
$G$ $H$ degree
------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------- --
${\mathbb{Z}}_7\rtimes {\mathbb{Z}}_3$ $\operatorname{PSL}_3(2)$ $7$
${\mathbb{Z}}_{11}\rtimes {\mathbb{Z}}_5$ $\operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$ or $\operatorname{M}_{11}$ $11$
${\mathbb{Z}}_{23}\rtimes {\mathbb{Z}}_{11}$ $\operatorname{M}_{23}$ $23$
$\operatorname{PSL}_2(7)$ $\operatorname{AGL}_3(2)$ $8$
$\operatorname{A}_7$ $\operatorname{A}_8$ $15$
$\operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$ $\operatorname{M}_{11}$ $11$
$\operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$ or $\operatorname{M}_{11}$ $\operatorname{M}_{12}$ $12$
$\operatorname{PSL}_2(23)$ $\operatorname{M}_{24}$ $24$
: Groups $G<H{\leqslant}\operatorname{S}_m$ where $H$ is $2$-transitive, $G$ is $2$-homogeneous, $\operatorname{soc}(H)\neq \operatorname{A}_m$ and $\operatorname{soc}(G)\neq \operatorname{soc}(H)$; see [@ef2nt Proposition 4.4 and Table 3].[]{data-label="2tr2hom"}
The main theorem can now be proved.
Suppose $C$ is an $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extension of $W$ with $\delta{\geqslant}5$, where $W$ is a $k$-dimensional ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-subspace of $V={\mathbb{F}}_p^{dm}$ and $1{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}d$. By Lemma \[onedimbinaryrep\], $W$ is the binary repetition code (not just an equivalent copy of it, since ${\mathbf}0\in W$) and thus $q=2$. If $C=W$ then $C$ is a trivial extension of $W$ and outcome 1 holds. Suppose the extension is non-trivial. Then, by Lemma \[2transitive\], $\delta\neq m$, $X^M$ acts $2$-transitively on $M$ and either $X_W^M$ is $2$-transitive and $X_{i,j}^M$ has an index $2$ normal subgroup, or $X_{W}^M$ acts $2$-homogeneously, but not $2$-transitively, on $M$. Also, by Lemma \[unequalsocles\], the socles of $X^M$ and $X_W^M$ are not equal, and, by Lemma \[onedimsocnotam\], $\operatorname{soc}(X^M)\neq \operatorname{A}_m$. Thus, by [@ef2nt Proposition 4.4], the possibilities for $X^M$ and $X_W^M$ are as in Table \[2tr2hom\].
Now $T_W{\leqslant}X$ implies that if there exists some weight $k$ codeword in $C$, then there is also a weight $m-k$ codeword. Thus $\delta{\leqslant}m/2$ and $\delta{\geqslant}5$ implies $m{\geqslant}10$. In particular, $X^M\neq \operatorname{PSL}_3(2)$ or $\operatorname{AGL}_3(2)$. Suppose $X^M\cong \operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$ and $m=11$. Then $\delta=5$ and, by Proposition \[equivpunchad\], $C$ is either the punctured Hadamard code ${\mathcal P}$ or the even weight subcode ${\mathcal E}$ of the punctured Hadamard code. The even weight subcode of the punctured Hadamard code is not invariant under $T_W$, so $C\neq {\mathcal E}$. Moreover, as in the proof of [@ef2nt Proposition 4.3], the only copy of $\operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$ in $\operatorname{Aut}({\mathcal P})$ fixes ${{\mathbf}0}$, and hence $X_{{\mathbf}0}^M\cong \operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$. This implies that $X_W^M=\operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$, by Lemma \[kernelistranslations\], and thus $X^M=X_W^M$, a contradiction.
Suppose $m=23$, $X^M\cong \operatorname{M}_{23}$ and $X_W^M\cong {\mathbb{Z}}_{23}\rtimes {\mathbb{Z}}_{11}$. By Lemma \[kernelistranslations\], $X_W=T_W\rtimes X_{{\mathbf}0}$ and $K=T_W$, so that $|X_{{\mathbf}0}|=|X_W^M|$ which gives $|C|=|X|/|X_{{\mathbf}0}|=2|X^M|/|X_W^M|$, and hence $|C|=80640$. However, this contradicts the bound of $|C|{\leqslant}24106$ for a code of length $23$ with $\delta{\leqslant}5$ from [@Best78boundsfor Table I and Theorem 1].
Suppose $m=15$, $X^M\cong \operatorname{A}_8$ and $X_W^M\cong \operatorname{A}_7$. Then $X_{i,j}^M\cong \operatorname{A}_6$ is simple, contradicting Lemma \[2transitive\].
Suppose $m=11$, $X^M\cong \operatorname{M}_{11}$ and $X_W^M\cong \operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$. Then, by Proposition \[equivpunchad\], $C$ is either the punctured Hadamard code ${\mathcal P}$ or the even weight subcode of ${\mathcal P}$. The even weight subcode of ${\mathcal P}$ is not invariant under $T_W$, so $C={\mathcal P}$. The automorphism group of ${\mathcal P}$ is $X=\operatorname{Aut}({\mathcal P})\cong 2\times \operatorname{M}_{11}$ with $X_{{\mathbf}0}\cong\operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$ and $K=T_W$. By [@Gillespie20131394 Theorem 1.1] ${\mathcal P}$ is an $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extension of $W$, as in outcome 3.
Suppose $m=12$, $X^M\cong \operatorname{M}_{12}$ and $X_W^M\cong \operatorname{M}_{11}$ or $\operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$. If $X_W^M\cong \operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$ then, as the index of $\operatorname{PSL}_2(11)$ in $\operatorname{M}_{12}$ is $144$, we have $|C|=288$. However, since $\delta{\geqslant}5$, the Singleton bound gives $|C|{\leqslant}2^{m-\delta+1}{\leqslant}256$. Thus $X_W^M\cong \operatorname{M}_{11}$ and $|C|=24$. If weight $5$ codewords exist then, by Lemma \[design\] and (2.1), there are $$b=\frac{v(v-1)\lambda}{k(k-1)}=\frac{12\cdot 11\lambda}{5\cdot 4}=\frac{3\cdot 11\lambda}{5}$$ of them, for some $\lambda$ divisible by $5$. Since $\lambda{\geqslant}5$ implies $b{\geqslant}33> |C|=24$, it follows that $\lambda=0$. Thus $\delta{\geqslant}6$, and as $\delta{\leqslant}m/2=6$, it follows that $\delta=6$. The Hadamard code ${\mathcal H}$ of length $12$ with $X=\operatorname{Aut}({\mathcal H})\cong 2.\operatorname{M}_{12}$, $X_{{\mathbf}0}\cong \operatorname{M}_{12}$ and $K=T_W$ is then the unique $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive extension of $W$ with these parameters, by [@Gillespie20131394 Theorem 1.1], as in outcome 2.
Finally, suppose $m=24$, $X^M\cong \operatorname{M}_{24}$ and $X_W^M\cong \operatorname{PSL}_2(23)$. Then $X_{i,j}^M\cong \operatorname{M}_{22}$ is simple, contradicting Lemma \[2transitive\].
Finally, the proof of Corollary \[comptranscorr\] is given below.
Suppose $C$ is $X$-completely transitive with minimum distance $\delta{\geqslant}5$ such that $K=\operatorname{Diag}_m(S_2)$, and assume that ${{\mathbf}0}\in C$. The fact that $\delta{\geqslant}5$ implies that $C_2$ is non-empty and thus $C$ is $(X,2)$-neighbour-transitive. Since $K{\trianglelefteq}X$ and $X$ acts transitively on $C$, it follows from Lemma \[blockofimpis2nt\] that the orbit $\Delta={{\mathbf}0}^K$ of ${{\mathbf}0}$ under $K$ is an $(X_\Delta,2)$-neighbour-transitive code. Since $K=\operatorname{Diag}_m(S_2)$ we have that $|\Delta|=2$ and $\Delta$ has minimum distance $m$. Thus, since any $2$-neighbour-transitive code is $2$-regular, [@ef2nt Lemma 2.15] implies that $\Delta$ is the binary repetition code in $H(m,2)$. Hence, $q=2$, $Q\cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ and $C$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem \[onedimensionaltheorem\], and so is one of the codes listed there. The binary repetition code has automorphism group $\operatorname{Diag}_m(S_2)\rtimes \operatorname{Sym}(M)$ and is seen to be completely transitive by identifying the vertices of $H(m,2)$ with the subsets of $M$. By [@Gillespie20131394 Theorem 1.1], the Hadamard code of length $12$ and its punctured code are completely transitive. This completes the proof.
[10]{}
M. R. Best, A. E. Brouwer, F. J. Macwilliams, A. M. Odlyzko, and N. J. A. Sloane. Bounds for binary codes of length less than 25. , pages 81–93, 1978.
A. Bochert. Ueber die zahl der verschiedenen werthe, die eine function gegebener buchstaben durch vertauschung derselben erlangen kann. , 33(4):584–590, 1889.
J. Borges and J. Rif[à]{}. On the nonexistence of completely transitive codes. , 46(1):279–280, 2000.
J. Borges, J. Rif[à]{}, and V. Zinoviev. On linear completely regular codes with covering radius $\rho=1$, construction and classification. , 2009.
J. Borges, J. Rif[à]{}, and V. Zinoviev. New families of completely regular codes and their corresponding distance regular coset graphs. , pages 1–10, 2012.
J. Borges, J. Rif[à]{}, and V. Zinoviev. Families of completely transitive codes and distance transitive graphs. , 324:68–71, 2014.
J. [Borges]{}, J. [Rif[à]{}]{}, and V. A. [Zinoviev]{}. On completely regular codes. , 2017.
A. E. Brouwer, A. M. Cohen, and A. Neumaier. , volume 18 of [*Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) \[Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3)\]*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
W. Burnside. . University, 1911.
P. J. Cameron and J. H. van Lint. . London Mathematical Society Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
P. Delsarte. . Philips research reports: Supplements. N. V. Philips’ Gloeilampenfabrieken, 1973.
J. D. Dixon and B. Mortimer. , volume 163. New York: Springer, 1996.
N. Gill, N. I. Gillespie, and J. Semeraro. Conway groupoids and completely transitive codes. , pages 1–44, 2017.
N. I. Gillespie. . PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, 2011.
N. I. Gillespie, M. Giudici, D. R. Hawtin, and C. E. Praeger. Entry-faithful 2-neighbour transitive codes. , pages 1–16, 2015.
N. I. Gillespie and D. R. Hawtin. Alphabet-almost-simple $2$-neighbour-transitive codes. , 14(2):345–357, 2017.
N. I. Gillespie and C. E. Praeger. Neighbour transitivity on codes in [H]{}amming graphs. , 67(3):385–393, 2013.
N. I. Gillespie and C. E. Praeger. Uniqueness of certain completely regular [H]{}adamard codes. , 120(7):1394 – 1400, 2013.
N. I. Gillespie and C. E. Praeger. Diagonally neighbour transitive codes and frequency permutation arrays. , 39(3):733–747, 2014.
N. I. Gillespie and C. E. Praeger. Characterisation of a family of neighbour transitive codes. , 2014.
N. I. Gillespie and C. E. Praeger. New characterisations of the [N]{}ordstrom-[R]{}obinson codes. , 49(2):320–330, 2017.
M. Giudici. Completely transitive codes in [H]{}amming graphs. Master’s thesis, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, 1998.
M. Giudici and C. E. Praeger. Completely transitive codes in [H]{}amming graphs. , 20(7):647 – 662, 1999.
D. R. Hawtin. . PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia, 2017.
W. M. Kantor. Automorphism groups of designs. , 109(3):246–252, 1969.
S. Kudekar, S. Kumar, M. Mondelli, H. D. Pfister, E. Şaşoğlu, and R. Urbanke. eed-[M]{}uller codes achieve capacity on erasure channels. In [*Proceedings of the Forty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, STOC ’16, pages 658–669. ACM, 2016.
M. W. Liebeck. The affine permutation groups of rank three. , 3(3):477–516, 1987.
F. J. MacWilliams and N. J. A. Sloane. . North-Holland Mathematical Library. North-Holland, 1978.
P. Sol[é]{}. Completely regular codes and completely transitive codes. RR-0727, 1987.
D. R. Stinson. . Springer, 2004.
A. Tiet[ä]{}v[ä]{}inen. On the nonexistence of perfect codes over finite fields. , 24(1):88–96, 1973.
J. A. Todd. A combinatorial problem. , 12:321–333, 1933.
H. Wielandt, H. Booker, D. A. Bromley, and N. DeClaris. . Academic paperbacks. Elsevier Science, 2014.
A. Zinoviev and V. K. Leontiev. The nonexistence of perfect codes over [G]{}alois fields. In [*Problems of Control and Information 2*]{}, pages 123–132, 1973.
[^1]: The first author is grateful for the support of an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship and a University of Western Australia Safety-Net Top-Up Scholarship. The research forms part of Australian Research Council Project FF0776186.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Shape is a more general concept of homotopy type for topological spaces. This work aims to establish a new shape theory, i.e., compact Hausdorff shape (CH-shape) in general Hausdorff spaces. We use an ‘internal’ method and direct system approach on the homotopy category of compact Hausdorff spaces. This new shape preserves most properties of compactly generated shape (H-shape) given by Rubin and Sanders. More importantly, it allows to develop the entire (co)homology theory for CH-shape, except for the exactness of cohomology theory, and this is dual to the approach and consequences of Mardešić and Segal.'
author:
- |
Jintao Wang\
[Center for Mathematical Sciences, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,]{}\
[Wuhan 430074, China ([email protected])]{}\
Jinqiao Duan\
[Department of Applied Mathematics, Illinois Institute of Technology,]{}\
[Chicago, IL 60616, USA ([email protected])]{}
title: A Theory of Compact Hausdorff Shape in Hausdorff Spaces
---
Introduction
============
Shape is a more general concept of homotopy type to study the geometric properties of complicated topological spaces. The concept ‘shape’ was originally introduced by Polish topologist Borsuk at the ‘International Symposium on Topology and its Applications’ in 1968. Indeed in his paper ‘Concerning homotopy properties of compacta’ [@Bor1], Borsuk had actually already founded the the theory of shape of a compactum. Both Borsuk [@Bor2; @Bor3] and Fox [@Fox] extended shape to arbitrary metric spaces in the following years. The method used by Borsuk seems somehow to be ‘internal’ in nature, while Fox’s method can be considered to be ‘external’.
Fox [@Fox] introduced the inverse system to define his shape equivalence, and his definition of shape is much coarser than Borsuk’s. In particular, Borsuk shape can not be preserved by sums and products [@Bor3]. Mardešić and Segal [@Mar3; @Dyd] developed the shape theory after Fox’s method and established a more general theory of shape in an arbitrary category by the inverse system approach. Following Fox, Mardešić and Segal adopted the ANR-systems, which was originally presented by Borsuk, to give the definition of shape of arbitrary metric spaces and compact Hausdorff spaces [@Mar1; @Mar2], since any such spaces can always be embed in some ANR, Here ANR stands for the absolute neighborhood retract of metric spaces that can be found in many books about algebraic topology (see, [@Eil; @Mar3]). The shape theory developed by Mardešić and Segal in [@Mar3] includes shape (homotopy) groups, shape (co)homology groups and other related topics, just like the homotopy theory.
Based on the above-mentioned shape theory for compact Hausdorff spaces, Rubbin and Sanders [@Rub] extended the definition of shape to general Hausdorff spaces, via direct systems of compact subsets in the shape category of compact Hausdorff spaces and shape maps. They called such a shape the ‘Compactly generated shape’ and their method is an ‘internal’ one. Sanders developed H-shape theory after 1973, including shape (homotopy) groups, the sums and products of shape and Whitehead theorem (see, [@Sand1; @Sand2; @Sand3; @Sand4]).
Besides Sanders’ work, there was also another type of ‘internal’ approach to describe shape — the proximate net approach. In 1974, Felt [@Felt] answered partly Klee’s question about the relation of $\epsilon$-continuity and shape in compact metric spaces (see [@Klee]). Sanjurjo [@Sanj1] in 1985 presented a full description of the shape category of compacta in terms of $\epsilon$-continuity, in which he introduced the notion of a proximate net between compacta. He later gave another description [@Sanj2] using multi-nets. This multivalued approach was generalized by Morón and Ruiz del Portal [@Moron] (using normal open coverings) to obtain an internal description of the shape category of paracompact spaces. By combining the original single-valued approach in [@Sanj1] and the techniques in [@Moron], Kieboom provided a new description of the shape of paracompact spaces in [@Kieb], with generalized tools — ${{\mathcal V}}$-continuity (${{\mathcal V}}$ is an open covering) and approximate net. In the last decade, Shekutkovski and his co-authors [@Shek1; @Shek2; @Shek3; @Shek4] developed intrinsic approach to shape and presented remarkable consequences using the intrinsic approach in paracompact spaces. Especially, he showed that the proximate fundamental group is one invariant of the intrinsic shape for paracompact spaces [@Shek3] in 2015.
Now we follow Sanders’ work on the H-shape by the ‘internal’ approach. As is known, the inverse limit can not preserve the exactness property of a given long sequence in general. As a result, the long Čech homology (shape homology) sequence is not necessary to be exact except for some particular cases, including the case when the space pair is compact and the coefficient group is compact or a finite dimensional vector space over a field, and some other cases [@Eil; @Mer].
Since Rubin and Sanders established his H-shape via direct systems in the shape category of compact Hausdorff spaces and shape maps, if one wants to construct the corresponding H-shape homology or cohomology theory, either the direct systems of Čech homology groups or the inverse systems of Čech cohomology groups are necessary to be used. In each case, exactness property can not be generally obtained for the H-shape (co)homology theory. This limitation prevents us adopting the exactness in arbitrary Hausdorff spaces and coefficient groups.
In this paper, we establish a new type of shape for arbitrary Hausdorff spaces, called compact Hausdorff shape (CH-shape). We develop our shape also by the ‘internal’ method, but in the homotopy category of compact Hausdorff spaces, whose objects are compact Hausdorff spaces and whose morphisms are homotopy classes of maps between them, not the shape maps that Rubin and Sanders used. Notice each class of maps between compact Hausdorff spaces can induce a shape map between them; our type of shape is indeed a much finer shape relative to H-shape. Therefore, most of the properties possessed by H-shape also hold for CH-shape, including sums and products of CH-shape, shape (homotopy) groups and related properties. Especially, homotopy groups are CH-shape invariant, and can be regard as CH-shape groups. What is more, one can see that the CH-shape theory is fundamentally dual to the shape theory given by Mardešić and Segal [@Mar3] in the inverse system approach. This construction of shape is indeed a completion of shape theory.
Particularly, singular homology groups are CH-shape homology invariant. However, dual to Mardešić’s shape theory, the CH-cohomology theory is not so satisfactory, since we can not avoid the utilization of inverse systems in the definition of CH-shape cohomology groups. As a result, the CH-shape cohomology groups can not necessarily meet the exactness axiom in general. But similarly, if the Hausdorff space pair is compact and the coefficient group is compact or a finite dimensional vector space over a field, the long CH-shape cohomology sequence can also be exact. These (co)homology theories can not ensured by H-shape, but they can provide much useful information about Hausdorff spaces and have applications in other issues.
To start our topic, we introduce the concepts of direct systems and direct limit for a general category as the preliminaries in the next section. We define the CH-shape in Section 3. In Section 4, we present the basic topological properties of CH-shape, including homotopy invariance and relations with other homotopy invariants. In the final section, we discuss about CH-shape (co)homology theories in details.
Preliminaries {#s2}
=============
In this section, we recall some definitions [@Eil; @Mar2] of direct systems of an arbitrary category that will help to develop our theory.
Category of direct systems
--------------------------
A [*directed set*]{} is a preordered set $A$, provided that for any $a_1$, $a_2\in A$, there is $a\in A$ such that $a_1\leq a$ and $a_2\leq a$. A directed set $A'$ is a [*subset*]{} of $A$, if $a\in A'$ implies $a\in A'$ and $a_1\leq a_2$ in $A'$ implies $a_1\leq a_2$ in $A$. Let $A'$ be a subset of $(A,\leq)$. If for every $a\in A$, there exists $a'\in A'$ such that $a\leq a'$, $A'$ is said to be [*cofinal*]{} in $A$.
Let ${{\mathscr C}}$ be an arbitrary category. A [*direct system*]{} in the category ${{\mathscr C}}$ consists of a directed set $A$, called the [*index set*]{}, of an object $X_a$ from ${{\mathscr C}}$ for each $a\in A$ and of a morphism $p_{aa'}:X_a\ra X_{a'}$ from ${{\mathscr C}}$ for each pair $a\leq a'$ such that
$p_{aa}=1_a=1_{X_a}:X_a\ra X_a$,
$a\leq a'\leq a''$ implies $p_{aa'}p_{a'a''}=p_{aa''}$.We denote a direct system by $X^*=\{X_a,p_{aa'},A\}$.
A [*morphism of direct systems*]{} $F=(f_a,\,f):X^*\ra Y^*=\{Y_b,q_{bb'},B\}$ consists of an order-preserving function $f:A\ra B$, i.e., $a\leq a'$ implies $f(a)\leq f(a')$ in $B$, and morphisms $f_a:X_a\ra Y_{f(a)}$ from ${{\mathscr C}}$ such that whenever $a\leq a'$, \[1.1\]q\_[f(a)f(a’)]{}f\_a=f\_[a’]{}p\_[aa’]{}.One can define an identity morphism of direct systems $1_{X^*}:X^*\ra X^*$ by considering the identity function $1_A:A\ra A$ and the identity morphisms $1_a=1_{X_a}:X_a\ra X_a$, which well satisfies (\[1.1\]). It is also clear that the composition of two morphisms of direct systems is also a morphism of direct systems, $F1_{X^*}=F$ and $1_{Y^*}G=G$.
Thus we obtain a new category from the category ${{\mathscr C}}$, denoted by [*dir-${{\mathscr C}}$*]{}, whose objects are all the direct systems in ${{\mathscr C}}$ and whose morphisms are the morphisms of direct systems.
If $A'$ is a subset of $A$, and $X^*=(X_a,p_{aa'},A)$ is a direct system, then the [*direct subsystem*]{} ${X'}^*=(X_a,p_{aa'},A')$ over $A'$ is a direct system formed by the sets and maps of $X_a$ and $f_{aa'}$ which correspond to elements and relations in $A'$. The inclusion map $i:A'\ra A$ and identity maps $1_a:X_a\ra X_a$ form a morphism $I=(1_a,i)$ from ${X'}^*$ to $X^*$. This morphism is called the [*injection*]{} of the subsystem into the system.
Now we define an [*equivalence relation*]{} $\sim$ between morphisms of direct systems. We say $(f_a,\,f)\sim(g_a,\,g)$ provided that each $a\in A$ admits a $b\in B$ with $f(a),\,g(a)\leq b$, such that $$q_{f(a)b}f_a=q_{g(a)b}g_a.$$ Clearly, $\sim$ satisfies reflexivity, symmetry and transitivity, and hence is an equivalence relation. Thus from the category dir-${{\mathscr C}}$, one obtains another new category, denoted by [*Dir-${{\mathscr C}}$*]{}, whose objects are the same with dir-${{\mathscr C}}$ and whose morphisms are the equivalence classes of morphisms of dir-${{\mathscr C}}$.
For $X^*$ and $Y^*$ in Dir-${{\mathscr C}}$, if there are $F:X^*\ra Y^*$ and $G:Y^*\ra X^*$ in dir-${{\mathscr C}}$ such that $[FG]=[1_{Y^*}]$ and $[GF]=[1_{X^*}]$, we say $X^*$ and $Y^*$ are [*equivalent*]{} in Dir-${{\mathscr C}}$, denoted $X^*\sim Y^*$.
Direct limits
-------------
For an arbitrary direct system $X^*=\{X_a,p_{aa'},A\}$ in dir-${{\mathscr C}}$, the [*direct limit*]{} of $X^*$ consists of an object $X^\8$ in ${{\mathscr C}}$ and homomorphisms $p_a:X_a\ra X^\8$ such that \[2.2\]p\_[a’]{}p\_[aa’]{}=p\_a,aa’,where the homomorphism $p_a$ is often called the [*canonical projection*]{}. Moreover, if $p'_a:X_a\ra Y$ is another collection of homomorphisms with property (\[2.2\]), then there is a unique homomorphism $g:X^\8\ra Y$ such that (see, [@Mar2]) $$gp_a=p'_a,\hs a\in A.$$ We denote $\disp X^\8=\limra X^*$. Clearly, the direct limit $X^\8$ of $X^*$ is unique up to a natural isomorphism.
\[r2.1\] It is stated in [@Eil; @Mar2] that, if ${{\mathscr C}}$ is the category of groups and the homomorphisms between groups, then one can always construct a direct limit of a given direct system in ${{\mathscr C}}$. In particular, when ${{\mathscr C}}$ is the category of abelian groups, the conclusion holds true, too.
Now we consider the category of groups ${{\mathscr G}}$ and the category dir-${{\mathscr G}}$ of direct systems in ${{\mathscr G}}$. Consider the morphism $F=(f_a,f):X^*\ra Y^*$, we can also define the [*direct limit*]{} $f^\8$ of $F$ as a morphism in ${{\mathscr G}}$ from $X^\8$ to $Y^\8$, denoted as $$f^\8=\limra F$$ such that for any $a\in A$, $f^\8 p_a=q_{f(a)}f_a$. By a simple observation of the direct limit of direct systems, one can obtain the uniqueness of direct limit of $F$.
Referring to [@Eil], with a slight extension, we have the following conclusions:
$F\sim G$ implies $\disp\limra F=\limra G$.
Let $F:X^*\ra Y^*$ and $G:Y^*\ra Z^*$. Then $\disp\limra(GF)=\limra G\limra F$.
$\disp\limra 1_{X^*}=1_{X^\8}$.
If $X^*\sim Y^*$, then $X^\8$ and $Y^\8$ are equivalent in ${{\mathscr G}}$.By this observation, $\disp\limra$ is indeed a covariant functor from Dir-${{\mathscr G}}$ to ${{\mathscr G}}$.
Concerning the cofinality, we have the following consequence. \[t2.1\][@Eil] Let $A'$ be cofinal in $A$, $X^*$ a direct system over $A$, ${X'}^*$ the subsystem over $A'$ of $X^*$ and $I:{X'}^*\ra X^*$ the inclusion morphism. Then $\disp i^\8=\limra I$ is an isomorphism from ${X'}^\8$ to $X^\8$.
All the conclusions about direct systems and direct limits above also hold for inverse systems and inverse limits [@Eil; @Mar2].
Compact Hausdorff Shape
=======================
In order to introduce the compact Hausdorff shape of an arbitrary Hausdorff space, like the process of the definition of compactly generated shape by Rubin and Sanders [@Rub], we first introduce the definition of a compact Hausdorff system. We adopt the notations of Mardešić and Segal in [@Mar2]. The reader is supposed to be familiar with homotopy and homology theory.
To define the compact Hausdorff shape, we need to present the categories of direct systems of compact Hausdorff spaces. By a map $\vp:X\ra Y$ between Hausdorff spaces $X$ and $Y$, we also mean $\vp$ is continuous.
Let HCpt be the category of compact Hausdorff spaces, whose objects are compact Hausdorff spaces and whose morphisms are homotopy classes of maps between compact Hausdorff spaces. Then by the process given in Section \[s2\], we obtain the category, dir-HCpt, of direct systems in HCpt. We call a direct system in HCpt a [*HCpt-system*]{} and any morphism of HCpt-systems a [*HCpt-morphism*]{}. We always use $[\vp]$ to denote the homotopy class of a map $\vp$, and call such a homotopy class a [*homotopy map*]{}.
In the category dir-HCpt, the equivalence relation of two HCpt-morphisms $F=([f_a],f)$, $G=([g_a],g):\,X^*\ra Y^*$ is often said to be [*homotopy equivalence*]{}, denoted especially by $F\simeq G$. When $F\simeq G:X^*\ra Y^*$, we say $F$ is [*homotopic to*]{} $G$ from $X^*$ to $Y^*$, or $F$ and $G$ are [*homotopic*]{}.
Thus we can induce the category Dir-HCpt, whose objects are the same as dir-HCpt and whose morphisms are homotopy equivalence classes of HCpt-morphisms. If two direct systems $X^*$ and $Y^*$ are equivalent in Dir-HCpt, they are said to have the same [*homotopy type*]{}, denoted by $X^*\simeq Y^*$. The equivalence class of systems $X^*$ in Dir-HCpt is called the [*homotopy class*]{} of $X^*$, denoted by $[X^*]$.
Let $X$ be a Hausdorff space. Consider the family $c(X)$ of all compact subsets of $X$ ordered by inclusion, i.e., $K\leq K'$ whenever $K\ss K'\ss X$. Let $$C(X)=\{K,\,[i_{KK'}],\,c(X)\}$$ be a system in dir-HCpt such that $K\in c(X)$ and if $K\ss K'$, then $i_{KK'}$ is the inclusion map from $K$ into $K'$. We say $C(X)$ is the [*HCpt-system associated with*]{} $X$.
Now we may present the main definition as follows.
\[d3.1\] (Shape) Let $X$ and $Y$ be Hausdorff spaces, and $C(X)$ and $C(Y)$ the corresponding associated systems. Let $F:C(X)\ra C(Y)$ and $G:C(Y)\ra C(X)$ be HCpt-morphisms. If $GF\simeq1_{C(X)}$, we say $X$ is [*shape dominated*]{} by $Y$. Moreover, when $FG\simeq1_{C(Y)}$, we say $X$ and $Y$ have the same [*(compact Hausdorff) shape*]{}, written by ${\rm Sh}(X)={\rm Sh}(Y)$, and $F$ or $G$ is called a [*shape equivalence*]{}, where $1_{X^*}:\,X^*\ra X^*$ is the identity morphism in dir-HCpt.
For the readers’ convenience, we recall the ANR-shape ([@Mar3]) and H-shape ([@Rub]) below. The reader can omit it if he or she is familiar with these definitions.
ANR-shape is defined for a metric space $X$, which can be always embedded into some ANR (absolute neighborhood retract) $P$ as a subspace. The open neighborhoods of $X$ in $P$ construct an inverse system $X^*$ with the ordering $U\leq V$ and the homotopy class of the inclusion map $V\ra U$ as the morphism $i_{UV}$ whenever $V\ss U$. Two metric spaces $X$ and $Y$ have the same [*ANR-shape*]{} provided that the inverse systems $X^*$ and $Y^*$ associated with $X$ and $Y$, respectively, are homotopy equivalent in the category of inverse systems of ANRs. An equivalence class of the morphisms $X^*$ to $Y^*$ is called a [*shape map*]{} from $X$ to $Y$. H-shape is defined for a Hausdorff space $X$. The definition is almost the same with our shape defined in Definition \[d3.1\], except the homotopy maps used in this paper replaced by shape maps presented above.
To distinguish with the ANR-shape (denoted by ${\rm Sh}_{\rm ANR}$) and H-shape (denoted by ${\rm Sh}_{\rm H}$), we call such a new type of shape in Definition \[d3.1\] to be [*compact Hausdorff shape*]{} ([*CH-shape*]{} for short), denoted by ${\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}$. We denote the CH-shape simply by ${\rm Sh}$ if there is no confusion. In the following sections we will define the corresponding shape of pointed Hausdorff spaces and Hausdorff space pairs via similar processes; in each case we will only use ${\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(\cdot)$ or ${\rm Sh}(\cdot)$ to denote the corresponding shape and their differences depend on the space type in the parentheses.
Note that we have in fact determined a new shape category whose objects are Hausdorff spaces and $\mb{Mor}(X,Y)$ is the set of all homotopy classes of morphisms from $C(X)$ to $C(Y)$ in dir-HCpt. We call such a shape category the [*CH-shape category*]{} and denote it by CH-Sh.
In topological spaces, we have topological sum and product of spaces. As for our CH-shape, we can also define the sum and product of CH-shapes of Hausdorff spaces $X^a$, $a\in A$ is the index, such that $$\sum_{a\in A}{\rm Sh}(X^a)={\rm Sh}\(\sum_{a\in A}X^a\)$$ $$\mb{and}\hs \prod_{a\in A}{\rm Sh}(X^a)={\rm Sh}\(\prod_{a\in A} X^a\).$$ The related definitions are similar to Rubin and Sanders’ work in [@Rub], and hence we omit the details.
Basic Properties of CH-shape
============================
Homotopy invariance
-------------------
We first consider the homotopy properties of CH-shape. Let $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ be Hausdorff spaces. We denote the unit interval $[0,1]$ by $I$. Similarly to the results of H-shape in [@Rub], we have the following theorems.
\[t4.1\] A map $\vp:X\ra Y$ induces a morphism $F:C(X)\ra C(Y)=\{L,[j_{LL'}],c(Y)\}$ in dir-HCpt, such that if $\vp,\,\psi:X\ra Y$ are homotopic maps, denoted by $\vp\simeq\psi$, then $F\simeq G:C(X)\ra C(Y)$, where $G$ is induced by $\psi$.
Since $\vp$ is continuous, for any $K\in c(X)$, $\vp(K)\in c(Y)$. We define $f:\,c(X)\ra c(Y)$ and $f_{K}:K\ra f(K)$ for each $K\in c(X)$ such that $f(K)=\vp(K)$ and $f_K=\vp|_{K}$. Then for any $K$, $K'\in c(X)$ with $K\ss K'$, we have $f(K)\ss f(K')$ and $$[j_{f(K)f(K')}]\circ[f_{K}]=[j_{\vp(K)\vp(K')}\circ\vp|_{K}]=[\vp|_{K'}\circ i_{KK'}]=[f_{K'}]\circ[i_{KK'}],$$ which indicates that $F{{\triangleq}}([f_{K}],f): C(X)\ra C(Y)$ is a morphism in dir-HCpt.
For $\phi\simeq\psi:X\ra Y$, we denote $G=([g_k],g)$ as the induced morphism by $\psi$. Let $H:\,X\X I\ra Y$ be a homotopy between $\vp$ and $\psi$, i.e., $H(\cdot,0)=f$ and $H(\cdot,1)=g$. For an arbitrary $K\in c(X)$, defining $L=H(K,I)$, one has $L\in c(Y)$. Obviously, $f(K)$, $g(K)\ss L$ and $$j_{\vp(K)L}\circ\vp|_K\simeq j_{\psi(K)L}\circ\psi|_K:\,K\ra L.$$ Then $$[j_{f(K)L}]\circ[f_K]=[j_{\vp(K)L}\circ\vp|_K]=[j_{\psi(K)L}\circ\psi|_K]=[j_{g(K)L}]\circ[g_K].$$ This means $F\simeq G:C(X)\ra C(Y)$ and completes the proof.
\[t4.2\] Let $C(X)$, $C(Y)$ and $C(Z)$ be the systems associated with $X$, $Y$ and $Z$, respectively. If $F:C(X)\ra C(Y)$, $G:C(Y)\ra C(Z)$ are morphisms induced by $\vp:X\ra Y$ and $\psi:Y\ra Z$, respectively, then $GF:C(X)\ra X(Z)$ is induced by $\psi\vp:X\ra Z$. The identity morphism $1_{C(X)}:C(X)\ra C(X)$ is induced by the identity $1_X:X\ra X$.
Theorem \[t4.1\] and \[t4.2\] imply that the shape is a homotopy invariant.
(Homotopy invariance) Let $X$ and $Y$ be two Hausdorff spaces and $X\simeq Y$. Then ${\rm Sh}(X)={\rm Sh}(Y)$.
The CH-shape ${\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}$ is indeed a covariant functor from HCpt to CH-Sh.
Relation with other homotopy invariants
---------------------------------------
Generally speaking, CH-shape differs from the other types of shape such as ANR-shape ([@Mar3]), H-shape ([@Rub]) and the intrinsic shape by proximate approach ([@Shek4]). But by the replacement of shape maps ([@Mar3]) in [@Rub] into homotopy maps in this present paper, we have the following implication.
\[t4.3\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be Hausdorff spaces. If ${\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(X)={\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(Y)$, then ${\rm Sh}_{\rm H}(X)={\rm Sh}_{\rm H}(Y)$.Since ${\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(X)={\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(Y)$, we have $F=([f_K],f):C(X)\ra C(Y)$ and $G=([g_L],g):C(Y)\ra C(X)$ such that \[4.1\]GF1\_[C(X)]{}FG1\_[C(Y)]{}.
By the shape theory in [@Mar3], ${\rm Sh}_{\rm ANR}$ is actually a covariant functor from HCpt to (ANR-)Sh(Cpt), where (ANR-)Sh(Cpt) is the ANR-shape category of compact Hausdorff spaces.
Thus we obtain two CS-morphism $F'=(\ol{f}_K,f)$ and $G'=(\ol{g}_L,g)$ between two CS-systems (see, [@Rub]) ${{\mathcal C}}(X)=\{K,\ol{i}_{KK'},c(X)\}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}(Y)=\{L,\ol{j}_{LL'},c(Y)\}$, where we use $\ol{\vp}:={\rm Sh}_{\rm ANR}([\vp])$ to denote the shape map induced by the homotopy map $[\vp]$. Concerning the definition of homotopy equivalence for HCpt-systems, we perform ${\rm Sh}_{\rm ANR}$ on (\[4.1\]), and then we immediately obtain $$G'F'\simeq 1_{{{\mathcal C}}(X)}\Hs\mb{and}\Hs F'G'\simeq 1_{{{\mathcal C}}(Y)}.$$ The proof is finished.
Now we consider the relation of CH-shape and homotopy type. For this we need to recall the concept of ‘CS-cofinality’ (see, [@Rub]), a specific version of cofinality in the coverings of Hausdorff spaces. A covering ${{\mathcal F}}$ of a Hausdorff space $X$ is said to be [*CS-cofinal*]{} if there is a function $g:c(X)\ra{{\mathcal F}}$ such that (1) if $K\in c(X)$, then $K\ss g(K)$, (2) if $K,\,K'\in c(X)$ and $K\ss K'$, then $g(K)\ss g(K')$.
For ${{\mathcal F}}$ being a compact CS-cofinal covering of $X$, we denote $F^*=\{F,[i_{FF'}],{{\mathcal F}}\}$ be the HCpt-system, where ${{\mathcal F}}$ is directed by inclusion and if $F\ss F'$, then $i_{FF'}:F\ra F'$ is the inclusion map. It is clear that $F^*\simeq C(X)$. If additionally $X$ is compact, we can consider only the special HCpt-system $X^*=\{X,[1_X]\}$, where the index set is a singleton. Then $\{X\}$ itself as a covering of $X$, is CS-cofinal and $X^*\simeq C(X)$.
The following theorem implies that, in a sense, CH-shape is stronger than H-shape but weaker than homotopy type.
\[t4.4\] If $X$ and $Y$ are compact Hausdorff spaces, then $X\simeq Y$ if and only if ${\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(X)={\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(Y)$.
It is sufficient to show that ${\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(X)={\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(Y)$ implies $X\simeq Y$. Since both $X$ and $Y$ are compact, we can pick two special HCpt-systems $X^*=\{X,[1_X]\}$ and $Y^*=\{Y,[1_Y]\}$ corresponding to $X$ and $Y$, respectively. Then $X^*\simeq C(X)$ and $Y^*\simeq C(Y)$. Let $F:C(X)\ra C(Y)$ be the CH-shape equivalence. By taking the composition of CH-shape equivalences as follows $$X^*\ra C(X)\stac{F}{\ra}C(Y)\ra Y^*,$$ we have a CH-shape equivalence $H:X^*\ra Y^*$. One sees $H$ is indeed a homotopy map $[h]:X\ra Y$ for some map $h:X\ra Y$. Associated with $H$ there is a CH-shape equivalence $H':Y^*\ra X^*$, which also possesses only one homotopy map $[h']:Y\ra X$ for some $h'$. Moreover, $[hh']=[1_Y]$ and $[h'h]=[1_X]$, which proves $X\simeq Y$.
Since H-shape and ANR-shape are equivalent for some compact Hausdorff spaces (see, [@Rub]), one can easily deduce from Theorem \[t4.4\] that ANR-shape is CH-shape invariant for compact Hausdorff spaces.
Homotopy groups are CH-shape invariant {#s4.3}
--------------------------------------
Another important homotopy invariant is homotopy groups. Actually, homotopy groups are the CH-shape invariants. To explain this, we need to consider the pointed Hausdorff spaces and the homotopy category of pointed compact Hausdorff spaces, denoted by HCpt$_*$, whose objects are pointed compact Hausdorff spaces and whose morphisms are homotopy maps between pointed Hausdorff spaces. Then we can similarly define HCpt$_*$-systems, HCpt$_*$-morphisms, dir-HCpt$_*$, homotopy equivalences and Dir-HCpt$_*$.
As for an arbitrary pointed Hausdorff space $(X,x)$, the collection of all the compact subsets of $(X,x)$ is denoted by $c(X,x)$ and the HCpt$_*$-system associated with $(X,x)$ is $$C(X,\,x)=\{(K,\,x),\,[i_{KK'}],\,c(X,\,x)\},$$ where if $K\ss K'$, then $i_{KK'}:(K,x)\ra(K',x)$ is the inclusion map. In a similar manner, one can determine that two pointed Hausdorff spaces $(X,\,x)$ and $(Y,\,y)$ have the same CH-shape, denoted by ${\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(X,x)={\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(Y,y)$, if $[C(X,x)]=[C(Y,y)]$ in Dir-HCpt$_*$.
As is know to all, given a pointed Hausdorff space $(X,x)$, one has a homotopy group $\pi_n(X,x)$ for each $n\in\N$. Indeed the operation $\pi_n$ can be seen as a covariant functor from HCpt$_*$ to ${{\mathscr G}}$, since for the homotopy groups, $f\simeq g:(X,x)\ra(Y,y)$ implies $f_n=g_n:\pi_n(X,x)\ra\pi_n(Y,y)$. Thus each HCpt$_*$-system $X^*=\{(X_a,x_a),[p_{aa'}],A\}$ induces for each $n\in\N$ a direct system in ${{\mathscr G}}$ $$\pi_n(X^*)=\{\pi_n(X_a,x_a),p_{aa'n},A\},$$ where if $a\leq a'$, then $p_{aa'n}:\pi_n(X_a,x_a)\ra\pi_n(X_{a'},x_{a'})$ is the homomorphism induced by the map $p_{aa'}$,
If $F=([f_a],f):X^*\ra Y^*$ is an HCpt$_*$-morphism, then for each $n\in\N$, $F$ induces a morphism of direct systems $\pi_n(F)=(f_{an},f):\pi_n(X^*)\ra\pi_n(Y^*)$ such that $f:A\ra B$ is an order-preserving function and if $a\in A$ then $f_{an}:\pi_n(X_a,x_a)\ra\pi_n(Y_{f(a)},y_{f(a)})$ is the homomorphism induced by $f_a:(X_a,x_a)\ra(Y_{f(a)},y_{f(a)})$. The identity HCpt$_*$-morphism $1_{X^*}:X^*\ra X^*$ induces the identity morphism of direct systems: $\pi_n(1_{X^*})=1_{\pi_n(X^*)}:\pi_n(X^*)\ra\pi_n(X^*)$ and the morphism induced by a composition is the composition of the induced morphisms. By these observations, $\pi_n$ can be generalized to be a covariant functor from the category dir-HCpt$_*$ to dir-${{\mathscr G}}$ for each $n\in\N$.
We also see that the functor $\pi_n$ preserves homotopy equivalences of morphisms and objects in dir-HCpt$_*$, (for similar results, see [@Sand1]) i.e., for each $n\in\N$,
if $F\simeq G:X^*\ra Y^*$, then $\pi_n(F)\simeq\pi_n(G):\pi_n(X^*)\ra\pi_n(Y^*)$;
if $X^*\simeq Y^*$, then $\pi_n(X^*)\simeq\pi_n(Y^*)$.
With these preparations, we have the following consequence: \[t4.8\] Let $(X,x)$ and $(Y,y)$ be two Hausdorff spaces. If ${\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(X,x)={\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(Y,y)$, then $\pi_n(X,x)\approx\pi_n(Y,y)$ for any $n\in\N$.Corresponding to the systems $C(X,x)$ and $C(Y,y)=\{(L,y),[i_{LL'}],c(Y,y)\}$, one has two direct systems of homotopy groups: $$\pi_n(C(X,x))=(\pi_n(K,x),i_{KK'n},c(X,x))$$$$\mb{and}\hs \pi_n(C(Y,y))=(\pi_n(L,y),j_{LL'n},c(Y,y)),$$ where $i_{KK'n}:\pi_n(K,x)\ra\pi_n(K',x)$ and $j_{LL'n}:\pi_n(L,y)\ra\pi_n(L',y)$ are induced by $i_{KK'}$ and $j_{LL'}$, respectively. Let $F=([f_K],f):C(X,x)\ra C(Y,y)$ be a CH-shape equivalence. We have also $\pi_n(F)=(f_{Kn},f)$ such that $f_{Kn}:\pi_n(K,x)\ra\pi_n(f(K),y)$ (Note $f_K(x)=y$ for all $(K,x)\in c(X,x)$) is induced by $f_K$.
By the properties of CH-shape, functors $\pi_n$ and $\disp\limra$, it suffices to show $$\limra\pi_n(C(X,x))=\pi_n(X,x).$$ Indeed, for $(K,x)\in c(X,x)$, let $i_{Kn}:\pi_n(K,x)\ra\pi_n(X,x)$ be the homomorphism induced by the inclusion $i_K:(K,x)\ra(X,x)$. Then for any $(K,x)\ss(K',x)$, $$i_{Kn}=i_{K'n}i_{KK'n},$$ which is induced by the equation of inclusions $i_{K}=i_{K'}i_{KK'}$.
Now, we show for any group $G$ with homomorphisms $p_{Kn}:\pi_n(K,x)\ra G$ such that $p_{Kn}=p_{K'n}i_{KK'n}$ for $(K,x)\ss(K',x)$, there is a unique homomorphism $\sig:\pi_n(X,x)\ra G$ such that \[4.2\]i\_[Kn]{}=p\_[Kn]{}.Suppose $[f]\in\pi_n(X,x)$ has a representative $f:(S^n,1)\ra(X,x)$. Let $K=f(S^n)$ and $f':(S^n,1)\ra(K,x)$ such that $f'(y)=f(y)$ for any $y\in S^n$. Then $(K,x)\in c(X,x)$ and $[f']\in\pi_n(K,x)$. Now we set $$\sig[f]=p_{Kn}[f'].$$
We first verify $\sig$ is a well-defined. Indeed, if $f$, $g:(S^n,1)\ra(X,x)$ satisfy $[f]=[g]$, let $h:(S^n,1)\X I\ra (X,x)$ be a homotopy between $f$ and $g$, $K'=g(S^n)$, $K''=h(S^n\X I)$ and $g':(S^n,1)\ra(K',x)$ defined by $g$. One has $K\cup K'\ss K''$ and $i_{KK''}f'\simeq i_{K'K''}g':(S^n,1)\ra(K'',x)$. Then, $$\ba{rl}\sig[f]&=p_{Kn}[f']=p_{K''n}i_{KK''n}[f']\\&=p_{K''n}[i_{KK''}f']=p_{K''n}[i_{K'K''}g']\\&=p_{K''n}i_{K'K''n}[g']=p_{K'n}[g']\\&=\sig[g].\ea$$ Every $[f]\in\pi_n(K,x)$ for some $(K,x)\in c(X,x)$ has a representative $f:(S^n,1)\ra(K,x)$. Then $[i_{K}f]\in\pi_n(X,x)$ and $f$ is defined by $i_{K}f$. Thus we have $$\sig i_{Kn}[f]=\sig[i_Kf]=p_{Kn}[f],$$ which confirms (\[4.2\]).
Then we show $\sig$ is a homomorphism. Let $f$, $g:(S^n,1)\ra(X,x)$, $K=f(S^n)$, $K'=g(S^n)$ and $K''=f*g(S^n)$, where $*$ is the multiplication. Denote $f'$ and $g'$ as before defined by $f$ and $g$ respectively. Then $i_{KK''}f'*i_{K'K''}g':(S^n,1)\ra(K'',x)$ is defined by $f*g$. Thus $$\ba{rl}\sig[f*g]&=p_{K''n}[i_{KK''}f'*i_{K'K''}g']\\&=p_{K''n}[i_{KK''}f']*p_{K''n}[i_{K'K''}g']\\
&=p_{K''n}i_{KK''n}[f']*p_{K''n}i_{K'K''n}[g']\\
&=p_{Kn}[f']*p_{K'n}[g']\\
&=\sig[f]*\sig[g].\ea$$
Finally, $\sig$ is unique. Suppose there is another homomorphism $\tau:\pi_n(X,x)\ra G$ satisfying (\[4.2\]) with $\sig$ replaced by $\tau$. Then for any $[f]\in\pi_n(X,x)$, let $f$ be its representative and $K=f(S^n)$. Set $f':(S^n,1)\ra(K,x)$ as defined by $f$. Then $$\tau[f]=\tau[i_Kf']=\tau i_{Kn}[f']=p_{Kn}[f']=\sig i_{Kn}[f']=\sig[f],$$ which guarantees $\tau=\sig$ and completes the proof.
CH-Shape (Co)homology Groups
============================
In this section we develop the (co)homology theory for the CH-shape. And this is a significant property of CH-shape better than H-shape described in Section 1.
Necessarily we consider a Hausdorff space pair $(X,X_0)$, i.e., $X_0$ is a subset of Hausdorff space $X$ and $X_0\ss X$, and maps between Hausdorff space pairs $f:(X,X_0)\ra(Y,Y_0)$, which is defined as a map from $X$ to $Y$ such that $f(X_0)\ss Y_0$. Two continuous maps $f$, $g:(X,X_0)\ra(Y,Y_0)$ are said to be homotopy equivalent, if $f\simeq g:X\ra Y$ and the image of $X_0$ is contained in $Y_0$ all the time along the homotopy. A compact Hausdorff space pair $(X,X_0)$ means that both $X$ and $X_0$ are compact.
By setting the homotopy identity $[1_{(X,X_0)}]$ and composition in the usual way, we can construct a homotopy category of compact Hausdorff space pairs, denoted by HCpt$^2$, whose objects are compact Hausdorff space pairs and whose morphisms are the homotopy maps between them. Similarly to the single space case, the definitions of HCpt$^2$-system, HCpt$^2$-morphism and the category dir-HCpt$^2$ are naturally given, as well as the homotopy equivalence for HCpt$^2$-morphisms and the category Dir-HCpt$^2$.
Singular homology groups are Ch-shape invariant
-----------------------------------------------
As is well-known, each Hausdorff space pair $(X,X_0)$ has a relative homology group $H_n(X,X_0;G)$ for each $n\in\N$, where $G$ is the coefficient group that is abelian. Now consider a HCpt$^2$-system $X^*=\{(X_a,X_{0a}),[p_{aa'}],A\}$. Then given an abelian group $G$, similar to [@Mar2], since the homotopy maps induce the same homomorphism between singular homology groups, we define $$H_n(X^*;G)=\{H_n(X_a,X_{0a};G),p_{aa'n},A\}$$ to be a direct system in the category of groups, where if $a\leq a'$ then $$p_{aa'n}:H_n(X_a,X_{0a};G)\ra H_n(X_{a'},X_{0a'};G)$$ is the homomorphism induced by $p_{aa'}$, as in [@Hat]. We often omit the group symbol $G$ in the following, writing simply $H_n(X^*)$, $H_n(X_a,X_{0a})$.
Consider the HCpt$^2$-morphism $F=([f_a],f):X^*\ra Y^*$. We can naturally obtain for each $n\in\N$, a morphism of direct systems $$H_n(F)=(f_{an},f):H_n(X^*)\ra H_n(Y^*)$$ defined such that $f:A\ra B$ is an order-preserving map and if $a\in A$ then $$f_{an}:H_n(X_a,X_{0a})\ra H_n(Y_{f(a)},Y_{0f(a)})$$ is induced by the map $f_a:(X_a,X_{0a})\ra(Y_{f(a)},Y_{0f(a)})$. Thus, the identity map $1_{X^*}$ induces the identity morphism $H_n(1_{X^*})=1_{H_n(X^*)}$ for each $n\in\N$; the morphism induced by a composition is the composition of the induced morphisms, i.e., $H_n(FG)=H_n(F)H_n(G)$. This defines a covariant functor $H_n$ from the category dir-HCpt$^2$ to dir-${{\mathscr G}}$ for each $n\in\N$. \[t6.1\] The functor $H_n$ preserves homotopy, i.e., if $F\simeq G:X^*\ra Y^*$, then $H_n(F)\simeq H_n(G):H_n(X^*)\ra H_n(Y^*)$, $n\in\N$.
The proof is as in Theorem 2.1 in [@Sand1] with the functor $\pi$ therein replaced by $H_n$. We omit the details.\[co6.1\] If $X^*\simeq Y^*$, then $H_n(X^*)\simeq H_n(Y^*)$, $n\in\N$.
It follows immediately from Corollary \[co6.1\] that the functor $H_n:\mb{dir-HCpt}^2\ra\mb{dir-}{{\mathscr G}}$ induces a functor $[H_n]:\mb{Dir-HCpt}^2\ra\mb{Dir-}{{\mathscr G}}$ for each $n\in\N$.
Now we consider a Hausdorff space pair $(X,X_0)$. A compact Hausdorff subspace pair of $(X,X_0)$ is a Hausdorff space pair $(K,K_0)$ such that $K$, $K_0$ are compact subsets of $X$, $K_0\ss K\ss X$ and $K_0\ss X_0$. All the compact Hausdorff subspace pairs construct a directed set $c(X,X_0)$ such that $(K,K_0)\leq(K',K'_0)$ implies $(K,K_0)\ss(K',K'_0)$, i.e., $K\ss K'$ and $K_0\ss K'_0$. Associated with $(X,X_0)$ we have a HCpt$^2$-system \[6.4\]C(X,X\_0)={(K,K\_0),\[i\_[(K,K\_0)(K’,K’\_0)]{}\],c(X,X\_0)},where if $(K,K_0)\leq(K',K'_0)$ then $i_{(K,K_0)(K',K'_0)}$ is the inclusion map from $(K,K_0)$ to $(K',K'_0)$. Notice that these settings are almost the same as those of homotopy groups in Subsection \[s4.3\]. Similarly we have the following result: \[t5.3\] If ${\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(X,X_0)={\rm Sh}_{\rm CH}(Y,Y_0)$, then $H_n(X,X_0)\approx H_n(Y,Y_0)$ for each $n\in\N$.
One can prove Theorem \[t5.3\] as the process given in the proof of Theorem \[t4.8\]. Also one can refer to this result in [@Hat] as follows, and Theorem \[t5.3\] follows immediately from it.
\[p6.1\][@Hat] If a space $X$ is the union of a directed set of subspaces $X_a$ with the property that each compact set in $X$ is contained in some $X_a$, then the natural homomorphism $\disp\limra H_n(X_a;G)\ra H_n(X;G)$ is an isomorphism for all $n\in\N^+$ and coefficient groups $G$.
Shape cohomology groups
-----------------------
Now that we have given the conclusion on the homology property of CH-shape, it is natural to consider the corresponding cohomology groups. However the cohomology groups concerning CH-shape has no such good properties.
Since we have a relative cohomology group $H^n(X,X_0)$ for each $n\in\N$ and each Hausdorff space pair $(X,X_0)$, similar to the homology case, each HCpt$^2$-system $X^*=\{(X_a,X_{0a}),[p_{aa'}],A\}$ corresponds to an inverse system in the category of groups $$H^n(X^*)=\{H^n(X_a,X_{0a}),p_{aa'}^n,A\},$$ where $p_{aa'}^n:H^n(X_{a'},X_{0a'})\ra H^n(X_a,X_{0a})$. Given an HCpt$^2$-morphism $$F=([f_a],f):X^*\ra Y^*=\{Y_b,[q_{bb'}],B\},$$ we have for each $n\in\N$, an induced morphism of inverse systems $$H^n(F)=(f_a^n,f):H^n(Y^*)\ra H^n(X^*)$$ such that $f_a$ induces $f_a^n:H^n(Y_{f(a)},Y_{0f(a)})\ra H^n(X_a,X_{0a})$ and $p^n_{aa'}f_{a'}^n=f_a^n q_{f(a)f(a')}^n$.
Define $H^n(1_{X^*})=1_{H^n(X^*)}$ to be induced by $1_{X^*}$ and the morphism induced by a composition as the composition of induced morphisms, i.e., $H^n(FG)\!=\!H^n(G)H^n(F)$. Thus one obtains a contravariant functor from dir-HCpt$^2$ to dir-${{\mathscr G}}$.
Similarly, for any $n\in\N$,
the functor $H^n$ preserves homotopy; and
$H^n(X^*)\simeq H^n(Y^*)$ whenever $X^*\simeq Y^*$.
Now we consider a Hausdorff space pair $(X,X_0)$ whose associated HCpt$^2$-system is $C(X,X_0)$ written as (\[6.4\]). Then we define the [*$n$-th CH-shape cohomology group*]{} of $(X,X_0)$ as $$\hat H^n(X,X_0)=\limla H^n(C(X,X_0)),$$ where $\disp\limla$ is the inverse limit, see [@Mar2]. Here we use the symbol to indicate the duality to that obtained in the inverse system approach given by Mardešić and Segal [@Mar2], where they use in commemoration of Čech.
With the properties of inverse limits, similar to the case of CH-shape homology groups, we can define the [*induced homomorphism*]{} $\hat\vp^n:\hat H^n(Y,Y_0)\ra\hat H^n(X,X_0)$ of the CH-shape cohomology groups from the continuous map $\vp:(X,X_0)\ra(Y,Y_0)$, and the [*coboundary homomorphism*]{} $\hat\de^n$ from $\hat H^n(X_0)$ to $\hat H^n(X,X_0)$ for each $n\in\N$.
Disappointingly, the CH-shape cohomology group is not always isomorphic to the singular cohomology group for an arbitrary Hausdorff space. But when $(X,X_0)$ is a compact Hausdorff space pair, $(X,X_0)$ itself is a CS-cofinal subset of $c(X,X_0)$. Then by the equivalence of $\{(X,X_0),[1_{(X,X_0)}]\}$ and $C(X,X_0)$ in dir-HCpt$^2$, one easily sees $H^n(X,X_0)$ and $\hat H^n(X,X_0)$ are isomorphic, since isomorphisms of inverse systems induce isomorphisms of inverse limits, see [@Eil; @Mar2]. Similarly to the case of homology groups, we have the following consequence. For a compact Hausdorff space pair, CH-shape cohomology theory and singular cohomology theory coincide.
For the general case, one can check Eilenberg and Steenrod’s seven axioms for CH-shape cohomology groups. Using the theory of inverse systems, one can verify the axioms are perfectly satisfied trivially except the naturality axiom, excision axiom and exactness axiom. In particular, the CH-shape may not satisfy the exactness axiom generally. In the following we check the naturality and excision axioms:
[**Naturality Axiom:**]{} If $\vp:(X,X_0)\ra(Y,Y_0)$ is a map, then \[6.1\]\^n\^[n+1]{}=\^[n+1]{}\^n.
[**Excision Axiom:**]{} If $(X,X_0)$ is a Hausdorff space pair, and an open subset $W$ of $X$ satisfies $\ol{W}\ss{\rm int}X_0$, then the homomorphism $$\hat i^n:\hat H^n(X,X_0)\ra\hat H^n(X\sm W,X_0\sm W)$$ induced by the inclusion $i:(X\sm W,X_0\sm W)\ra(X,X_0)$ is a isomorphism.
The CH-shape cohomology groups satisfy the naturality axiom.Given $\vp$ and $\vp|_{X_0}$, we can define $F=([f_{(K,K_0)}],f):C(X,X_0)\ra C(Y,Y_0)$ and $G=([g_{K_0}],g):C(X_0)\ra C(Y_0)$. Correspondingly we have $$H^n(F)=(f_{(K,K_0)}^n,f): H^n(C(X,X_0))\ra H^n(C(Y,Y_0))$$ $$\mb{and }\;H^n(G)=(g_{K_0}^n,g): H^n(C(X_0))\ra H^n(C(Y_0))$$ for each $n\in\N$. In the consideration of boundary homomorphism, we have the following morphisms for each $n\in\N^+$, $$\De^n_X=(\de_{(K,K_0)}^n,\phi):H^{n}(C(X_0))\ra H^{n+1}(C(X,X_0))$$ $$\mb{and }\;\De^n_Y=(\de_{(L,L_0)}^n,\phi):H^{n}(C(Y_0))\ra H^{n+1}(C(Y,Y_0)),$$ where $\phi$ maps a pair to the second component, i.e., $\phi((K,K_0))=K_0$. To check the naturality axiom (\[6.1\]), it suffices to check \[6.2\]\_X\^n H\^[n+1]{}(G)H\^[n+1]{}(F)\_Y\^n[[G]{}]{}.
Indeed, given any $(K,K_0)\in c(X,X_0)$, by the naturality axiom of singular cohomology groups, we have the following commutative diagram:
(0,80) (150,65)[(-1,0)[70]{}]{} (150,8)[(-1,0)[70]{}]{} (43,15)[(0,1)[43]{}]{} (180,15)[(0,1)[43]{}]{} (98,70)[$f_{(K,K_0)}^n$]{} (108,-1)[$g_{K_0}^n$]{} (19,62)[$H^n(K,K_0)$]{} (156,62)[$H^n(\vp(K),\vp(K_0))$]{} (19,5)[$H^{n+1}(K_0)$]{} (156,5)[$H^{n+1}(\vp(K_0))$]{} (10,33)[$\de_{(K,K_0)}^n$]{} (185,33)[$\de_{(\vp(K),\vp(K_0))}^n$]{}
Note also $\phi f=g\phi$. (\[6.2\]) is a trivial deduction.
\[t6.1A\] The CH-shape cohomology groups satisfy the excision axiom.
To show Theorem \[t6.1A\], we need the following result. \[p6.2\] ([@Eil]) Let $X_*$ and $Y_*$ be two inverse systems over directed sets $A$ and $B$ and $F=(f_b,f):X_*\ra Y_*$ be a morphism. If there is a directed subset $B'$ of $B$ such that (i) $B'$ is cofinal in $B$, (ii) $f(B)$ is cofinal in $A$, and (iii) $f_b$ is a isomorphism of $X_{f(b)}\ra Y_b$ for each $b\in B'$. Then $\disp f_{\8}=\limla F$ is an isomorphism from $X_\8$ to $Y_\8$.
[*Proof of Theorem \[t6.1A\].*]{}First let $A=c(X,X_0)$, $B=c(X\sm W,X_0\sm W)$ and $f:A\ra B$ such that $f((K,K_0))=(K\sm W,K_0\sm W)$. Then give any $b\in B$ a new index $b_a$ when $f(a)=b$. Thus we have a new directed set $C=B_A=\{b_a:b\in B,\,a\in A\mb{ and }f(a)=b\}$ where if $a\leq a'$ then $(f(a))_a\leq(f(a'))_{a'}$. Let $A^*_W=\{c,[q_{cc'}],C\}$ be a new HCpt$^2$-system, where if $c\leq c'$ then $q_{cc'}$ is the inclusion map.
Note that any $b_a\in C$ is actually $b$ itself with an index $a$. We define a map $g:B\ra C$ such that $g(b)=b_b$ and identities $g_b=1_b$, which form a morphism $G=([g_b],g):C(X\sm W,X_0\sm W)\ra A_W^*$. Then considering the singular homology group, we have a morphism in inv-${{\mathscr G}}$ for each $n\in\N$: $$H^n(G)=(g^n_b,g):H^n(A_W^*)\ra H^n(C(X\sm W,X_0\sm W)),$$ where $g^n_b:H^n(g(b))\ra H^n(b)$ is induced by the identity $g_b$ and hence is isomorphic for all $n\in\N$ and $b\in B$.
Trivially $g(B)$ is cofinal in $C$, and one can apply Proposition \[p6.2\] and obtain that $$\hat g^n=\limla H^n(G):\limla H^n(A_W^*)\ra\hat H^n(X\sm W,X_0\sm W).$$ is an isomorphism.
By the construction above, one easily sees if we set $j:C\ra A$ with $j((f(a))_a)=a$ then $j$ is an order isomorphism from $C$ to $A$, and hence the inverse map $j^{-1}$ is also an order isomorphism. Moreover, we define $j_{b_a}=i_{ba}$ to be the inclusion of $b=f(a)$ into $a$. Then we obtain a morphism $J=([j_c],j):A_W^*\ra C(X,X_0)$, which induces a morphism in inv-${{\mathscr G}}$ for $n\in\N$, $$H^n(J)=(j_c^n,j):H^n(C(X,X_0))\ra H^n(A_W^*).$$
Now we define a directed subset ${{\mathcal A}}_W$ of $A$ as $${{\mathcal A}}_W=\{(K,K_0)\in A:K\cap\ol{W}\ss{\rm int}_KK_0\},$$ where ${\rm int}_KK_0$ means the interior of $K_0$ with respect to $K$, i.e., there is a closed subset $U$ of $X$ with $U\cap K=K_0$ such that ${\rm int}U\cap K={\rm int}_KK_0$.
[**Claim:**]{} ${{\mathcal A}}_W$ is cofinal in $A$ and $j^{-1}({{\mathcal A}}_W)$ is cofinal in $C$.
Indeed, for any $(K,K_0)\in A$, since $K$ is compact and $X$ is Hausdorff, we have $K$ is normal and hence there is an open subset $U$ in $K$ such that $$K\cap\ol{W}\ss U\ss\ol{U}\ss{\rm int}A\cap K.$$ Then set $K'_0=K_0\cup(K\cap\ol{U})$ and we have $(K,K_0)\ss(K,K'_0)\in{{\mathcal A}}_W$, which implies the cofinality of ${{\mathcal A}}_W$ in $A$. Moreover, given any $b_a\in C$, by the cofinality of ${{\mathcal A}}_W$ in $A$, we have $a'\in{{\mathcal A}}_W$ such that $a\leq a'$ and so $$b_a\leq (f(a'))_{a'}=j^{-1}(a')\in j^{-1}({{\mathcal A}}_W),$$ which guarantees the cofinality of $j^{-1}({{\mathcal A}}_W)$ in $C$ and confirms the claim.
Given any $c=b_a\in j^{-1}({{\mathcal A}}_W)$, let $a=(K,K_0)$ and $b=(K\sm W,K_0\sm W)$. Since $a\in{{\mathcal A}}_W$, by the excision property of relative singular homology groups, the induced homomorphism $$j^n_c:H^n(K,K_0)\ra H^n(K\sm W,K_0\sm W)$$ by $j_c$ is an isomorphism for each $n\in\N$. Now by the claim and Theorem \[t6.1\], we have $$\hat j^n=\limla H^n(J):\hat H^n(X,X_0)\ra\limla H^n(A_W^*)$$ is an isomorphism.
Now note $g_b$ is an identity and $j_c$ is an inclusion. It is clear that $jg:B\ra A$ is an inclusion and $j_cg_b:b\ra b$ is actually an identity, and so up to the homotopy, $JG=([j_cg_b],jg)$ is indeed the natural inclusion morphism induced by $i$. Hence we have $$\hat i^n=\limla(H^n(JG))=\limla(H^n(G)H^n(J))=\limla H^n(G)\limla H^n(J)=\hat g^n\hat j^n$$ is an isomorphism, which assures the excision axiom.
As a completion of shape theory (Mardešić and Segal [@Mar2]), CH-shape has more interesting topics (Whitehead theorem, movability, stability and so on) and applications (Morse theory, dynamical systems) worth deep studying.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The author Jintao Wang wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Professor Nikita Shekutkovski for his many helpful e-mail discussions about his research, which opened for the author the door to an abundant field of shape theory and shape-like theory.
[99]{} K. Borsuk: [*Concerning homotopy properties of compacta*]{}, Fund. Math. [**62**]{} (1968), 223-254. MR0229237 (37 \#4811) K. Borsuk: [*On the concept of shape for metrizable spaces*]{}, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. Astronom. Phys. [**18**]{} (1970), 127-132. MR0273565 (42 \#8443) K. Borsuk: [*Theory of shape*]{}, Lecture Notes Series, No. 28. Matematisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, 1971. MR0293602 (45 \#2679) J. Dydak, J. Segal: [*Shape theory: an introduction*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 688, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1978. MR0520227 (80h:54020) S. Eilenberg, N. Steenrod: [*Foundations of algebraic topology*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1952. MR0050886 (14,398b) R. Fox: [*On shape*]{}, Fund. Math. [**74**]{} (1972), no. 1, 47-71. MR0296914 (45 \#5973) A. Hatcher: [*Algebraic Topology*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002. MR1867354 (2002k:55001) J.E. Felt: [*$\epsilon$-continuity and shape*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**46**]{} (1974), 426-430. MR0362206 (50 \#14648) R.W. Kieboom: [*An intrinsic characterization of the shape of paracompacta by means of non-continuous single-valued maps*]{}, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin [**1**]{} (1994), no. 5, 701-711. MR1315365 (95k:54031) V. Klee, A. Yandl: [*Some proximate concepts in topology*]{}, Symposia Mathematica, Vol. XVI (Convegno sulla Topologia Insiemistica e Generale, INDAM, Rome, 1973), Academic Press, London (1975), 21-39. MR0397656 (53 \#1514) S. Mardešić: [*Retracts in shape theory*]{}, Glas. Mat. Ser. III [**6(26)**]{} (1971), 153-163. MR0296915 (45 \#5974) S. Mardešić, J. Segal: [*Shapes of compacta and ANR-systems*]{}, Fund. Math. [**72**]{} (1971), no. 1, 41-59. MR0298634 (45 \#7686) S. Mardešić, J. Segal: [*Shape theory. The inverse system approach*]{}, North-Holland Mathematical Library, 26. North-Holland, Amsterdam - New York, 1982. MR0676973 (84b:55020) E. Mermut: [*Exactness of Čech homology theory*]{} (doctor dissertation), DE" U Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2000. M.A. Morón, F.R.R.D. Portal: [*Multivalued maps and shape for paracompacta*]{}, Mathematica Japonica [**39**]{} (1994), no. 3, 489-500. MR1278864 (95c:54030) L. Rubin, J. Sanders: [*Compactly generated shape*]{}, Gen. Topology Appl. [**4**]{} (1974), 73-83. MR0365475 (51 \#1727) T.J. Sanders: [*Shape groups for Hausdorff spaces*]{}, Glas. Mat. Ser. III [**8(28)**]{} (1973), 297-304. MR0341388 (49 \#6139) T.J. Sanders: [*Shape groups and products*]{}, Pacific J. Math. [**48**]{} (1973), 485-496. MR0402678 (53 \#6494) T.J. Sanders: [*Compactly generated shape theories*]{}, Fund. Math. [**93**]{} (1976), no. 1, 37-40. MR0425892 (54 \#13842) T.J. Sanders: [*A Whitehead theorem in CG-shape*]{}, Fund. Math. [**113**]{} (1981), no. 2, 131-140. MR0640618 (83c:55013) J.M.R. Sanjurjo: [*A noncontinuous description of the shape category of compacta*]{}, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. [**40(2)**]{} (1989), 351-359. MR1010825 (90j:55015) J.M.R. Sanjurjo: [*An intrinsic description of shape*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**329**]{} (1992), no. 2, 625-636. MR1028311 (92e:54013) N. Shekutkovski, G. Markoski: [*Equivalence of the inverse system approach and the intrinsic approach to proper shape*]{}, God. Zb. Inst. Mat. Prir.-Mat. Fak. Univ. Kiril Metodij Skopje [**41**]{} (2008), 43-56. MR2478332 (2009i:54032) N. Shekutkovski: [*Intrinsic definition of strong shape for compact metric spaces*]{}, Topology Proc. [**39**]{} (2012), 27-39. MR2786648 (2012e:54022) N. Shekutkovski, A. Velkoska: [*One invariant of intrinsic shape*]{}, Filomat [**29**]{} (2015), no. 10, 2185-2197. MR3434159 N. Shekutkovski: [*Intrinsic shape - the proximate approach*]{}, Filomat [**29**]{} (2015), no. 10, 2199-2205. MR3434160
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We develop a theory of two-parameter quantum polynomial functors. Similar to how (strict) polynomial functors give a new interpretation of polynomial representations of the general linear groups ${\operatorname{GL}}_n$, the two-parameter polynomial functors give a new interpretation of (polynomial) representations of the quantum symmetric pair $(U_{Q,q}^B(\mathfrak{gl}_n), U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n) )$ which specializes to type AIII/AIV quantum symmetric pairs. The coideal subalgebra $U_{Q,q}^B(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ appears in a Schur-Weyl duality with the type B Hecke algebra $\mathcal H^B_{Q,q}(d)$. We endow two-parameter polynomial functors with a cylinder braided structure which we use to construct the two-parameter Schur functors. Our polynomial functors can be precomposed with the quantum polynomial functors of type A producing new examples of action pairs.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia'
- ' Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University, Box. 480, SE-75106, Uppsala, Sweden'
author:
- Valentin Buciumas
- Hankyung Ko
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: 'Polynomial functors and two-parameter quantum symmetric pairs'
---
Introduction
============
Polynomial functors are endofunctors on the category of vector spaces that are polynomial on the space of morphisms. They are related to the polynomial representations of $\operatorname{GL}_n$ in the sense that the degree $d$ polynomial functors are equivalent to the degree $d$ representation of ${\operatorname{GL}}_n$ when $n\geq d$ (this correspondence passes through the Schur algebra). Two quantizations of polynomial functors were developed by Hong and Yacobi [@HY] (first) and by the authors [@BuciumasKo1]. The first category is related to the polynomial representation theory of the quantum group ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$. The second category is related to a “higher degree” quantization of ${\operatorname{GL}}_n$ [@BuciumasKo1 Corollary 6.16]; it is more complicated than the category from [@HY] and was constructed in order to define composition of quantum polynomial functors. Composition is a natural operation on functors which is useful in performing cohomological computations. For example, it enables Friedlander and Suslin [@FS] to prove the cohomological finite generation of finite group schemes.
In the present paper we define and study $\emph{two-parameter quantum polynomial functors}$. These polynomial functors are related to the representation theory of a certain coideal subalgebra $U_{Q,q}^B$ (to be defined in Section \[coidealschurdef\]) in the same way that classical polynomial functors are related to the representation theory of ${\operatorname{GL}}_n$. Many of the properties of classical or quantum polynomial functors have (sometimes surprising) analogues for two-parameter polynomial functors, as we show in this paper.
A quantum symmetric pair is a pair of algebras $B\subset U_q(\mathfrak{g})$ where $\mathfrak{g}$ is a simple Lie algebra and $B$ is constructed from an involution $\theta$ of $\mathfrak{g}$. The subalgebra $B$ has the following property: by restricting the comultiplication $\Delta$ of $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$ to $B$, one obtains a map $\Delta: B \to B \otimes U_q(\mathfrak{g})$. The subalgebra $B$ is also called a coideal subalgebra for this reason. Such coideal subalgebras have been studied in special cases using solutions of the reflection equation by Noumi, Sugitani, and Dijkhuizen [@Noumi; @NS; @NSD] and in general by Letzter [@Letzter99; @Letzter03]. For more details about quantum symmetric pairs and their applications see the introduction to the paper of Kolb [@Kolbaffine] where an affine version of the theory of quantum symmetric pairs is developed.
In this work, we restrict our attention to a specific type of coideal subalgebra $U_{Q,q}^B$. The motivation for studying this coideal subalgebra is manifold. It is part of a quantum symmetric pair that comes with solutions of the reflection equation and is in (Schur-Weyl) duality with the unequal parameter Hecke algebra of type B. It also plays a major role in many recent works in representation theory.
We first mention two important independent works where the coideal $U_{Q,q}^B$ and its specializations play a key role. In Bao and Wang [@BW13], a theory of canonical bases for the coideal subalgebra $U_{q,q}^B$ (denoted by $\mathbf{U}^\iota$ and $\mathbf{U}^\jmath$ in Sections 2.1 and 6.1) is initiated and used to obtain decomposition numbers for the BGG category $\mathcal{O}$ of the Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{osp}(2m+1|2n)$. The coideal at $q=1$ appears as an algebra generated by certain translation functors.
In [@ES], Ehrig and Stroppel study a 2-categorical action of the coideal $U_{1,q}^B$ on a parabolic BGG category $\mathcal{O}$ of type D which categorifies an exterior power of the natural representation of the coideal. This process produces canonical bases for the aforementioned coideal modules. A Howe duality for the coideal subalgebra surprisingly emerges.
These works started a new wave of interest in quantum symmetric pairs and their applications to representation theory. Bao and Wang started a program of studying canonical bases for quantum symmetric pairs [@BW13; @BWAJM; @BKinvolution; @Bao; @BWInv; @BW19] which generalizes Lusztig’s theory of canonical basis for ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ [@LusztigCB1]. In related work of Balagovic and Kolb [@BK], the universal $K$-matrix is constructed for a large class of quantum symmetric pairs including the ones appearing in this work (the universal $K$-matrix for $U_{q,q}^B$ was first written down in [@BW13 §2.5]). The universal $K$-matrix produces solutions to the reflection equation similar to how the universal $R$-matrix produces solutions to the Yang-Baxter equation. The search for such solutions of the reflection equation is motivated by the theory of solvable lattice models with U-turn boundary conditions and the study of invariants for braids in a cylinder (according to the work of tom Dieck and Häring-Oldenburg [@tD; @tDHO; @HO]).
A natural continuation of the work [@BW13] is the work of Bao [@Bao], where canonical bases for the specialization $U_{1,q}^B$ are studied, and decomposition numbers for the BGG category $\mathcal{O}$ of $\mathfrak{osp}(2m|2n)$ are obtained. The two papers [@BW13; @Bao] establish a Schur-Weyl duality between the coideal subalgebras $U_{q,q}^B$ and $U_{1,q}^B$, and the Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}_{q,q}^B(d)$ and $\mathcal{H}_{1,q}^B(d)$, respectively (see also [@ES] for the $Q=1$ Schur-Weyl duality and [@Greenhyper] for a general Schur-Weyl duality without the quantum symmetric pair). The two Schur-Weyl dualities are generalized to a duality between $U_{Q,q}^B$ and ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ in [@BWW]. The Schur-Weyl duality tells us that a large part of the representation theory of $U_{Q,q}^B$ is encoded in the centralizers of ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ acting on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$. This is the starting point of our definition of two-parameter quantum polynomial functors.
Let $k$ be a field and $Q, q \in k^\times$ and let $\mathcal{C}^B_d$ be the full subcategory of ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$-modules (over $k$) of the form $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ where the Hecke algebra ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ acts on a space $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ as in equation . We define two-parameter quantum polynomial functors of degree $d$ as linear functors from the category $\mathcal{C}^B_d$ to the category of vector spaces, that is, we let $$\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d=\operatorname{mod}_{\mathcal{C}^B_d}.$$ We prove the category $\mathcal{P}^d_{Q,q}$ is equivalent to the category of finite dimensional representations of the two-parameter Schur algebra $$S_{Q,q}^B(n;d):=\operatorname{End}_{{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}}(V_n{^{\otimes d}})$$ when $n\geq 2d$ is odd. If $Q,q$ are generic, we do not need to require $n$ to be odd (see Setup at the end of the Introduction for what generic means). The algebra $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ generalizes the $q$-Schur algebra of Dipper and James and is the main subject of study of the papers [@BKLW; @LL; @LNX]. In particular, [@LNX Theorem 3.1.1] shows that ${S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d)$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of tensor products of type A $q$-Schur algebras under a small (necessary) restriction on $Q,q$.
Our construction of polynomial functors and the proof of representability from Section \[sec:quantumpolfunctors\] is based on a Schur-Weyl duality and does not use any other property of the coideal $U_{Q,q}^B$. We know our construction and proof work in the setting of [@FanLi; @ES] where a Schur-Weyl duality involving the Hecke algebra of type D appears. We expect it to work in many other settings possibly including [@ATY; @HuShoji; @SaSho; @Sho; @MazorchukStroppel] where Schur-Weyl dualities appear. The super polynomial functors of Axtell [@Axtell] are also based on the Schur-Weyl dualities of Sergeev [@Sergeev].
The theory of polynomial functors we develop interacts with type A quantum polynomial functors in two ways. The first interaction is via composition.
Composition between type A quantum polynomial functors $\mathcal{AP}_{q}^d$ (see Example \[ex:qpf\] for the definition) for $q\neq1$ is not possible. See the Introduction to [@BuciumasKo1] for a comprehensive discussion explaining this fact. In [@BuciumasKo1], the authors define “higher degree” quantum polynomial functors $\mathcal{AP}_q^{d,e}$ (the category $\mathcal{AP}^{d,e}_q$ is denoted in [@BuciumasKo1] by $\mathcal P^d_{q,e}$) and define a composition functor $\circ_A : \mathcal{AP}_{q}^{d_1,d_2 e} \times \mathcal{AP}_{q}^{d_2,e} \to \mathcal{AP}_q^{d_1 d_2,e}$. The categories $\mathcal{AP}_{q}^{d,e}$ are quantizations of the category of classical polynomial functor $\mathcal{P}^d$ (in the sense of $\mathcal{AP}_{q=1}^{d,e} \simeq \mathcal{P}^d$) but are more complicated: for example we do not know the number of non-isomorphic simple objects in $\mathcal{AP}_{q}^{d,e}$.
In our setting, one cannot hope to define composition of quantum polynomial functors because we cannot take the tensor power of general $U_{Q,q}^B$-modules. In Section \[sec:composition\] we define higher degree two-parameter quantum polynomial functors $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d,e}$ and prove that there is a composition $\circ: \mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d_1,d_2 e} \times \mathcal{AP}_{q}^{d_2,e} \to \mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d_1 d_2,e}$ that makes the type B higher degree polynomial functors together with type A higher degree polynomials into an action pair. This structure is natural in the setting of polynomial functors while not in the setting of Schur algebra modules. Composition for classical polynomial functors is related to an operation on symmetric polynomials known as plethysm. It would be interesting to understand the analog of plethysm related to our composition between type A and type B quantum polynomial functors (for an introduction to classical plethysm see Macdonald [@Macdonald Section I.8]).
We emphasize that the composition between type A and type B quantum polynomial functors produces what we believe are new, non-trivial examples of action pairs. These examples are different to the examples of the (cylinder braided) action pairs we produce in Section \[sec:cylindertwist\]. The latter examples have appeared in a different setting in the work of Kolb and Balagovic and reflect the fact that $U_{Q,q}^B$ is a coideal of ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$.
Higher degree polynomial functors are related to certain generalizations of the Schur algebra which we call $e$-Schur algebras and denote by $S_{q}^A(n;d,e)$ and $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d,e)$ (the former was initially defined in [@BuciumasKo1]). They are defined via $e$-Hecke algebras $\mathcal{H}^A_q(d;e)$ and $\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d;e)$ which live inside the ordinary Hecke algebras $\mathcal{H}^A_q(de)$ and $\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(de)$, respectively; they are higher quantizations of the Weyl groups $W^A_d$ and $W^B_d$, respectively. See Figure \[matingdragonflies\] for the relation between such Schur and Hecke algebras.
The second interaction of type A and type B quantum polynomial functors is presented in Section \[sec:cylindertwist\] where we show that the restriction of $\mathcal{AP}_q=\oplus_d \mathcal{AP}^d_q$ to $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}=\oplus_d \mathcal{P}^d_{Q,q}$ forms a cylinder braided action pair with $\mathcal{AP}_q$. We explain how to generalize this result to higher degree polynomial functors in Remark \[rem:highercylinder\]. There also exists a higher degree action of the category $\oplus_d \mathcal{AP}_q^{d,e}$ on $\oplus_d \mathcal P_{Q,q}^{d,e}$ which leads to a new cylinder braided action pair. The notion of a cylinder braided action pair due to tom Dieck and Häring-Oldenburg [@tD; @tDHO; @HO], generalizes the notion of a braided monoidal category to a setting where one has categorical solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation and the reflection equation. The quantum symmetric pair $(U_{Q,q}^B, {U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)})$ produces a main example of such a pair. The cylinder braided action pair has an interesting generalization. In [@BK Section 4] the notion of a braided tensor category with a cylinder twist is developed (Balagovic and Kolb use the term ‘braided tensor category with a cylinder twist’ for what we call cylinder braided action pair); in this generalization, all finite quantum symmetric pairs produce examples of such categories. A slightly stronger notion than a cylinder braided action pair is that of a braided module category defined in [@Enriquez §4.3] (see also [@Brochier § 5.1]). Kolb [@KolbBMC] showed all quantum symmetric pairs for $Q,q$ generic produce such module categories up to twist. Our category of polynomial functors can also be shown to produce braided module categories (see Remark \[rembmc\]).
In type A, the tensor power has two distinguished quotients, namely the symmetric power and the exterior power. In our setting, the two-parameter symmetric power and the exterior power both have two distinguished quotients. We define them in Section \[sec:pmsymext\] and call them the $\pm$-symmetric power, denoted by $S^d_\pm$, and the $\pm$-exterior power, denoted by $\wedge^d_\pm$. They depend on positive and negative eigenvalues of the $K$-matrix, similar to how type A symmetric and exterior power depend on positive and negative eigenvalues of the $R$-matrix. These are the most basic examples of the Schur functors and are the building blocks for other Schur functors.
In § \[BZstuff\] we define higher degree $\pm$ symmetric and exterior powers. The definition makes crucial use of Corollary \[evKmatrix\] where we essentially show that action of the $U_{Q,q}^B$-universal $K$-matrix on any ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ module has eigenvalues of the form $\pm Q^iq^j$ for $i,j \in \mathbb{Z}$. These examples of higher degree two-parameter quantum polynomial functors should be thought of as the generalization of the type A quantum symmetric and exterior powers due to Berenstein and Zwicknagl [@BZ].
In Section \[sec:schur\], we construct the Schur functors in $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$ analogous to the classical construction of Akin-Buchsbaum-Weyman [@ABW]. A classical Schur functor is defined as the image of the conjugation $$\wedge^{\lambda'}=\wedge^{\lambda'_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes \wedge^{\lambda'_r}\to S^\lambda=S^{\lambda_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes S^{\lambda_l},$$ where $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_r)$ is a partition and $\lambda '=(\lambda'_1,\cdots,\lambda'_l)$ is its transpose. In our setting, the $\pm$-symmetric/exterior powers defined in Section \[sec:pmsymext\] play the role of the symmetric/exterior powers. However, we are unable to define the tensor product of $\pm$-symmetric/exterior powers since they are coideal modules, and not bialgebra modules. Therefore the obvious generalization fails and we need a new idea. Our idea is to define a “deformed tensor product” of $U_{Q,q}^B$-modules by using the cylinder braided action from Section \[sec:cylindertwist\] (an example of deformed tensor products is presented in Definition \[defpmpower\]) and use it to define the Schur functor. We then write the Schur functor in equation generalizing the type A definition of the Schur functor. It is defined as the image of a(n induced) conjugation $$\wedge^{(\lambda',\mu')} \to S^{(\lambda, \mu)},$$ where $\wedge^{(\lambda',\mu')}$ is a deformed tensor product of $\wedge_+^{\lambda'_1},\cdots,\wedge_+^{\lambda'_r},\wedge_-^{\mu'_1},\cdots,\wedge_-^{\mu'_l.}$ and $S^{(\lambda, \mu)}$ is similarly a deformed tensor product. See Definition \[def:schurfunctor\] and equation for details.
If $Q,q$ are generic, the Schur functors form a complete set of simple objects in the category $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$. In the non-generic case, we expect that the Schur functors form a complete set of costandard objects whenever $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$ is a highest weight category. The latter is true under a small restriction on $Q,q$.
Our definition of Schur functors can be ‘lifted’ to the setting of higher degree polynomial functors as we explain in § \[subsec:higherschur\]. The result is a class of interesting objects in $\mathcal{P}^{d,e}$ and $\mathcal{AP}^{d,e}$ and is a first step towards understanding the categories $\mathcal{P}^{d,e}$ and $\mathcal{AP}^{d,e}$.
**Setup.** Unless otherwise stated, we assume that $k$ is a field and $Q,q\in k^\times$.
In a few places, we use the stronger assumption that $k=\mathbb C$ and $Q,q\in k$ are such that $Q^iq^j\neq 1$ for all $i,j\in\mathbb Z$ (in particular $Q,q$ are not roots of unity). For convenience, we refer to this assumption by saying $Q,q$ are *generic* or by using the term ‘*generic case*’.
**Acknowledgements.** We thank Huanchen Bao, Chun-Ju Lai and Catharina Stroppel for useful discussions. We thank Catharina Stroppel for valuable comments on an earlier version of the paper. We thank the referees for many helpful comments. Part of the work in this paper was done while the first author visited the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in Bonn; both authors would like to thank the institute for hospitality and good working conditions.
Buciumas was supported by ARC grant DP180103150. Ko was supported by the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in Bonn.
Quantum symmetric pairs and Schur-Weyl dualities
================================================
We introduce the basic objects which are used throughout the paper: the quantum group ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$, the coideal subalgebra $U_{Q,q}^B$ and the two-parameter Hecke algebra of Coxeter type BC which we denote by ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$. We review a Schur-Weyl duality between ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ and $U_{Q,q}^B$. That is the basis for our definition of two-parameter quantum polynomial functors.
Hecke algebras {#subsec:hecke}
--------------
### Definition
Denote the Weyl group of type BC of rank $d$ by $W^B(d)$. It is the Coxeter group with generators $s_i, 0 \leq i \leq d-1$ and relations
$$\begin{aligned}[c]
&s_i^{2}=1\\
&s_i s_{i+1} s_i = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1} \\
&s_0s_1s_0s_1=s_1s_0s_1s_0, \\
&s_i s_j=s_j s_i \\
\end{aligned}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{aligned}[c]
&\textnormal{ for } i \geq 0,\\
&\textnormal{ for } i > 0,\\
& \\
&\textnormal{ for } |i-j| > 1.
\end{aligned}$$
The elements $s_i\in W^B(d)$ for $i>0$ generate a subgroup isomorphic to $W^A(d)$, the Weyl group of type A (otherwise known as the symmetric group $S_d$).
Let $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^{B}(d)$ be the two-parameter Hecke algebra of type BC [@LusztigHeckebook]. It is presented by generators $T_0, T_1,\cdots, T_{d-1}$ satisfying the relations $$\label{HeckedefinitionBC}
\begin{aligned}[c]
&(T_0+Q)(T_0-Q^{-1})=0,\\
&(T_i+q)(T_i-q^{-1})=0\\
&T_i T_{i+1} T_i = T_{i+1} T_i T_{i+1} \\
&T_0T_1T_0T_1 = T_1 T_0 T_1 T_0, \\
&T_iT_j = T_j T_i \\
\end{aligned}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{aligned}[c]
&\\
&\textnormal{ for } i > 0,\\
&\textnormal{ for } i > 0,\\
& \\
&\textnormal{ for } |i-j| > 1.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the generators $T_1, \cdots, T_{d-1}$ generate a subalgebra of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^{B}(d)$ isomorphic to the Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}_q^A(d)$ of type A.
Given an element $w\in W^B(d)$, we write $T_w=T_{i_1}\cdots T_{i_l}$ where $s_{i_1}\cdots s_{i_l}$ is a reduced expression of $w$. The element $T_w\in \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^{B}(d)$ does not depend on the reduced expression. The elements $T_w$ for $w \in W^B(d)$ form a basis of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$.
### Action on the tensor space {#sssec:actionontensor}
Set $n=2r+1$ or $2r$ and denote $\mathbb{I}:=\mathbb{I}_n$. If $n$ is even we define $\mathbb{I}_{2r}:=\{-\frac{2r-1}{2}, \cdots, -\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}, \cdots ,\frac{2r-1}{2}\}$ and otherwise we let $\mathbb{I}_{2r+1}:= \{-r, \cdots ,-1, 0, 1, \cdots, r\}$.
Let $\mathbf{a}:=(a_1,\cdots, a_d) \in \mathbb{I}^d$. The group $W^B_d$ acts on the set $\mathbb{I}^d$ as follows [@BW13; @ES]: $$\label{WeylgroupactionBC}
\begin{split}
&s_i: (\cdots, a_i,a_{i+1},\cdots) \mapsto (\cdots, a_{i+1},a_{i},\cdots) \textnormal{ for } i > 0, \\
&s_0:(a_1,\cdots) \mapsto (-a_1, \cdots).
\end{split}$$
Let $V_n$ be a vector space with basis $\{ v_i, i \in \mathbb{I}_n \}$. Write $v_\mathbf{a}:= v_{a_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{a_d} \in V_n{^{\otimes d}}$. Then the set $\{v_{\mathbf{a}}, \mathbf{a}\in \mathbb{I}^d\}$ is a basis for $V_n^{\otimes d}$.
There is a right action of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^{B}(d)$ on $V_n^{\otimes d}$ given by $$\label{HeckeactionBC}
\begin{split}
&T_i \mapsto (R_q)_{i,i+1} \textnormal{ for } i > 0, \\
&T_0 \mapsto (K_Q)_1,
\end{split}$$ where $R_q:V_n \otimes V_n \to V_n \otimes V_n$ is the map $$\label{eq:Rmatrixdef}
R_q: v_i \otimes v_j \mapsto \begin{cases}
q^{-1} v_i \otimes v_j & \textnormal{ if } i=j, \\
v_j \otimes v_i & \textnormal{ if } i<j, \\
v_j \otimes v_i + (q^{-1}-q)v_i \otimes v_j & \textnormal{ if } i>j,
\end{cases}$$ and $K_Q : V_n \to V_n$ is the map $$\label{eq:Kmatrixdef}
K_Q: v_i \mapsto \begin{cases}
Q^{-1} v_i & \textnormal{ if } i=0, \\
v_{-i} & \textnormal{ if } i>0 , \\
v_{-i} + (Q^{-1}-Q)v_i & \textnormal{ if } i<0.
\end{cases}$$ The map $(R_q)_{i,i+1}$ acts as $R_q$ on the $(i,i+1)$ entries of the tensor product $V_n^{\otimes d}$ and as the identity on the rest of the entries. Similarly, $(K_Q)_1=K_Q\otimes {\operatorname{id}}_{V_n}^{\otimes d-1}$. The action of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$ is classical. See for example Green [@Greenhyper]. The Schur algebra $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ is then defined as the centralizer algebra of the right action of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$ on the tensor space $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$.
The map $R_q$ is the action of the inverse of the universal $R$-matrix of ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ on $V_n \otimes V_n$ as explained in [@BW13 Proposition 5.1] in the $Q=q$ case. Similarly, the map $K_q$ is the action of the inverse of the universal $K$-matrix (due to [@BK]) of the coideal $U_{Q,q}^B$ on $V_n$ (see [@BW13 Theorem 5.4, Theorem 6.27], again for the $Q=q$ case).
### The elements $K_i$
For each $1\leq i\leq d$, we consider the elements $$K_i=T_{i-1}\cdots T_1T_0T_1\cdots T_{i-1}$$ in ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$. These are the Jucy-Murphy elements of ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ (see [@DipperJamesMathas Section 2]). The following lemma is well-known, see for example [@DipperJamesMathas Proposition 2.1] for a proof.
\[lem:kicommute\] For each $1\leq i,j\leq d$, $K_i$ and $K_j$ commute.
Let $c_K \in {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ be the element $$\label{eqxK}
c_K := \prod_{i=1}^d K_i.$$ The product is well-defined due to Lemma \[lem:kicommute\].
\[cKcentral\] The element $c_K\in {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ is central.
We show that $c_K$ commutes with all the generators $T_i$ of ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$.
First let us look at $T_0$. It obviously commutes with itself. It commutes with $T_1T_0T_1$, this is just the equation $T_1T_0T_1T_0 = T_0 T_1 T_0T_1$. It also commutes with $T_i, i>1$. This means it commutes with $T_j\cdots T_2 (T_1 T_0 T_1) T_2 \cdots T_j$. Therefore it commutes with $c_K$.
Let us look at $T_i$ for $i>0$. The following facts are parts ii) and iii) of [@DipperJamesMathas Proposition 2.1]:
1. $T_i$ commutes with $K_{j}$ for $i \neq j, j-1$.
2. $T_i$ commutes with $K_{i+1} K_i$.
We conclude that $T_i$ commutes with $c_K$.
Consider the action of ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ defined in §\[sssec:actionontensor\]. We close the section by determining the eigenvalues of $K_i$. The following lemma [@MaksimauStroppel Lemma 5.2] comes useful.
\[newlemma\] Suppose $K_i$, $K_{i+1}$ has a simultaneous eigenvector with eigenvalues $a,b$ (respectively). Then either $K_i,K_{i+1}$ also has a simultaneous eigenvector with eigenvalues $b,a$ or $b=q^{\pm2}a$.
Let $v\in V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ be a simultaneous eigenvector for $K_i$, $K_{i+1}$ with eigenvalues $a,b$ (respectively). Then the vector $w=(q{^{-1}}-q)bv+(a-b) T_iv$ is checked to satisfy $K_iw=bw$ and $K_{i+1}=aw$. If $w\neq 0$, then $w$ is a desired eigenvector. If $w=0$ then $v$ is an eigenvector for $T_i$. This implies $K_{i+1}v=T_iK_iT_iv=ac^2v$ where $c$ is an eigenvalue for $T_i$, which is either of $-q$ or $q{^{-1}}$.
\[eigenvaluesKi\] The eigenvalues of $K_i$ on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ are of the form $-Qq^{2j}$ and $Q{^{-1}}q^{2j}$ where $|j|<i$.
The $i=1$ case follows from the definition (and also follows from the the relation $(T_0-Q{^{-1}})(T_0+Q)=0$ in the Hecke algebra).
Now suppose that the eigenvalues of $K_i$ are of the form $-Qq^{2j}$ and $Q{^{-1}}q^{2j}$ where $|j|<i$, and let $b$ be an eigenvalue of $K_{i+1}$. The actions of $K_i$ and $K_{i+1}$ are simultaneously triangularizable, so we can find a simultaneous eigenvector $v$ for $K_i,K_{i+1}$ where $K_{i+1}v=bv$. Then by Lemma \[newlemma\], either $b=q^{\pm 2}a$ where $a$ is an eigenvalue of $K_i$ (the second case of the lemma) or $b$ is an eigenvalue of $K_i$ (the first case of the lemma). Therefore $b$ should be of the desired form.
\[evKmatrix\] The eigenvalues of $c_K$ are of the form $\pm Q^iq^j$ for $i,j\in\mathbb Z$.
Since $K_i$ are simultaneously triangularizable, each eigenvalue of $c_K$ is a product of eigenvalues of $K_i$’s. The claim thus follows from Proposition \[eigenvaluesKi\]
Coideal subalgebras and Schur algebras {#coidealschurdef}
--------------------------------------
### Schur algebras {#subsec:schur}
Considering the action of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$ on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ in equation , define $$\label{def:schuralgebraB}
S^B_{Q,q}(m,n;d):= {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B} (V_m^{\otimes d}, V_n^{\otimes d}).$$ Then the Schur algebra $S^B_{Q,q}(n;d)$ is the specialization of $S^B_{Q,q}(m,n;d)$ at $m=n$; it is an algebra with multiplication given by composition and the identity given by the identity homomorphism.
There is an obvious action $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d) \rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$} V_n{^{\otimes d}}$.
### Quantum groups and coideal subalgebras {#sec:defcoideal}
In this subsection, we assume that $k=\mathbb C$ and $Q,q$ are generic.[^1]
The quantum group $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ is the unital associative algebra over $\mathbb{C}$ generated by elements $E_i, F_i$ for $i \in \mathbb{I}_{n-1}$ and $D_i^{\pm}$ for $i \in \mathbb{I}_n$ subject to the relations (set $j' = j-\frac{1}{2}$): $$\label{qgrelations}
\begin{split}
& D_i D_j = D_j D_i, \quad D_i D_i^{-1}=1=D_i^{-1} D_i, \\
& D_i E_j D_i^{-1} = q^{\delta_{i,j'} - \delta_{i-1, j'} } E_j, \quad D_i F_j D_i^{-1}= q^{-\delta_{i,j'} + \delta_{i-1, j'} } F_j, \\[0.5em]
& E_i E_j = E_j E_i, \quad F_i F_j = F_j F_i \quad \text{ if } i \neq j \pm 1, \\
& E_i F_j - F_j E_i = \delta_{i,j}\frac{D_{j'} D_{j'+1}^{-1} - D_{j'+1}D{^{-1}}_{j'}}{q-q^{-1}}, \\
& E_i^{2} E_{i \pm 1} - (q+q^{-1})E_i E_{i\pm 1} E_i + E_{i\pm 1}E^2_i = 0, \\
& F_i^{2} F_{i \pm 1} - (q+q^{-1})F_i F_{i\pm 1} F_i + F_{i\pm 1}F^2_i = 0.
\end{split}$$ Let $H_j = D_{j'} D_{j'+1}^{-1}$. The subalgebra of $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ generated by $E_i, F_i, H_i $ for $i \in \mathbb{I}_{n-1}$ is the quantum group $U_q(\mathfrak{sl}_n)$. We do not define the quantum group at a root of unity, but whenever we mention it, we are referring to Lusztig’s version of the quantum group at a root of unity [@Lusztigrou].
The quantum group $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ is a Hopf algebra with comultiplication $\Delta$ and antipode $S$ given on generators by the following formulas: $$\label{qgcomultiplication}
\begin{split}
\Delta(D_i) &= D_i \otimes D_i, \\
\Delta(E_i) &= 1 \otimes E_i + E_i \otimes H_i{^{-1}}, \\
\Delta(F_i) &= F_i \otimes 1 + H_i \otimes F_i, \\
S(D_i) &= D_i^{-1}, \,\,\, S(E_i)=-E_i H_i,\,\,\, S(F_i)= -H_i{^{-1}}F_i.
\end{split}$$ Let $V_n$ be the defining representation of ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ described in §2.1.2; it has basis $\{v_i, i \in \mathbb{I}_n\}$ and the quantum group $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ acts on $V_n$ as follows: $$\label{qgaction}
\begin{split}
D_i v_j &= q^{\delta_{i,j}} v_j, \\
E_i v_j &= \delta_{i, j'} v_{j-1} , \\
F_i v_j &= \delta_{i,j'+1} v_{j+1}.
\end{split}$$
We now introduce the (right) coideal subalgebra $U^B_{Q,q} (\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ as in [@BWW], where it is denoted by $\mathbf{U}^i$ or $\mathbf{U}^j$, depending on the parity of $n$. For $i \in \mathbb{I}_{n-1}, j \in \mathbb{I}_n$ define the following elements of ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$:
$$\label{eq:coidealgen}
\begin{split}
d_i = D_i D_{-i}, \,\,\, e_i &= E_i +F_{-i}H_{i}^{-1}, \,\,\, f_{i} = E_{-i} + H_{-i}^{-1}F_{i}, \\
e_{\frac{1}{2}} = E_{\frac{1}{2}} + Q^{-1}F_{-\frac{1}{2}} H_{\frac{1}{2}}^{-1}, \,\,\, f_{\frac{1}{2}} &= E_{-\frac{1}{2}} + Q H^{-1}_{-\frac{1}{2}} F_{\frac{1}{2}}, \,\,\, t = E_0 + q F_0 H_0^{-1} + \frac{Q-Q^{-1}}{q-q^{-1}}H_0^{-1}.
\end{split}$$
The subalgebra $U^B_{Q,q} (\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ of ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ is generated by the elements $e_i, f_i$ for $i \in \mathbb{I}_{n-1}, i>0$ , $d_i$ for $i\in \mathbb I_{n}, i>0$, and the element $t$ when $n$ is odd. We denote $U^B_{Q,q} (\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ by $ U_{Q,q}^B$ throughout the text. The name coideal subalgebra is due to the fact that the restriction of the comultiplication from ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ to $U_{Q,q}^B$ has image in $U_{Q,q}^B \otimes {U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}.$ The ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$-module $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ restricts to an $U_{Q,q}^B$-module. Then the left action of $U_{Q,q}^B$ and the right action of ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ commute. Moreover, we have
\[thm:doublecentralizerB\] [@BWW Theorem 2.6, Theorem 4.4] The actions of $U_{Q,q}^B$ and ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ form double centralizers.
\[coidealschur\] By Theorem \[thm:doublecentralizerB\] one realizes the Schur algebra $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ as a quotient of the coideal subalgebra $U_{Q,q}^B$. This gives an equivalence of categories between the category of degree $d$ modules of $U_{Q,q}^B$ (i.e. summands of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$) and the category of $S_{Q,q}(n;d)$-modules. Our main results in Section \[sec:quantumpolfunctors\] identifies degree $d$ polynomial functors with representations of the Schur algebra $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ for $n \geq d$. The fact that the category of finite dimensional representations of $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ is equivalent to the same category as long as $n\geq d$ can be interpreted as a stability result in the limit $n\to\infty$ for $U_{Q,q}^B$ when $Q$ and $q$ are generic. This is different to the $d\to\infty$ stabilization studied in [@BKLW].
For a partition $\lambda$, let $|\lambda|$ be the sum of its parts and $\ell(\lambda)$ the number of non-zero entries in $\lambda$. Under our assumption, the algebra $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^{B}(d)$ is semisimple and has irreducible representations $M_{\lambda, \mu}$ indexed by pairs of partitions $(\lambda, \mu)$ with $|\lambda| + |\mu| =d$ (this follows from the work of [@DJ92]). Furthermore, there is a ${S^B_{Q,q}}\otimes {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$-bimodule decomposition of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ (note that using Theorem \[thm:doublecentralizerB\] we can view it as a decomposition as a $U_{Q,q}^B \otimes {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$-bimodule):
$$\label{eq:SWdecompositionB}
V_n^{\otimes d} \cong \bigoplus_{(\lambda,\mu)\vdash_n d} L_{\lambda,\mu}(n) \otimes M_{\lambda, \mu}.$$
The subscript $(\lambda,\mu) \vdash_n d$ means that $\lambda, \mu$ are partitions such that $|\lambda|+|\mu|=d$ and $\ell(\lambda)\leq r, \ell(\mu) \leq r$ when $n=2r$ or $\ell(\lambda)\leq r+1, \ell(\mu) \leq r$ when $n=2r+1$. In the above, $L_{\lambda, \mu}(n)$ is either an irreducible representation of $U_{Q,q}^B$ or $0$. If $n\geq 2d$, $L_{\lambda, \mu}(n)$ is never $0$. These irreducibles are indexed by bipartitions $(\lambda, \mu) \vdash_n d$.
A useful consequence of is the following fact.
\[Kidiag\] The $K_i$ action on $V{^{\otimes d}}$ is diagonalizable.
We first show that the element $c_K=\prod_{i=1}^d K_i$ is diagonalizable. The element $c_K$ is central in ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ by Lemma \[cKcentral\]. It further commutes with the action of ${S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d)$, so it is a central (${S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d),{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$)-bimodule action of $V{^{\otimes d}}$ (if we view $({S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d),{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)})$-bimodule as a left ${S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d)\otimes {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}^{op}$-module, then $c_K$ is in the center of ${S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d)\otimes {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}^{op}$). Since the decomposition is multiplicity free, $c_K$ acts by a scalar on each irreducible bimodule summand of $V{^{\otimes d}}$, hence diagonal on $V{^{\otimes d}}$.
Now we proceed by induction on $d$. We know that $K_1$ is diagonalizable, which takes care of the $d=1$ case. Let $d>1$. By induction hypoethesis, for each $i<d$, $K_i$ is diagonalizable. (In fact, the induction hypothesis says that $K_i$ is diagonalizable on $V^{\otimes i}$, but then $K_i|_{V{^{\otimes d}}}=K_i|_{V^{\otimes i}}\otimes {\operatorname{id}}^{\otimes d-i}$ is also diagonalizable.) Writing $K_d=c_K K_{d-1}{^{-1}}\cdots K_1{^{-1}}$, we see that $K_d$ is a product of diagonalizable elements. By Lemma \[lem:kicommute\] and Lemma \[cKcentral\], the elements all commute and hence are simultaneously diagonalizable. This implies that $K_d$ is diagonalizable.
The Schur algebra defined above is a generalization of the type A $q$-Schur algebra of Dipper and James [@DipperJames]. It has first appeared in [@Greenhyper] and it is the same Schur algebra appearing in [@BWW] or in [@LNX]. It is different to the Cartan type B generalization defined in terms of the vector representation of the type B quantum group and the BMW algebra.
Young symmetrizers for $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$ {#subsec:youngsym}
-----------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we assume $k=\mathbb C$ and $Q,q$ are generic. We explain the construction of certain Young symmetrizers for the Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$ following Dipper and James [@DJ92]. We then describe irreducible representations of $U_{Q,q}^B$ as images of these Young symmetrizers acting on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ by Schur-Weyl duality in Theorem \[thm:doublecentralizerB\].
Consider the following elements $u_i^{\pm} \in \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$: $$\label{eq:u}
u_i^+ = \prod_{j=1}^{i} (K_j + Q), \,\,\,\,\,\, u_i^- = \prod_{j=1}^{i} (K_j - Q^{-1}).$$
Given $a$ and $b$ non-negative integers, define $w_{a,b} \in W^A(d) \subset W^B(d)$ to be the element given in two line notation by
$$\label{eq:wab}
w_{a,b} = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & \cdots & b & b+1 & \cdots & a+b \\
a+1 & \cdots & a+b & 1 & \cdots & a
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr).$$
Let $T_{a,b}:=T_{w_{a,b}}$ be the corresponding element in $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$. Let $\tilde{z}_{b,a}$ be the element defined in [@DJ92 Definition 3.24]. Note that by definition $\tilde{z}_{b,a}$ is a central element of $\mathcal{H}_q(S_a \times S_b) \subset \mathcal{H}^A_q(a+b) \subset \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(a+b)$, where we define $\mathcal{H}_q(S_a\times S_b)$ as the subalgebra of $\mathcal{H}_q^A(a+b)$ with generators $T_i, i \neq a$. The element $\tilde{z}_{b,a}$ satisfies $$u_a^+ T_{a,b}u_b^- T_{b,a} u_a^+ T_{a,b}u_b^- = \tilde{z}_{b,a} u_a^+ T_{a,b}u_b^-.$$ and it is invertible by [@DJ92 §4.12]. Finally define the following element as in [@DJ92 Definition 3.27]: $$\label{eq:eab}
e_{a,b} = T_{a,b} u_b^{-1} T_{b,a} u_a^+ \tilde{z}^{-1}_{b,a}
= \tilde{z}^{-1}_{b,a} T_{b,a}u_b^{-1} T_{b,a} u_a^+.$$ Then $e_{a,b}$ commutes with all elements in $\mathcal{H}_q(S_a\times S_b)$. The following are proved in [@DJ92] under the assumption that the element $$\label{DJpolynomial}
f_d(Q,q) =\prod_{i=1-d}^{d-1} (Q^{-2}+q^{2i})$$ is nonzero, which is covered under our assumption.
\[DJthm\] Let $a,b$ be non-negative integers such that $a+b=d$. Then
1. $e_{a,b} \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d) e_{a,b} = e_{a,b}\mathcal{H}_q(S_a \times S_b) \simeq \mathcal{H}_q(S_a \times S_b)$.
2. There is a Morita equivalence $$\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d) \simeq \oplus_{i=0}^d e_{i,d-i} \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d) e_{i,d-i}.$$
Let $e^a_\lambda\in \mathcal{H}_q^A(a)$ be the (type A) quantum Young symmetrizers (see Gyoja [@Gyoja] for a definition). Since $q$ is generic, the algebra $\mathcal{H}_q(S_a \times S_b)=\mathcal{H}_q(S_a)\times \mathcal{H}_q(S_b)$ is semisimple, and the set $\{\mathcal{H}_q(S_a \times S_b)e^a_\lambda e^b_\mu\ |\ \lambda \vdash a, \mu \vdash b\}$ gives a complete list of isomorphism classes for irreducible $\mathcal{H}_q(S_a \times S_b)$-modules. Now let $$e_{\lambda,\mu}:=e_{a,b} e^a_\lambda e^b_\mu = e^a_\lambda e^b_\mu e_{a,b}.$$ Then it follows from Theorem \[DJthm\] that $\{{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}e_{\lambda,\mu}\ |\ (\lambda,\mu)\vdash d\}$ forms a complete list of non-isomorphic irreducible modules for ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$.
Now we apply the Schur-Weyl duality to construct all the irreducible polynomial $U^B_{Q,q}$-modules up to isomorphism.
\[egivesirred\] The image in $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ of the action of $e_{\lambda,\mu}\in \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$ is isomorphic to $L^B_{\lambda,\mu}(n)$.
This follows from the bimodule decomposition of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$. That is, $$\begin{split}
V_n{^{\otimes d}}e_{\lambda,\mu}\cong V_n{^{\otimes d}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}} {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}e_{\lambda,\mu}&\cong \bigoplus_{\lambda',\mu'} L_{\lambda',\mu'}(n)\otimes M_{\lambda',\mu'}\otimes_{{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}} {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}e_{\lambda,\mu}\\
&\cong\bigoplus_{\lambda',\mu'} L_{\lambda',\mu'}(n)\otimes M_{\lambda',\mu'}\otimes_{{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}} M_{\lambda,\mu}\\
&\cong\bigoplus_{\lambda',\mu'} L_{\lambda',\mu'}(n)\otimes \delta_{(\lambda,\mu),(\lambda',\,u')}k\\
&\cong L_{\lambda,\mu}(n).
\end{split}$$ In the second from the last isomorphism, we use that ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ is a symmetric algebra (see [@CIK Section 5]).
There is no explicit formula for $\tilde{z}_{b,a}$ and therefore the element $e_{a,b}$ is not useful when performing explicit computations. We can bypass this difficulty by working with the following element: $$\label{defe'}
e'_{\lambda,\mu}:= T_{a,b} u_b^{-1} T_{b,a} u_a^+ e^a_\lambda e^b_\mu=e_{\lambda,\mu} \tilde{z}_{b,a}.$$
\[e’givesirred\] The image in $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ of the action of $e'_{\lambda,\mu}\in\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$ is isomorphic to $L_{\lambda,\mu}(n)$.
By Proposition \[egivesirred\], it is enough to show that $V_n{^{\otimes d}}e_{\lambda,\mu}$ is isomorphic to $V_n{^{\otimes d}}e'_{\lambda,\mu}$. Consider the map $$m: V_n{^{\otimes d}}e_{\lambda,\mu} \to V_n{^{\otimes d}}e'_{\lambda,\mu}= V_n{^{\otimes d}}e_{\lambda,\mu} \tilde{z}_{b,a}$$ given by the (right) action of $\tilde{z}_{b,a}\in {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}e_{\lambda,\mu}$. Since the $U_{Q,q}^B$ action on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}e_{\lambda,\mu}$ commutes with the ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ action, the map $m$ is an $U_{Q,q}^B$-morphism. Since $\tilde{z}_{b,a}$ is invertible, the map $m$ is an $U_{Q,q}^B$-isomorphism.
The elements $e'_{\lambda,\mu}$ are not (quasi-)idempotents, but we still call them Young symmetrizers.
Permutation modules for Hecke algebras {#subsec:permutation}
--------------------------------------
Given $\mathbf a \in \mathbb I_n^d$, the subspace $V(\mathbf a)$ of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ spanned by {$v_{\sigma\mathbf a}\ |\ \sigma\in W^B \}$ is invariant under the action of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$. Sometimes we write $V(\mathbf a, n)$ to clarify where $\mathbf a$ belongs. Thus, we have a decomposition $$\label{eq:tensordecompositionheclemodule}
V_n{^{\otimes d}}=\bigoplus_{\mathbf a\in \mathbb I_n^d/W^B(d)} V(\mathbf a,n)$$ as $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$-modules.
Alternatively, we can index the permutation modules by compositions of $d$. Let $\theta := \left(\theta_{\frac{-n+1}{2}}, \cdots, \theta_{\frac{n-1}{2}}\right)$ be a composition of $d$. Define $\mathbf{a}(\theta)$ via the following equation: $$\label{aintermsoftheta}
v_{\mathbf{a}(\theta)} := \bigotimes_{j=-(n-1)/2}^{(n-1)/2} v_{j}^{\otimes \theta_{j}}.$$ Let $V_{\theta}:=V(\mathbf{a})$ be the subspace of $V_n^{\otimes d}$ spanned by $v_{s(\mathbf{a})}, s \in W^B(d)$. Then $V_\theta$ is a direct summand of $V_n^{\otimes d}$ (as an $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$-module). Moreso, $V_n^{\otimes d}$ is a direct sum of objects isomorphic to $V_\theta$ for certain $\theta$.
Adding $0$’s in pairs at a place $j>0$ to a composition $\theta = \left(\theta_{\frac{-n+1}{2}}, \cdots, \theta_{\frac{n-1}{2}}\right)$ means defining a new composition $\theta ' = \left(\theta_{\frac{-n-1}{2}} ', \cdots, \theta_{\frac{n+1}{2}} ' \right)$ such that: $$\theta_{l} ':= \begin{cases}
\theta_l & \textnormal{ if } -j<l <j, \\
0 & \textnormal{ if } l = \pm j , \\
\theta_{l\pm 1} & \textnormal{ if } l \gtrless \pm j.
\end{cases}$$ For example, adding $0$’s at $j=1$ to $\theta = (2,1,2)$ produces $\theta ' = (2,0,1,0,2)$. If $V_\theta \subset V_{n}^{\otimes d}$, then clearly $V_{\theta'} \subset V_{n+2}^{\otimes d}$.
Adding a $0$ at $j=0$ to a composition $\theta$ as above for $n$ even means defining a new composition $\theta ' = \left(\theta_{\frac{-n}{2}} '', \cdots, \theta_{\frac{n}{2}} '' \right)$ such that: $$\theta_{l} '':= \begin{cases}
0 & \textnormal{ if } l = 0 , \\
\theta_{l\mp \frac{1}{2}} & \textnormal{ if } l \gtrless 0.
\end{cases}$$ For example adding a $0$ at $j=0$ to $\theta = (1,2,3,4)$ produces $\theta '' = (1,2,0,3,4)$. If $V_\theta \subset V_{n}^{\otimes d}$, then $V_{\theta ''} \subset V_{n+1}^{\otimes d}$.
There is an obvious inverse procedure to adding $0$’s in pairs at a place $j>0$ if $\theta_{\pm j}=0$ (and similarly there is an inverse procedure for adding a $0$ at $j=0$ when $\theta_0=0$).
\[lem:permutationmodulesiso\] The $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$-modules $V_\theta$, $V_{\theta '}$ and $V_{\theta ''}$ are isomorphic.
Let us explain the isomorphism between $V_\theta$ and $V_{\theta '}$ since the case $V_{\theta ''}$ is similar.
The space $V_\theta$ is spanned as an $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$-module by the vector $v_{\mathbf{a}}$, for $\mathbf{a}$ given in terms of $\theta$ by equation , while the space $V_{\theta '}$ is spanned by vector $v_{\mathbf{a}'}$ for $\mathbf{a}'$ given in terms of $\theta '$ by equation . There is a unique vector space isomorphism between $V_\theta$ and $V_{\theta '}$ that maps $v_{s \mathbf{a} } \mapsto v_{s \mathbf{a} '}$ for all $s \in W^B(d)$. Because of the way the vector space isomorphism is defined (i.e. it is essentially defined on pure tensors by replacing $v_i / v_{-i}$ by $v_{i+1} / v_{-i-1}$ for all $i>j$), this map commutes with the action of $T_i$ defined in and therefore is an isomorphism of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$-modules.
For example, if $\theta = (2,1,3)$ and $\theta ' = (2,0,1,0,3)$, then $v_{\mathbf{a}} = v_1\otimes v_1\otimes v_0 \otimes v_{-1} \otimes v_{-1} \otimes v_{-1}$ and $v_{\mathbf{a} '} = v_2\otimes v_2\otimes v_0 \otimes v_{-2} \otimes v_{-2} \otimes v_{-2}$. The isomorphism between $V_\theta$ and $V_{\theta '}$ maps, for example, $v_1\otimes v_0\otimes v_{1} \otimes v_{1} \otimes v_{-1} \otimes v_{-1} \mapsto v_2\otimes v_0\otimes v_{2} \otimes v_{2} \otimes v_{-2} \otimes v_{-2}$.
In terms of $\mathbf a\in \mathbb I_n^d$, we get the following stability lemma.
\[permut\]\[lemma:generationodd\] Let $r\geq d$. Then for any $n$ and $\mathbf a\in \mathbb I_n^d$, the $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$-module $V(\mathbf a,n)$ is isomorphic to $V(\mathbf b,2r+1)$ for some $\mathbf b\in \mathbb I_{2r+1}^d$.
The result follows by use of Lemma \[lem:permutationmodulesiso\]. Let $\theta(\mathbf{a})$ be the composition associated to $\mathbf{a}$ and let $\theta(\mathbf{b})$ be the composition associated to $\mathbf{b}$. If $n$ is odd and less than or equal to $2r+1$, we can add $0$’s in pairs to $\theta(\mathbf{a})$ to obtain a $\theta (\mathbf{b})$ such that $V(\mathbf a,n) \simeq V_{\theta(\mathbf{a})} \simeq V_{\theta(\mathbf{b})} \simeq V(\mathbf b,2r+1)$. If $n$ is larger than $2r+1$ then $n$ is larger than $2d+1$ and the composition $\theta(\mathbf{a})$ has at most $d$ non-zero entries. Therefore we can subtract $0$’s in pairs from $\theta (\mathbf{a})$ to obtain a $\theta (\mathbf{b})$ with the required properties.
If $n$ is even, we first add a $0$ at $j=0$ to the composition associated to $\mathbf{a}$ and then follow the same procedure as in the odd $n$ case.
Generalized Schur algebras and $e$-Hecke algebras {#sec:RKe}
-------------------------------------------------
The category of polynomial representations of ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ is a braided monoidal category. That is, given polynomial ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$-modules $V$ and $W$, there is a ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$-module isomorphism $R_{V,W}:V \otimes W \to W \otimes V$ that satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation: $$\label{eqybe}
(R_{W,U} \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_V) ({\operatorname{id}}_W \otimes R_{V,U})(R_{V,W} \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_U)= ({\operatorname{id}}_{U}\otimes R_{V,W})(R_{V,U}\otimes {\operatorname{id}}_W) ({\operatorname{id}}_V \otimes R_{W,U}).$$ One can build such a map inductively, by starting with $R_{V_n,V_n}=R_q$ in , defining $R_{V_n{^{\otimes d}}, V_n^{\otimes e}}$ by use of the formulas $$\label{eq:inductiveRmatrix}
\begin{split}
R_{X\otimes Y, Z} = ( R_{X,Z} \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_Y)({\operatorname{id}}_X \otimes R_{Y,Z}), \\
R_{X, Y \otimes Z} = ({\operatorname{id}}_Y \otimes R_{X,Z}) ( R_{X,Y} \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_Z),
\end{split}$$ and then realizing any indecomposable degree $d$ representation of ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ as a subquotient of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$. In the following, we denote $R_{V,V}$ by $R_V$.
Similarly, given $V$ a polynomial ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$-module of degree $d$ viewed as a representation of the coideal subalgebra $U_{Q,q}^B$, then there exists a $K$-matrix $K_V$ that is an $U_{Q,q}^B$-isomorphism and satisfies the reflection equation: $$\label{eqreflection}
(K_V \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_W)R_{W,V} (K_W \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_V)R_{V,W} = R_{W,V} (K_W \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_V)R_{V,W} (K_V \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_W).$$ Again, one can obtain the $K$-matrix on polynomial representations inductively, by starting with $K_{V_n}:=K_Q$ and using the formula: $$\label{eq:indK}
K_{V\otimes W} = (K_V \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_W)R_{W,V} (K_W \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_V)R_{V,W}.$$ In particular, this implies that $K_{V_n{^{\otimes d}}}$ is given by the action of $K_d K_{d-1}\cdots K_1$ on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$, and for every subquotient $V$ of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$, the $K$-matrix $K_V$ is obtained by restriction.
In the Weyl group $W^A(de)$ with simple reflections $s_i, 1 \leq i \leq de-1$, consider the elements $w_i, 1 \leq i \leq d-1$ given in two line notation by $$\label{def:wi} w_i = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & \cdots & e(i-1) & ei-e+1 & \cdots & ei & ei+1& \cdots & ei+e-1 & ei+e & \cdots &de \\
1 & \cdots & e(i-1) & ei+1 & \cdots & ei+e-1 & ei-e+1& \cdots & ei & ei+e & \cdots & de
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr).$$ Note that $w_i$ is the longest element in the parabolic subgroup (isomorphic to $W^A(e)$) in $W^A(de)$ generated by $s_{e(i-1)+1},\cdots,s_{ei-1}$.
Following [@BuciumasKo1], we define $\mathcal{H}_{q}^A(d,e)$ as the subalgebra of $\mathcal{H}_{q}^A(de)$ generated by $T_{w_i}, 1 \leq i \leq d-1$. We call $\mathcal{H}_{q}^A(d,e)$ the $e$-Hecke algebra (of Coxeter type A).
Let $V$ be a ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$-module of degree $e$ and $R_V$ be its $R$-matrix. Then one can show (see the discussion after Definition 2.9 in [@BuciumasKo1]) that there is a right action of $\mathcal{H}_q^A(d;e)$ on $V^{\otimes d}$, where $T_{w_i}$ acts as $(R_{V})_{i,i+1}$.
In the Weyl group $W^B(de)$ with simple reflections $s_i, 0 \leq i \leq de-1$, consider the elements $w_i \in W^A(de) \subset W^B(de), 1 \leq i \leq d-1$ defined in equation and the element $w_0$ given by $$\label{def:w0}
w_0= s_0 (s_1 s_0 s_1) \cdots (s_{e-1} \cdots s_1 s_0 s_1 \cdots s_{e-1}).$$ Note that $w_0$ is the longest element in the parabolic subgroup (isomorphic to $W^B(e)$) in $W^B(de)$ generated by $s_0,\cdots,s_{e-1}$.
Define $\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d,e)$ as the subalgebra of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(de)$ generated by $T_{w_i}, 0 \leq i \leq d-1$. We call $\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d,e)$ the two-parameter $e$-Hecke algebra of Coxeter type B.
The $e$-Hecke algebras are simple to define but not well understood. For example, the dimension of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(1,2)$ is $4$ for $Q,q$ generic (and therefore larger than $\mathcal{H}_{1,1}^B(1,2)\cong kS_2$). This follows from the fact that the $K$-matrix $K_{V_n^{\otimes 2}} \in {\operatorname{End}}_{U_{Q,q}^B}(V_4^{\otimes 2})$ generates a subalgebra in ${\operatorname{End}}_{U_{Q,q}^B}(V_4^{\otimes 2})$ isomorphic to $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(1,2)$ (this is because the action of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(1,2)$ on $(V_n^{\otimes 2})^{\otimes 1}$ is faithful for $n \geq 2$) and the $K$-matrix has $5$ different eigenvalues for $n \geq 4$. Similarly, the dimension of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(1,e)$ is equal to the number of different eigenvalues of $K_{V_{2e}^{\otimes e}}$. But computing the dimension of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^{B}(d,e)$, for general $d$, seems like a hard problem. This is also the case for $e$-Hecke algebras of type A.
Let $V$ be a ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$-module of degree $e$ and let $K_V$ be its associated $K$-matrix. We call $V$ a type B $e$-Hecke $\emph{triple}$. The word triple comes from the fact that when we write $V$ we implicitly mean the triple $(
V,R_V,K_V)$, where we abbreviate $R_V=R_{V,V}$.
There is a right action of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d,e)$ on $V{^{\otimes d}}$ where $T_{w_i}$ acts by $(R_{V})_{i,i+1}$ for $i>0$ and $T_{w_0}$ acts by $(K_V)_1$.
First we prove this for $V = V_n^{\otimes e}$. Then the elements $T_{w_i} \in \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^{B}(d,e)$ act on $(V_n^{\otimes e})^{\otimes d} = V_n^{\otimes de}$ by $T_{w_i}= T_{s_{ie+e-1}} \cdots T_{s_{ie+1}} = (R_{V_n})_{ie+e-1,ie+e} \cdots (R_{V_n})_{ie+1,ie+2} = (R_{V_n^{\otimes e}})_{i,i+1}$ where the last equality involves the use of equation . A similar argument can be made for the $K$-matrix via equation .
This means that $(K_{V_n^{\otimes e}})_1, (R_{V_n^{\otimes e}})_{i,i+1} \in {\operatorname{End}}(V_n^{\otimes e})^{\otimes d}$ satisfy all the relations the generators $T_{w_i}$ satisfy. A degree $e$ module of ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ is a subquotient of $V_n^{\otimes e}$ and therefore $(K_{V})_1, (R_{V})_{i,i+1} \in {\operatorname{End}}(V^{\otimes d})$ also satisfy the relations the generators $T_{w_i}$ satisfy, giving rise to an $e$-Hecke algebra representation.
Let us now turn our attention to defining generalized Schur algebras. We have already defined the Schur algebra of type $B$ in equation . Let $V, W$ be degree $e$ representations of ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$. For every non-negative integer $d$ we define $$\label{defeSchuralgebra}
S_{Q,q}^B(V,W;d):= {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d,e)}(V^{\otimes d}, W^{\otimes d}).$$
In particular, we denote by $S_{Q,q}^B(n,m;d,e)$ the space ${\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d,e)}((V_n^{\otimes e})^{\otimes d}, (V_m^{\otimes e})^{\otimes d})$ and let $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d,e)=S_{Q,q}^B(n,n;d,e)$. A relation between different Schur algebras and Hecke algebras is displayed in Figure \[matingdragonflies\]. The inclusions on the Hecke algebra side follow by definition, while the surjections on the Schur algebra side follow from the inclusions on the Hecke algebra side.
& S\_q\^A(n;d,e) & &(V\_n\^[e]{})\^[d]{} & & \_q\^A(d,e)\
S\_[Q,q]{}\^B(n;d,e) & & (V\_n\^[e]{})\^[d]{} & & \_[Q,q]{}\^B(d,e)\
& S\_[q]{}\^A(n;de) & & V\_n\^[de]{} & & \_q\^A(de)\
S\_[Q,q]{}\^B(n;de) & & V\_n\^[de]{} & & \_[Q,q]{}\^B(de)\
Two-parameter quantum polynomial functors {#sec:quantumpolfunctors}
=========================================
Representations of categories
-----------------------------
Fix a field $k$. Let $\Lambda$ be a $k$-linear category. A representation of $\Lambda$ is a $k$-linear functor $\Lambda \to \mathcal{V}$, where $\mathcal V$ is the category of finite dimensional $k$-vector spaces.
Let $\operatorname{mod}_{\Lambda}$ be the category of representations of $\Lambda$, where the morphism spaces are given by the natural transformations.
The following lemma and proposition are standard in homological algebra.
\[lemma:equivendring\] If $\Lambda$ consists of a single object $*$, then we have $\operatorname{mod}_\Lambda \cong {\operatorname{End}}_\Lambda(*)$-$\operatorname{mod} $.
Therefore we can think of $\operatorname{mod}_\Lambda$ as a generalization of the module category of an algebra.
\[generate\]
A full subcategory $\Gamma$ of $\Lambda$ is said to [*generate*]{} $\Lambda$ if the additive Karoubi envelope of $\Gamma$ contains $\Lambda$. If $\Gamma$ consists of a single object $V$, we also say $V$ generates $\Lambda$.
\[prop:representabilitygeneral\]
If $\Gamma$ generates $\Lambda$, then the restriction functor $\operatorname{mod}_\Lambda\to \operatorname{mod}_\Gamma$ is an equivalence.
For any inclusion of full subcategories $\Gamma\subseteq \Gamma'\subseteq\Lambda$, if $\Gamma$ generates $\Lambda$, then $\Gamma'$ generates $\Lambda$ As a consequence, the categories $\operatorname{mod}_\Gamma$, $\operatorname{mod}_{\Gamma'}$, $\operatorname{mod}_\Lambda$ are all equivalent.
In particular, if $V$ generates $\Lambda$, then $\operatorname{mod}_\Lambda$ is equivalent to ${\operatorname{End}}_\Lambda(V)$-$\operatorname{mod}$, the category of finite dimensional modules over the algebra ${\operatorname{End}}_\Lambda(V)$.
\[exFS\]
The category of degree $d$ polynomial functors $\mathcal{P}^d$ can be defined as $\operatorname{mod}_{\Gamma^d\mathcal V}$ where $\Gamma^d\mathcal{V}$ is the category with objects vector spaces $V_n$ of dimension $n$ for any $n\geq 1$ and morphisms ${\text{\rm Hom}}_{\Gamma^d \mathcal{V}} (V_n,V_m):= {\text{\rm Hom}}_{S_d} (V_n^{\otimes d}, V_m^{\otimes d})$. If $n\geq d$, the object $V_n$ generates $\Gamma^d\mathcal V$. Note that the algebra ${\operatorname{End}}_{\Gamma^d\mathcal V}(V_n)={\operatorname{End}}_{S_d}(V_n^{\otimes d})$ is the Schur algebra $S(n;d)$. It follows that $\mathcal P^d$ is equivalent to $\operatorname{mod} S(n;d)$ for all $n\geq d$. In this example we are dealing with the three categories $\Lambda=S_d$-$\operatorname{mod}\supset \Gamma' =\Gamma^d\mathcal V\supset \Gamma = \{V_n\}$, viewing $\Gamma^d\mathcal{V}$ as a full subcategory of $S_d$-mod consisting of the objects of the form $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ for all $n$.
In fact, all variations of the category of polynomial functors, including what we present in this work, can be identified with module categories of some interesting algebras by use of Lemma \[lemma:equivendring\] and Proposition \[prop:representabilitygeneral\]. Example \[exFS\] is a classical result of Friedlander and Suslin [@FS]. The next example is the quantum polynomial functors of Hong and Yacobi [@HY], which provide a quantization of Example \[exFS\].
\[ex:qpf\] Let us denote by $\mathcal{AP}_q^d$ the category defined as $\operatorname{mod}_{\Gamma_q^d\mathcal V}$, where $\Gamma^d_q\mathcal{V}$ is the category with objects vector spaces $V_n$ of dimension $n$ for any $n\geq 1$ and morphisms ${\text{\rm Hom}}_{\Gamma^d_q \mathcal{V}} (V_n,V_m):= {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}^A_q(d)} (V_n^{\otimes d}, V_m^{\otimes d})$ where $\mathcal{H}^A_q(d)$ acts on $V_n^{\otimes d}$ via $R$-matrices as in equation . As in the non-quantum case, we have that ${\operatorname{End}}_{\Gamma_q^d\mathcal V}(V_n)={\operatorname{End}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^A(d)}(V_n^{\otimes d})=S^A_q(n;d)$ and $\mathcal{AP}_q^d$ is equivalent to $\operatorname{mod} S_q^A(n;d)$ for all $n\geq d$. We rename $\Gamma^d\mathcal V$ to $\mathcal C^A_d$.
Polynomial functors and type B Hecke algebras {#sec:defofpolfunct}
---------------------------------------------
The quantum divided power category $\mathcal{C}^B_d$ has objects $V_n$ for $n \geq 1$. The morphisms in this category are $${\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{C}_d^B} (V_n, V_m) := {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}(V_n^{\otimes d}, V_m^{\otimes d}).$$
Equivalently, we can define $\mathcal C^B_d$ as the full subcategory of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$-mod consisting of the objects $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ for all $n$.
\[defntypeBpolfct\] We define the category of type BC polynomial functors as $$\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d:={\operatorname{mod}}_{\mathcal{C}^B_d}.$$
Note that by definition, every $F\in \mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d$ induces a linear map $$F: {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{C}_d^B}(V_n,V_m) \to {\text{\rm Hom}}_{k}(F(V_n),F(V_m)).$$
Let $F \in \mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d$. The space $F(V_n)$ has the structure of a $S_{Q,q}^B(n)$-module.
Given an element $x \in S_{Q,q}^B(n;d) = {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}(V_n^{\otimes d}, V_n^{\otimes d})$, there is a corresponding element $F(x) \in {\operatorname{End}}(F(V_n))$. Since the functor $F$ is linear, the space $F(V_n)$ has the structure of an $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$-module with $x \in S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ acting on $F(V_n)$ via $F(x)$.
From Remark \[coidealschur\], the Schur algebra $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ is a quotient of the coideal $U_{Q,q}^B$ in the generic case. It follows that $F(V_n)$ is endowed with the structure of a $U_{Q,q}^B$-module of degree $d$.
Representability {#sec:representability}
----------------
We now show that the category $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d$ is equivalent, under certain conditions, to the module category over the finite dimensional algebra $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d) = {\operatorname{End}}_{\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d)}(V_n^{\otimes d})$. This follows from Lemma \[lemma:equivendring\] and Proposition \[prop:representabilitygeneral\] if we prove that the domain category $\mathcal{C}^B_d$ is generated by the object $V_{n}$ in the sense of Definition \[generate\].
We split this section into two parts depending on the parity of $n$. In §\[sec:representabilityodd\] we show the equivalence between $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d$ and $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$-$\operatorname{mod}$ for $n$ *odd*. In §\[sec:representabilityeven\] we impose the condition that $Q,q$ are generic and prove the equivalence for all $n$. We explain in Remark \[remgenerationeven\] what can go wrong if $n$ is even.
As a convenient convention for the proof, we say for two objects $V,W\in \Lambda=\mathcal{C}^B_d$ that [*$V$ generates $W$*]{} if $W$ is a direct summand of a direct sum of $V$. We say that $V$ generates $\Lambda$ if $V$ generates every object in $\Lambda$. This definition is consistent with Definition \[generate\].
### Representability for $n$ odd {#sec:representabilityodd}
Let $r$ be a non-negative integer.
\[prop:Vdgeneration\] The object $V_n$ generates $\mathcal{C}_d^B$ if $n=2r+1 \geq 2d$.
Let $n=2r+1 \geq 2d$. We want to show that $V_n$ generates $V_m$ for all $m$. Note that $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ is a direct sum of ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$-modules $V(\mathbf{a},n)$ and $V_m{^{\otimes d}}$ is a direct sum of modules $V(\mathbf{b},m)$. By Lemma \[lemma:generationodd\], for every $V(\mathbf{b},m)$ there is a $V(\mathbf{a},n)$ such that the two spaces are isomorphic as ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$-modules. It follows by definition that $V_n$ generates $V_m$ for all $m$ which implies that $V_n$ generates $\mathcal{C}_d^B$.
The following result relates the category of two-parameter polynomial functors with the category of modules of the type B Schur algebra.
\[thm:representability\] The category $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d$ is equivalent to the category of finite dimensional modules of the endomorphism algebra $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ where $n=2r+1$ for any $r \geq d$.
Use Proposition \[prop:Vdgeneration\] to apply Proposition \[prop:representabilitygeneral\] and Lemma \[lemma:equivendring\] with $\Gamma=\{V_{2r+1}\}$ and recall that $S_{Q,q}^{B}(2r+1;d) = {\operatorname{End}}_{\Gamma} (V_{2r+1})$.
\[cor:moritaeqgeneral\] The Schur algebras $S_{Q,q}^B(m;d)$ and $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ are Morita equivalent if $m,n \geq 2d$ are odd.
### Representability for $n$ even {#sec:representabilityeven}
We now assume $Q,q$ are generic, which implies the Hecke algebra ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ is semisimple.
\[lemma:generationeven\] Suppose ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ is semisimple. Then $V_{2m}$ generates $V_{2m-1}$.
It is enough to find a summand in $V_{2m}{^{\otimes d}}$ which is isomorphic to $V(\mathbf a)=V(\mathbf a, 2m-1 )$ for an arbitrary $\mathbf a\in \mathbb I^d_{2m-1}$. In fact, since $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$-modules are completely reducible, it is enough to construct an injective map from $V(\mathbf a)$ into $V_{2m}{^{\otimes d}}$. Since $V(\mathbf a)=V(w \mathbf a)$ for $w\in W^B(d)$, we may assume that $0\leq a_1\leq\cdots\leq a_d$. Let $a_{i+1}$ be the first entry greater than zero.
Let $a'_j=a_j+\frac{1}{2}$. We define $$\label{eq:l0l1}
\begin{split}
&\ell_0(w)= \text{the multiplicity of $s_0$ in a reduced expression of }w;\\
&\ell_1(w)=\ell(w)-\ell_0(w),
\end{split}$$ where $\ell(w)$ is the Coxeter length for $W^B(d)$. Then define the element $$\bar v_{\mathbf{a}}:=\sum_{w\in W^{B}(i)/\operatorname{Stab}_{W^B(i)}(\frac{1}{2},\cdots,\frac{1}{2})} Q^{-\ell_0(w)}q^{-\ell_1(w)}v_{w(\frac{1}{2},\cdots,\frac{1}{2})}\otimes v_{a'_{i+1}}\otimes\cdots\otimes v_{a'_{d}}$$ in $V_{2m}{^{\otimes d}}$. Here $v_{(\frac{1}{2},\cdots,\frac{1}{2} )} := v_{\frac{1}{2}} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{\frac{1}{2}}$, where there are $i$ terms in the tensor product and in $(\frac{1}{2},\cdots,\frac{1}{2})$. The group $W^B(d)$ acts as in equation .
The vector $\bar v_{\mathbf{a}}$ is an eigenvector with eigenvalue $q^{-1}$ for $T_j \in \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d), 0<j\leq i$ and eigenvalue $Q^{-1}$ for $T_0$, just like $v_\mathbf{a} = v_{(0,\cdots,0)} \otimes v_{a_{i+1}} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{a_d}$. Therefore the element $\bar v_{\mathbf{a}}$ has the same stabilizer in $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$ as $v_\mathbf{a}$ and the assignment $v_{\mathbf{a}}\mapsto \bar v_{\mathbf{a}}$ induces a well-defined $\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d)$-map $V(\mathbf a)\to V_{2m}{^{\otimes d}}$ which is injective.
\[2dgenerates2d+1\] Suppose ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ is semisimple. Then $V_{2d}$ generates $V_{2d+1}$.
The proof uses the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:generationeven\]. We note it does not hold in general that $V_{2m}$ generates $V_{2m+1}$.
\[thm:representabilityss\] Let $Q,q$ be generic. The category $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d$ is equivalent to the category of finite dimensional modules of the endomorphism algebra $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ where $n \geq 2d$.
The Hecke algebra ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ is semisimple because we work with $Q,q$ be generic. The case when $n$ is odd has been proved in greater generality, so we focus on $n=2m+2$. Using Lemma \[lemma:generationeven\], $V_{2m+2}$ generates $V_{2m+1}$, which by Proposition \[prop:Vdgeneration\] and transitivity implies that $V_{2m+2}$ generates $\mathcal{C}_d^B$. This argument proves the statement for $n \geq 2d+1$ and Lemma \[2dgenerates2d+1\] improves the bound to $n\geq2d$. The rest of the proof is the same as for Theorem \[thm:representability\].
\[cor:moritaeq\] Let $Q,q$ be generic. The Schur algebras $S_{Q,q}^B(m;d)$ and $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ are Morita equivalent if $m,n \geq 2d$.
\[remgenerationeven\] When $Q$ or $q$ is a root of unity (or when char$(k)=2$) Lemma \[lemma:generationeven\] fails. To exemplify this, take $Q^2=-1$ and $d=1$ in Lemma \[lemma:generationeven\]. Then $V_1$ is an $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(1)$-submodule of $V_2$, but it is not a quotient. This is because $K_{Q}: V_2 \to V_2$ is not diagonalizable when $Q^2=-1$. When $q^2=-1$, similar phenomena happen with $R_q$ for $d \geq 2$.
Stability for quantum symmetric pairs and Schur algebras {#stability}
--------------------------------------------------------
Corollary \[cor:moritaeq\] allows us to state a stability property for the Schur algebra $S_{Q,q}^B(n;d)$ as $n\to \infty$. This extends to a property of the coideal subalgebra $U^B_{Q,q}$.
Let us consider $U_{Q,q}^B$ in the $n=2r$ case. The degree $d$ irreducibles of $U_{Q,q}^B(\mathfrak{gl}(2r))$ are indexed by pairs of partitions $(\lambda, \mu)$ such that $|\lambda| + |\mu|=d, l(\lambda) \leq r, l(\lambda) \leq r$. There is a notion of compatibility for degree $d$ polynomial representations of $U_{Q,q}^B(\mathfrak{gl}(2r))$ for different $r$, which allows us to take the limit $r \to \infty$. Corollary \[cor:moritaeq\] implies that the limit of the polynomial representation theory of degree $d$ as $r\to \infty$ is well defined and that it is equivalent to the representation theory of $S^B_{Q,q}(n;d)$ for any $n\geq 2d$.
Let us be more precise. Let $\mathbb{I}_{2\infty} = \mathbb{Z} + \frac{1}{2}$ and let $\mathbb{I}_{2\infty+1} = \mathbb{Z}$ and $V_{2\infty}$ and $V_{2\infty +1}$ be vector spaces with basis indexed by elements in $\mathbb{I}_{2\infty}$ and $\mathbb{I}_{2\infty+1}$, respectively. Define the quantum groups $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}(2\infty))$ and $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}(2\infty+1))$ via generators and relations as in equation with $V_{2\infty}$ and $V_{2\infty+1}$ as defining representations, respectively (see for example [@ES Section 7]). Then we define the coideal subalgebras $U^B_{Q,q}(2\infty), U^B_{Q,q}(2\infty+1)$ by extending the definition in the finite case to the infinite case. There is an obvious extension of the right action of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$ on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ in equation to when $n$ gets replaced by $2\infty$ or $2\infty+1$, therefore allowing us to define the following Schur algebras: $$\begin{split}
S_{Q,q}^B(2\infty;d) &:= {\operatorname{End}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}(V_{2\infty}^{\otimes d}),\\
S_{Q,q}^B(2\infty+1;d) &:= {\operatorname{End}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}(V_{2\infty+1}^{\otimes d}).
\end{split}$$
The coideal subalgebras $U^B_{Q,q}(2\infty), U^B_{Q,q}(2\infty+1)$ have specialization $Q \to 1$ and $Q\to q$ as in the finite case. These infinite versions are compatible with combinatorics of translation functors and can be categorified in a way that they have categorical actions on representation categories of type BD (see [@ES Section 7]).
We define the $\emph{polynomial}$ representations of $S_{Q,q}^B(2\infty;d)$ and $S_{Q,q}^B(2\infty+1;d)$ as the representations appearing as subquotients of the representations $V_{2\infty}{^{\otimes d}}$ and $V_{2\infty+1}{^{\otimes d}}$, respectively. We can show via essentially the same technique as above that Theorem \[thm:representability\] and Corollary \[cor:moritaeq\] extend to the $2\infty / 2\infty +1$ case:
\[prop:moritaequivalenceinfinity\] The category of polynomial representations of the Schur algebras $S^B_{Q,q}(2\infty;d)$ and that of $S^B_{Q,q}(2 \infty +1;d)$ are both equivalent to the category $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d$.
Define the $\emph{polynomial representation theory}$ of $U^B_{Q,q}(2 \infty)$ and $U^B_{Q,q}(2 \infty+1)$ as a direct sum of the categories $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}(2\infty):=&\bigoplus_{d\geq1}\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d(2 \infty) = \bigoplus_{d\geq1}S_{Q,q}^{B}(2 \infty;d)\operatorname{-mod}, \\
\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}(2\infty+1):=& \bigoplus_{d\geq1}\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d(2 \infty+1) = \bigoplus_{d\geq1}S_{Q,q}^{B}(2 \infty+1;d)\operatorname{-mod}.
\end{split}$$ The following theorem follows immediately from Proposition \[prop:moritaequivalenceinfinity\].
\[thmlimitoddeven\] The categories $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}(2\infty)$ and $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}(2\infty+1)$ are equivalent.
The theorem implies that the polynomial representation theory of the coideal subalgebras in the $n \to \infty$ limit does not depend on the parity of $n$. Therefore one can replace $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}(2\infty)$ and $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}(2\infty+1)$ by $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}(\infty)$.
\[rem:noddevencoideal\] Note that there is a difference between the definition of $U_{Q,q}^B(\mathfrak{gl}(n))$ for odd and for even $n$. On the level of generators , when $n-1$ is odd, the coideal has a special generator $t$, while when $n-1$ is even, the generators $e_{{\frac{1}{2}}}, f_{\frac{1}{2}}$ are special. When $n=2r$, the coideal subalgebra $U_{Q,q}^B \subset {U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ is a quantization of the subalgebra $U(\mathfrak{gl}(r) ) \oplus U(\mathfrak{gl}(r)) \subset U(\mathfrak{gl}(2r))$. When $n=2r+1$, the coideal subalgebra $U_{Q,q}^B \subset {U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ is a quantization of the subalgebra $U(\mathfrak{gl}(r) ) \oplus U(\mathfrak{gl}(r+1)) \subset U(\mathfrak{gl}(2r+1))$. This difference persists even in the $n=2\infty$ vs $n=2\infty +1$ case. Therefore it is unclear how to relate the coideals $U^B_{Q,q}(2 \infty)$ and $U^B_{Q,q}(2 \infty+1)$ as algebras.
Polynomial functors and braided categories with a cylinder twist {#sec:cylindertwist}
================================================================
Actions of monoidal categories {#sec:action}
------------------------------
Let $\mathcal{B}$ be a category and let $(\mathcal{A},\otimes,1_\mathcal{A})$ be a monoidal category. Denote by $l_X:1_{\mathcal{A}}\otimes X \to X$ the left unitor. Denote by $a_{X_1,X_2,X_3}:(X_1 \otimes X_2) \otimes X_3\to X_1\otimes (X_2 \otimes X_3)$ the associativity morphism of $\mathcal{A}$.
\[def:action\] We say $\mathcal{A}$ acts on $\mathcal{B}$ (from the right) if there is a functor $*:\mathcal{B} \times \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ such that
1. for morphisms $f_1, f_2$ in $\mathcal{B}$ and morphisms $g_1, g_2$ in $\mathcal{A}$ the equation $$(f_1 * g_1)(f_2 * g_2) = (f_1 f_2)*(g_1 g_2)$$ holds whenever both sides are defined.
2. There is a natural morphism $\lambda:*(\operatorname{id} \times \otimes) \to *(* \times \operatorname{id})$, i.e., $\lambda_{Y,X_1,X_2}:Y * (X_1\otimes X_2) \to (Y * X_1) * X_2$ such that the following diagram commutes:
$$\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes,row sep=3em,column sep=8em,minimum width=2em]
{
Y*((X_1 \otimes X_2) \otimes X_3) & Y*(X_1 \otimes (X_2 \otimes X_3)) \\
& (Y * X_1) *(X_2 \otimes X_3) \\
(Y*(X_1 \otimes X_2)) *X_3 & ((Y*X_1)*X_2)*X_3\\};
\path[-stealth]
(m-1-1) edge node [left] {$\lambda_{Y,X_1 \otimes X_2,X_3}$} (m-3-1)
(m-1-1) edge node [above] {$\operatorname{id}_Y*a_{X_1,X_2,X_3}$} (m-1-2)
(m-1-2) edge node [right] {$\lambda_{Y,X_1, X_2\otimes X_3}$} (m-2-2)
(m-2-2) edge node [right] {$\lambda_{Y*X_1,X_2,X_3}$} (m-3-2)
(m-3-1) edge node [below] {$\lambda_{Y,X_1, X_2}*\operatorname{id}_{X_3}$} (m-3-2);
\end{tikzpicture}$$
3. There is a natural isomorphism $\rho_{Y}:Y*1_{\mathcal{A}} \to Y$ such that the following diagram commutes: $$\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes,row sep=3em,column sep=6em,minimum width=2em]
{
Y*(1_{\mathcal{A}} \otimes X) & (Y*1_{\mathcal{A}}) *X \\
Y*X & Y * X\\};
\path[-stealth]
(m-1-1) edge node [above] {$\lambda_{Y,1,X}$} (m-1-2)
(m-1-1) edge node [left] {$\operatorname{id}_{Y}*l_X$} (m-2-1)
(m-1-2) edge node [right] {$\rho_Y*\operatorname{id}_X$} (m-2-2)
(m-2-1) edge node [below] {$\operatorname{id}_{Y*X}$} (m-2-2);
\end{tikzpicture}$$
Following [@HO], we call the triple $(\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{A},*)$ an $\emph{action pair}$. We write $(\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{A})$ for $(\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{A},*)$ if it is clear what the action $*$ is.
Consider the category of type A quantum polynomial functors $\mathcal{AP}_q = \bigoplus_d \mathcal{AP}_q^d$ defined in Example \[ex:qpf\]. The category $\mathcal{AP}_q$ has a monoidal structure. Given $F \in \mathcal{AP}^d_q$ and $G \in \mathcal{AP}^e_q$, define $F \otimes G \in \mathcal{AP}^{d+e}_q$ as $ F \otimes G (V_n):= F(V_n) \otimes G(V_n)$ and on the morphisms, $F \otimes G$ is given as the composition $$\label{compositionA}
\begin{split}
& {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^A(d+e)}(V_n^{\otimes d+e}, V_m^{\otimes d+e}) \to {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^A(d)\otimes \mathcal{H}_q^A(e)}(V_n^{\otimes d}\otimes V_n^{\otimes e}, V_m^{\otimes d}\otimes V_m^{\otimes e}) \\
&\to {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^A(d)}(V_n^{\otimes d},V_m^{\otimes d}) \otimes {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^A(e)}(V_n^{\otimes e}, V_m^{\otimes e}) \\
&\to {\text{\rm Hom}}(F(V_n),F(V_m))\otimes {\text{\rm Hom}}(G(V_n),G(V_m)) \\
& \to {\text{\rm Hom}}(F\otimes G(V_n), F \otimes G(V_m)).
\end{split}$$
There is also a unit with respect to this monoidal structure. The unit is a degree $0$ polynomial functor, which we denote by $1_{\mathcal{AP}_q}$ and is defined $1_{\mathcal{AP}_q} (V_n):=k$ and on morphisms it maps $f \in {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^A(d)}(V_n^{\otimes 0},V_m^{\otimes 0}) \simeq {\text{\rm Hom}}(k,k)$ identically to ${\text{\rm Hom}}(k,k)$.
Given $F \in \mathcal{AP}_q^d, G \in \mathcal{AP}_q^e$, the functoriality of $F, G$ endows the spaces $F(V_n)$ and $G(V_n)$ with actions of the $q$-Schur algebras $S_q(n;d)$ and $S_q(n;e)$, respectively, or equivalently, degree $d$ (respectively, degree $e$) ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$-module structures.
The category $\mathcal{AP}_q$ is a braided monoidal category with the braiding: $$\label{eqbraiding}
R_{F,G}:F \otimes G \to G \otimes F,$$ where $R_{F,G}(V_n) := R_{F(V_n), G(V_n)}$ is the $R$-matrix defined in § \[sec:RKe\]. This is proved in [@HY Theorem 5.2].
Recall the category $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$ defined in Definition \[defntypeBpolfct\].
\[thm:strictactionpair\] The pair $(\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}, \mathcal{AP}_q)$ is an action pair.
Let us first define the action of $\mathcal{AP}_q$ on $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$. Let $F \in \mathcal{AP}^d_q$ and $G \in \mathcal{P}^e_{Q,q}$. Define $G*F\in \mathcal{P}^{d+e}_{Q,q}$ on objects as $G*F(V_n) := G(V_n) \otimes F(V_n)$ and on morphisms as the composition: $$\label{compositionB}
\begin{split}
& {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^B(d+e)}(V_n^{\otimes d+e}, V_m^{\otimes d+e}) \to {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^B(d)\otimes \mathcal{H}_q^A(e)}(V_n^{\otimes d}\otimes V_n^{\otimes e}, V_m^{\otimes d}\otimes V_m^{\otimes e}) \\
&\to {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^B(d)}(V_n^{\otimes d},V_m^{\otimes d}) \otimes {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^A(e)}(V_n^{\otimes e}, V_m^{\otimes e}) \\
& \to {\text{\rm Hom}}(G(V_n),G(V_m))\otimes {\text{\rm Hom}}(F(V_n),F(V_m)) \\
& \to {\text{\rm Hom}}(G* F(V_n), G*F(V_m)).
\end{split}$$
Since we have defined $G*F(V_n) := G(V_n) \otimes F(V_n)$, the natural morphisms $\lambda_{Y,X_1,X_2}:Y * (X_1\otimes X_2) \to (Y * X_1) * X_2$ and $\rho_{Y}:Y*1_{\mathcal{A}} \to Y$ are the identity maps on objects.
Using the action defined above, the proof consists only of routine verification of the axioms.
For example, let us prove the first property in Definition \[def:action\]. Given $f:F_1 \to F_2$ and $g:G_1 \to G_2$, denote by $f_{V_n}: F_1(V_n) \to F_2(V_n)$ and $g_{V_n}: G_1(V_n) \to G_2(V_n)$ their values on objects, respectively. Then $f * g : F_1 * G_1 \to F_2 * G_2$ is given on objects by $f*g_{V_n} = f_{V_n} \otimes g_{V_n}$. The first property then becomes equivalent to the equation $((f_1)_{V_n} \otimes (g_1)_{V_n}) ((f_2)_{V_n} \otimes (g_2)_{V_n}) = ( (f_1)_{V_n} (f_2)_{V_n} \otimes (g_1)_{V_n} (g_2)_{V_n} )$ which is a standard property of tensor product.
We omit the rest of the proofs since they are routine.
The action in Theorem \[thm:strictactionpair\] is a right action. This fact is related to the coideal $U_{Q,q}^B$ being a right coideal, i.e. $\Delta(U_{Q,q}^B) \subset U_{Q,q}^B \otimes {U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$ and to the fact that $T_0\in {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ acts on the first (left) component of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$. There is a version of the Schur-Weyl duality in Theorem \[thm:doublecentralizerB\] where the Hecke algebra generator $T_0$ acts on the last component of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ (and $T_1$ acts on the last two components of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ etc.) and the corresponding coideal is a $\emph{left}$ coideal. The action pair in Theorem \[thm:strictactionpair\] is defined similarly, but it is now a $\emph{left}$ action pair.
The action in Theorem \[thm:strictactionpair\] is bilinear. We can therefore say that $\mathcal P_{Q,q}$ is a (right) module for $\mathcal{AP}_q$.
Cylinder braided action pairs {#sec:cylbraiddd}
-----------------------------
In this subsection we show how to build a cylinder braided action pair from the theory of two-parameter quantum polynomial functors.
\[defcylbraidedacpair\] An action pair $(\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{A})$ is said to be $\emph{cylinder braided}$ if:
1. There exists an object $1\in\mathcal B$ which gives a bijection $\operatorname{Ob}(\mathcal{A}) \to \operatorname{Ob}(\mathcal{B})$ via $X\mapsto 1*X$.
2. $\mathcal{A}$ is a braided monoidal category with braiding $c$.
3. There exists a natural isomorphism $t :{\operatorname{id}}_\mathcal{B}\to {\operatorname{id}}_\mathcal{B}$ such that the following equalities hold: $$c_{Y,X}(t_Y \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_X)c_{X,Y}(t_X \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_Y) = (t_X \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_Y)c_{Y,X} (t_Y \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_X)c_{X,Y} = t_{X \otimes Y}.$$
The goal of this subsection is to show that the $\mathcal{AP}_q$ action on $\mathcal P_{Q,q}$ produces a cylinder braided action pair. The module category $\mathcal B$ here consists of the (one-parameter) quantum polynomial functors viewed as two-parameter quantum polynomial functors. We make this more precise:
Recall that $\mathcal{AP}^d_q={\operatorname{mod}}_{\mathcal C^A_d}$ and $\mathcal{P}^d_{Q,q}={\operatorname{mod}}_{\mathcal C^B_d}$, and that $Ob (\mathcal{C}^B_d) = Ob (\mathcal{C}^A_d)$. The Hecke algebra inclusion $\mathcal{H}_q^A(d) \xhookrightarrow{} {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ implies the inclusion ${\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}(V_n{^{\otimes d}}, V_m{^{\otimes d}}) \xhookrightarrow{} {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^A(d)}(V_n{^{\otimes d}}, V_m{^{\otimes d}})$ which is the same as the inclusion $\operatorname{Mor}_{\mathcal{C}_d^B}(V_n, V_m) \xhookrightarrow{} \operatorname{Mor}_{\mathcal{C}_d^A}(V_n, V_m)$. We thus have the restriction functor $${\operatorname{Res}}: \mathcal{AP}_q \to \mathcal{P}_{Q,q}.$$ The functor ${\operatorname{Res}}$ is equivalent to the restriction of $S_q^A(n;d)$-modules to ${S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d)$-modules in view of Theorem \[thm:representability\].
Denote by ${\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{AP}_q)$ the full subcategory of $\mathcal P_{Q,q}$ whose objects are ${\operatorname{Res}}Ob(\mathcal P_{Q,q})$. We define an action of $\mathcal{AP}_q$ on ${\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{AP}_{q})$ similar to the action defined in § \[sec:action\]. Let $F\in {\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{AP}_{q})$ and $G \in \mathcal{AP}^e_{q}$. There is a unique $F' \in \mathcal{AP}_q^d$ such that $F={\operatorname{Res}}(F')$. Define $F*G\in {\operatorname{Res}}\mathcal{AP}^{d+e}_{q}$ as ${\operatorname{Res}}(F*G)'$, where $(F*G)'\in \mathcal{AP}_q^{d+e}$ is $(F*G)' := F' \otimes G$.
Recall the element $c_K=c_K^d=\prod_i K_i\in {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$. Lemma \[cKcentral\] implies $c_K \in {\text{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}}(V_n{^{\otimes d}}, V_m{^{\otimes d}})$.
Given an element $F \in {\operatorname{Res}}\mathcal{AP}_{q}$, define $K_F:F\to F$ by $$K_F(V_n):= F(c_K):F(V_n) \to F(V_n).$$
\[lemnaturaltransfK\] The map $K_F$ is a morphism in the category ${\operatorname{Res}}\mathcal{AP}_{q}$.
Assume $F$ is of degree $d$. To see that $K_F$ is a morphism, we need to show that the following diagram commutes $$\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes,row sep=2em,column sep=6em,minimum width=2em]
{
F(V_n) & F(V_n) \\
F(V_m) & F(V_m)\\};
\path[-stealth]
(m-1-1) edge node [above] {$F(c_K)$} (m-1-2)
(m-1-1) edge node [left] {$F(x)$} (m-2-1)
(m-1-2) edge node [right] {$F(x)$} (m-2-2)
(m-2-1) edge node [below] {$F(c_K)$} (m-2-2);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ for all $x \in {\text{\rm Hom}}_{{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}}(V_n{^{\otimes d}}, V_m{^{\otimes d}})$. Since $c_K\in {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$, it commutes with $x$. Thus we have $F(x)F(c_K) = F(x c_K) =F(c_K x) = F(c_K)F(x)$. The statement of the lemma follows.
\[thmactioncylbraided\] The action pair $({\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{AP}_{q}), \mathcal{AP}_q)$ is a cylinder braided action pair.
The action in Theorem \[thm:strictactionpair\] preserves ${\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{AP}_q)$. Thus $( {\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{AP}_{q}), \mathcal{AP}_q)$ is an action pair by restriction.
To show that the action pair is cylinder braided, we let $1:={\operatorname{Res}}k\in {\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{AP}_q)$, where $k\in\mathcal{AP}_q$ is the tensor identity (the constant functor) and identify $F\in Ob(\mathcal{AP}_q)$ with ${\operatorname{Res}}F \in Ob({\operatorname{Res}}\mathcal{AP}_q)$. Take $c_{F,G}$ to be the braiding of $\mathcal{AP}_q$ in and set $t_F = K_F$. To prove that $t$ is a natural transformation, let $f \in \operatorname{Mor}_{\mathcal{AP}_q}(F,G)$. This means that $$f_{V_n} F(x) = G(x) f_{V_n}$$ for any $x \in \operatorname{Mor}_{\mathcal{C}_d^A}(V_n,V_n)$. Since $K_F(V_n)=F(c_K)$, taking $x=c_K$ gives what we need.
To show the relation $$R_{G,F} (K_G \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_F)R_{F,G} (K_F \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_G)=
(K_F \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_G)R_{G,F} (K_G \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_F)R_{F,G} =
K_{F \otimes G},$$ it is enough to consider the case $F=\otimes^d$ and $G=\otimes^e$ since the morphisms $R, K$ restrict to subobjects. Since $R_{\otimes^d,\otimes^e}$ is given by the action of $T_{d,e}$, the above relation is equivalent to the equation $$c_K^{d+e}=T_{e,d}(c_K^e\otimes 1) T_{d,e} (c_K^d\otimes 1)=(c_K^d\otimes 1)T_{e,d}(c_K^e\otimes 1)T_{d,e}$$ in $\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d+e)$, where $c_K^d\otimes 1\in {\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}\otimes\mathcal{H}^A_q(e)$ and $c_K^e\otimes 1\in \mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(e)\otimes{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ are viewed as elements in $ \mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d+e)$ via ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}\otimes\mathcal{H}^A_q(e) \subseteq \mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d+e)$ and via $\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(e)\otimes\mathcal{H}^A_q(d) \subseteq\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(e+d)=\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(e+d).$ But this is checked by a straightforward computation in the Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d+e)$.
\[lemKx\] Let $K_{F(V_n)}$ be the $K$-matrix defined in § \[sec:RKe\]. Then we have $$K_{F(V_n)} = F(c_K).$$
\[rembmc\] Strengthening the idea of a cylinder braided action pair is the notion of a *braided module category* (see [@Enriquez §4.3] and [@Brochier § 5.1]). A cylinder braided action pair ($\mathcal B,\mathcal A$) is equipped with a cylinder twist which can be thought of as a natural map $t_X:1*X\to 1*X$ (via $X=1*X$). A braided module comes equipped with a twist $b_{M,X}:M*X\to M*X$ natural on both $M\in\mathcal{B}, X\in\mathcal{A}$ with axioms that ensure the twist is compatible with the braiding on $\mathcal{A}$. Therefore, for a braided module $(\mathcal{B},b)$ over $\mathcal{A}$ and each $M\in\mathcal{B}$, the action pair $(M*\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A}$) is cylinder braided with $t_{M*X}=b_{M,X}$.
Our category $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$ is a braided module category over $\mathcal{AP}_q$. In the setting of $U_{Q,q}^B$-modules with $Q,q$ generic, Kolb [@KolbBMC] shows that the category of finite dimensional $U_{Q,q}^B$-modules is a braided module category over the category of finite dimensional ${U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)}$-modules. If we restrict to ${\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{AP}_q)\subseteq\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$, we can obtain the twist by letting $b_{Y,X}=c_{X,Y}(t_X \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_Y)c_{Y,X}$ for $Y\in {\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{AP}_q), X\in \mathcal{AP}_q$. When $Q,q$ are generic, every object in $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$ is a direct summand of an object in ${\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{AP}_q)$, so this is enough. In the non-generic case, we need to further show that $b_{Y,X}$ restricts to submodules. For this, we can work with duals of Schur algebras and essentially build a couniversal $K$-matrix (see [@HY Section 5] where they use the couniversal $R$-matrix to show that $\mathcal{AP}$ is braided monoidal). In order to streamline the contents of the paper, we skip the proof of this fact.
Composition for two-parameter polynomial functors {#sec:composition}
=================================================
Let $d$ be a non-negative integer and $e$ be a positive integer.
The category ${\mathcal{AP}^{d,e}_q}$
-------------------------------------
We now define a category of (type A) quantum polynomial functors ${\mathcal{AP}^{d,e}_q}$ where composition is possible. This category is studied in [@BuciumasKo1].
Recall the $e$-Schur algebra and the $e$-Hecke algebra defined in Section \[sec:RKe\]. Let $\mathcal{C}^A_{d,e}$ be the category defined as follows: its objects are finite dimensional $S_{q}^A(n;e)$-modules (or the degree $e$ representation of $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$)) for all positive $n$. The morphisms are given by $$\operatorname{Mor}(V, W):= {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_q^A(d,e)}(V{^{\otimes d}}, W{^{\otimes d}}),$$ where the $e$-Hecke algebra acts on $V{^{\otimes d}}$ as in §\[sec:RKe\]. Define ${\mathcal{AP}^{d,e}_q}:={\operatorname{mod}}_{\mathcal{C}^A_{d,e}}$.
Then [@BuciumasKo1 Theorem 5.2] shows that there is a composition $\circ_A$ on $\mathcal{AP}^{*,*}_q$. More precisely this means that given $F \in \mathcal{AP}_q^{d_2,d_1e}, G \in \mathcal{AP}_q^{d_1,e}$, then we have $F \circ_A G\in \mathcal{AP}_q^{d_1 d_2,e}$. One can also check that $\circ_A$ is associative.
The category $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d,e}$ {#subsec:pQqde}
--------------------------------------
Define the category $\mathcal{C}^B_{d,e}$ as follows: its objects are finite dimensional $S_{Q,q}^B(n;e)$-modules, for all positive $n$. The morphisms are given by $$\operatorname{Mor}(V, W):= {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d,e)}(V{^{\otimes d}}, W{^{\otimes d}}),$$ where the action of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d,e)$ on $V{^{\otimes d}}$ is given in Section \[sec:RKe\]. Define $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d,e}:={\operatorname{mod}}_{\mathcal{C}^B_{d,e}}$.
It is proved in [@BuciumasKo1], assuming $q$ generic, that the category $\mathcal{AP}_q^{d,e}$ is equivalent to the category $\operatorname{mod} {\operatorname{End}}_{\mathcal{H}_{q}^{A}(d,e)}((\bigoplus_{i=1}^d V_n^{\otimes e}){^{\otimes d}})$ when $n\geq de$. One can prove a similar theorem in the type B setting:
\[thm:epfrepresentability\] Let $k=\mathbb C$ and $Q,q\in \mathbb C^\times$ generic. If $n \geq 2de$, the category $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d,e}$ is equivalent to the category of finite dimensional modules of the generalized Schur algebra $$S_{Q,q}^B( \bigoplus_{i=1}^d V_n^{\otimes e}; d):= {\operatorname{End}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d,e)}( (\bigoplus_{i=1}^d V_n^{\otimes e})^{\otimes d} ).$$
We do not prove the theorem because the proof is long and tedious, and the techniques are the same as in the type A setting. See [@BuciumasKo1 Corollary 6.14] for the type A argument which is similar. Note that the theorem requires semisimplicity, i.e. $Q,q$ have to be generic and $k$ has to be a field of characteristic $0$.
Let $F\in \mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d_2,d_1e}$ and $G \in \mathcal{AP}_q^{d_1,e}$. It is shown in [@BuciumasKo1 Theorem 5.1] that $G(V)$ has the structure of an $S_q^A(n;d_1e)$-module.
Recall that $F,G$ produce maps on morphism sets $$G: {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{q}^A(d_1,e)}(V^{\otimes d_1}, W^{\otimes d_1}) \to {\text{\rm Hom}}(G(V), G(W))$$ for $V,W$ direct sums of $e$-Schur algebra-subquotients of $V_n^{\otimes e}$ for some $n$ (or $e$-Hecke pairs as they are called in [@BuciumasKo1]), and $$F: {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d_2,d_1e)}(\bar V^{\otimes d_2}, \bar W^{\otimes d_2}) \to {\text{\rm Hom}}(F(\bar V), F(\bar W))$$ for $\bar V,\bar W$ direct sums of $ed_1$-Schur algebra-subquotients of $V_n^{\otimes ed_1}$. It seems (type B) $d_1e$-Hecke triples would be an appropriate name for such $\bar V,\bar W$. The reason for the use of “triple” is as follows: we are using the vector space structure of $\bar V, \bar W$, as well as their $R$-matrices and $K$-matrices to define the action of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d_2,d_1e)$ (for an $e$-Hecke pair we only needed the vector space structure and its $R$-matrix).
Define $F \circ G \in \mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d_2d_1, e}$ as follows: for $V$ an $S_q^A(n;e)$-module set $F\circ G(V) :=F( G(V))$. This is well-defined since $G(V)$ has the structure of an $S_q^A(n;d_1e)$-module. Define $F\circ G(x) \in {\text{\rm Hom}}(F\circ G(V), F\circ G (W))$ as the composition: $$\label{eq:comppsiF}
{\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d_1d_2,e)}(V^{\otimes d_1 d_2}, W^{\otimes d_1 d_2}) \xrightarrow{\Psi} {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d_2,d_1e)} (G(V)^{\otimes d_2}, G(W)^{\otimes d_2}) \xrightarrow{F} {\text{\rm Hom}}(FG(V), FG(W)),$$ where $\Psi$ is defined as follows: write $x \in {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d_1d_2,e)}(V^{\otimes d_1 d_2}, W^{\otimes d_1 d_2})$ as $$x=x_1\otimes x_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes x_{d_2},$$ with $x_i \in {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{q}^A(d_1,e)}(V^{\otimes d_1}, W^{\otimes d_1})$ and set $\Psi(x_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes x_{d_2}) := G(x_1)\otimes \cdots G(x_{d_2})$.
The map $\Psi$ is well-defined.
Since $x \in {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d_1d_2,e)}(V^{\otimes d_1 d_2}, W^{\otimes d_1 d_2})$, it follows that $x$ commutes with the generators of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d_2,d_1e) \subset \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d_2d_1, e)$ and therefore $G(x_1)\otimes \cdots \otimes G(x_{d_2}) \in {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d_2,d_1e)} (G(V)^{\otimes d_2}, G(W)^{\otimes d_2})$.
The following theorem is a consequence of the fact that both maps in equation are $k$-linear:
The composition $F \circ G$ is a well-defined polynomial functor in $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d_2d_1, e}$.
The composition defined above is restated as follows in the language of Section \[sec:cylindertwist\]. Define $\mathcal{AEP}_q := \bigoplus_{d,e}\mathcal{AP}_q^{d,e}$. The composition $\circ_A$ is extended to $\mathcal{AEP}_q \times \mathcal{AEP}_q \to \mathcal{AEP}_q$ by setting $$\circ_A (\mathcal{AP}_q^{a,b} \times \mathcal{AP}_q^{d,e} ) = 0 \mbox{ if } b\neq de.$$ There is an element ${\operatorname{id}}_{\mathcal{AP}_q} \in \mathcal{AEP}_q$ given by $${\operatorname{id}}_{\mathcal{AEP}_q} := \sum_{e} {\operatorname{id}}_{\mathcal{AP}_q^{1,e}},$$ where $id_{\mathcal{AP}_q^{1,e}}$ is the identity functor mapping an $e$-Hecke pair to itself. The category $\mathcal{AEP}_q$ with the operation $\circ_A$ and the element ${\operatorname{id}}_{\mathcal{AEP}_q}$ form a monoidal category.
In the same way we extend the map $\circ: \mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d_2,d_1e} \times \mathcal{AP}_q^{d_1,e} \to \mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d_2d_1, e}$ to $$\circ: \mathcal{EP}_{Q,q} \times \mathcal{AEP}_q \to \mathcal{EP}_{Q,q},$$ where $\mathcal{EP}_{Q,q}:=\bigoplus_{d,e} \mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d,e}$. The following proposition becomes a routine check:
\[prop:compositionaction\] The pair $(\mathcal{EP}_{Q,q}, \mathcal{AEP}_q)$ with action given by composition $\circ$ is an action pair.
\[rem:highercylinder\] It is shown in [@BuciumasKo1] that $\mathcal{EAP}_q$ has a $k$-(bi)linear tensor product $\otimes$ which is braided. Thus, one can extend the result of Section \[sec:cylindertwist\] to the setting of this section. That is, the tensor product $\otimes$ on $\mathcal{EAP}_q$ extends to a $k$-linear action of $\mathcal{EAP}_q$ on $\mathcal{EP}_{Q,q}$; the objects in $\mathcal{EAP}_q$ restricts to the category $\mathcal{EP}_{Q,q}$; the action pair $({\operatorname{Res}}(\mathcal{EAP}_q),\mathcal{EAP}_q)$ thus obtained is cylinder braided. The cylinder twist in this setting arises from the action of the elements $$c_K^d(e)=\prod_{i=1}^d K_i(e) \in \mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d,e).$$ Above we used the notation $K_{i+1}(e)=T_{w_i}\cdots T_{w_1}T_{w_0}T_{w_1}\cdots T_{w_i}$, where $w_i,w_0$ are as in equations , .
Quantum symmetric powers and quantum exterior powers {#sec:pmsymext}
====================================================
The easiest example of a polynomial functor is $\otimes^d \in {\operatorname{Res}}\mathcal{P}_q^d \subseteq\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d$ which maps $V_n$ to $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$. In this section, we define important basic objects in $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d$, namely the quantum $\pm$-symmetric powers and quantum $\pm$-exterior powers which supply examples of two-parameter polynomial functors outside ${\operatorname{Res}}\mathcal{P}_q^d$. Consider $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ as a representation of $\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)$ on which the action of $T_i$ is given by . Note that the action of each generator $T_i \in \mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d)$ on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ is diagonalizable with eigenvalues $q{^{-1}}$ and $-q$ for $T_i, i>0$ and $Q{^{-1}}$ and $-Q$ for $T_0$.
In $\mathcal{P}_q^d$, we have the exterior power and symmetric power defined as $$\label{def:symext}
\begin{split}
\wedge^d V_n &= V_n{^{\otimes d}}/ \{(T_i+q)w\ |\ w\in V_n{^{\otimes d}}, i>0 \}; \\
S^d V_n &= V_n{^{\otimes d}}/\{ (T_i-q{^{-1}})w\ |\ w \in V_n{^{\otimes d}}, i >0 \}.
\end{split}$$ We generalize equation using the ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ action.
\[def:pmsepowers\] The quantum $\pm$-exterior powers $\wedge^d_{\pm}$ and the quantum $\pm$-symmetric powers $S^d_{\pm}$ are defined on each $V_n$ as $$\label{def:pmsymext}
\begin{split}
\wedge_-^d V_n &= V_n{^{\otimes d}}/ \{(T_0+Q)w, (T_i+q)w\ |\ w\in V_n{^{\otimes d}}, i>0 \}; \\
S_+^d V_n &= V_n{^{\otimes d}}/\{ (T_0-Q{^{-1}})w, (T_i-q{^{-1}})w\ |\ w \in V_n{^{\otimes d}}, i >0 \}; \\
\wedge_+^d V_n &= V_n{^{\otimes d}}/ \{(T_0-Q{^{-1}})w, (T_i+q)w\ |\ w \in V_n{^{\otimes d}}, \ i>0\};\\
S_-^d V_n &= V_n{^{\otimes d}}/ \{ (T_0+Q)w, (T_i-q{^{-1}})w\ |\ w\in V_n{^{\otimes d}}, i>0\}.
\end{split}$$
Given a map $f \in {\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B}(V_n^{\otimes d}, V_m^{\otimes d})$, it follows by definition that $f(T_i+q) = (T_i+q)f$ and $f (T_i-q{^{-1}}) = (T_i-q^{-1})f$. The function $f$ can then be restricted to a map $f_\pm^S:S^d_{\pm} V_n \to S^d_{\pm} V_m$, or to a map $f_\pm^\wedge:\wedge^d_{\pm} V_n \to \wedge^d_{\pm} V_m$ by Definition \[def:pmsepowers\]. The assignment $f\mapsto f^S_\pm$ (or $f_\pm^\wedge$) is a linear map ${\text{\rm Hom}}_{\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}(V_n{^{\otimes d}}, V_m{^{\otimes d}}) \to {\text{\rm Hom}}(S^d_\pm V_n, S^d_\pm V_m)$ (or ${\text{\rm Hom}}(\wedge^d_\pm V_n, \wedge^d_\pm V_m)$) on the morphism spaces. Therefore we have the following result.
The quantum $\pm$-exterior powers $\wedge^d_\pm$ and the quantum $\pm$-symmetric powers $S^d_\pm$ are polynomial functors.
We define the four functors as quotients of $\otimes^d$. But in fact, they all split, and we may also view them as subfunctors. We additionally introduce the following polynomial functors, the $\pm$-divided powers, by dualizing the definition of the $\pm$-symmetric powers. They are isomorphic to $\pm$-symmetric powers in our setting, but not in general (see Section 8). $$\label{def:pmsymextsub}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_+^d V_n &= \{w\in V_n{^{\otimes d}}\ |\ (T_0-Q{^{-1}})w=0, (T_i-q{^{-1}})w=0, i >0 \}; \\
\Gamma_-^d V_n &= \{w\in V_n{^{\otimes d}}\ |\ (T_0+Q)w=0, (T_i-q{^{-1}})w=0, i>0\}.
\end{split}$$
We describe a basis of each quantum exterior and symmetric power (evaluated at $V_n$).
Given $\boldsymbol{a}=({a}_1,\cdots,{a}_d)$ with ${a}_i \in \mathbb{I}_{n}$, we denote by $v(\boldsymbol{a})$ the standard vector $v_{a_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes v_{a_d}$ in $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$. We introduce the classes of vectors (depending on a pair of signs $\alpha,\beta\in\{\pm\}$) $$v(\boldsymbol{a})_{\alpha \beta}:=\sum_{w\in W_d^B/\operatorname{Stab}_{W_d^B}(\boldsymbol{a}) } (\alpha Q)^{-\alpha\ell_0(w)}(\beta q)^{-\beta\ell_1(w)}v(w\boldsymbol{a}),$$ where the length functions $\ell_0, \ell_1$ are as in .
\[basissympower\] The following hold:
1. The image of the set $\{v(\boldsymbol{a})_{++}\ |\ 0\leq{a}_1\leq\cdots \leq a_d, {a}_i \in \mathbb{I}_{n}\}$ is a basis of $S^d_+ V_n$.
2. The image of the set $\{v(\boldsymbol{a})_{+-}\ |\ 0<{a}_1\leq\cdots \leq a_d, {a}_i \in \mathbb{I}_{n}\}$ is a basis of $S^d_- V_n$.
3. The image of the set $\{v(\boldsymbol{a})_{-+}\ |\ 0\leq{a}_1<\cdots < a_d, {a}_i \in \mathbb{I}_{n}\}$ is a basis of $\wedge^d_+ V_n$.
4. The image of the set $\{v(\boldsymbol{a})_{--}\ |\ 0<{a}_1<\cdots < a_d, {a}_i \in \mathbb{I}_{n}\}$ is a basis of $\wedge^d_- V_n$
We give an argument for $S^d_+$; the rest is similar and left to the reader.
We first check that the (image of the) set $\{ v(\boldsymbol{a})\}$, with $\boldsymbol{a}$ such that $ 0\leq a_1\leq\cdots \leq a_d, a_i \in \mathbb{I}_{n}$, spans $S^d_+V_n$. In fact, for any standard vector $v(\boldsymbol{b})$ with $\boldsymbol{b}\in \mathbb I^d$ we can write $\boldsymbol{b}=w\boldsymbol{a}$ with $\boldsymbol{a}$ as above. For any reduced expression $s t\cdots u$ of $w\in W^B_d$, we have $v_{\boldsymbol{b}}=T_sT_t\cdots T_u v(\boldsymbol{a})=T_w v(\boldsymbol{a})$ because each $T_{s_i}$ action falls into the second case in ,. So in $S^d_+ V_n$, the image of $v(\boldsymbol{b})$ is a multiple of the image of $v_{\boldsymbol{a}}$.
Inside $V{^{\otimes d}}$, the set $\{ v(\boldsymbol{a})_{++}\ |\ 0\leq{a}_1\leq\cdots \leq{a}_d, {a}_i \in \mathbb{I}_{n}\}$ is linearly independent and consists of eigenvectors for $T_i$ (for all $i$ at the same time). All $T_i$’s with $i>0$ have eigenvalue $q{^{-1}}$ and $T_0$ has eigenvalue $Q{^{-1}}$. Since $S^d_+V_n$ has the same dimension as $\Gamma^d_+V_n$, which is the submodule of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ spanned by $q{^{-1}}$ eigenvectors for $T_i, i>0$ and $Q{^{-1}}$ eigenvectors for $T_0$, this implies that the order of the set is smaller than the dimension of $S^d_+V_n$.
Combining the two paragraphs, we confirm that the images of $v(\mathbf{a})$ in $S^d_+V_n$ form a basis.
\[stddimB\] Proposition \[basissympower\] implies, for each $n$, the dimension of $\wedge^d_\pm V_n$, $S^d_\pm V_n$ does not depend on $q$ and $Q$. The dimension in each case has an easy formula depending on the parity of $n$: $$\begin{aligned}[c]
&\dim \wedge_{\pm}^d V_{2r}={r \choose d}, \\
&\dim \wedge_{+}^d V_{2r+1}={r+1 \choose d}, \\
&\dim S^d_+V_{2r+1}={r+d\choose d},
\end{aligned}
\qquad \qquad \quad
\begin{aligned}[c]
&\dim S_{\pm}^d V_{2r}= {r+d-1\choose d},\\
&\dim \wedge_{-}^d V_{2r+1}={r \choose d},\\
&\dim S^d_-V_{2r+1}={r+d-1 \choose d}. \\
\end{aligned}$$
Higher degree quantum $\pm$-symmetric and exrerior powers {#BZstuff}
---------------------------------------------------------
We now define higher version of the $\pm$-symmetric and $\pm$-exterior powers that live in the category $\mathcal {EP}_{Q,q}$ defined in Section \[sec:composition\]. The construction follows the idea in Berenstein and Zwicknagl [@BZ] and makes crucial use of Proposition \[eigenvaluesKi\].
The eigenvalues of $c_K \in \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(e)\subseteq \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d,e)$ are of the form $Q^i q^j$ and $-Q^iq^j$ for $i,j\in\mathbb Z, -e \leq i \leq e, -(e-1)e \leq j \leq (e-1)e$; this follows immediately from Proposition \[eigenvaluesKi\]. In order to be able to define positive and negative eigenvalues of $c_K$, we need to assume $$Q^i q^{j} \neq -1 \mbox{ for any } i,j \in \mathbb{Z} \mbox{ such that } -2e \leq i \leq 2e, -2(e-1)e \leq j \leq 2(e-1)e.$$ This assumption is covered under our $Q,q$ generic assumption which will be enforced for the rest of the section.
Then the two sets $\{Q^i q^j\}$ and $\{-Q^iq^j\}$ are disjoint; we call elements of the former set positive eigenvalues of $c_K$ and elements of the latter set negative eigenvalues of $c_K$. It is known that the eigenvalues of $T_{w_i} \in \mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d,e)$ are of the form $\pm q^i$, this follows for example from [@BZ Lemma 1.2]. This allows us to also partition the eigenvalues of $T_{w_i}$ into positive eigenvalues (of the form $+q^i$) and negative eigenvalues (of the form $-q^i$), again with no overlap between the two sets when $Q,q$ are generic.
Given $V\in \mathcal{C}^B_{d,e}$ an $e$-Hecke triple as defined in § \[subsec:pQqde\], then
1. let $S^{d,e}_+ V$ be the largest quotient of $\otimes^d V$ where each $T_{w_i}$ and $c_K$ have positive eigenvalues;
2. let $S^{d,e}_- V$ be the largest quotient of $\otimes^d V$ where each $T_{w_i}$ has negative eigenvalues and $c_K$ has positive eigenvalues;
3. let $\wedge^{d,e}_+ V$ be the largest quotient of $\otimes^d V$ where each $T_{w_i}$ has positive eigenvalues and $c_K$ has negative eigenvalues;
4. let $\wedge^{d,e}_- V$ be the largest quotient of $\otimes^d V$ where each $T_{w_i}$ and $c_K$ have negative eigenvalues.
Since the definition is natural on $V$, our $S^{d,e}_\pm$ and $\wedge^{d,e}_\pm$ are quotient functors of $\otimes$ and therefore the following proposition holds:
The functors $S^{d,e}_\pm$ and $\wedge^{d,e}_\pm$ belong to $\mathcal{P}^{d,e}_{Q,q}$.
Note that $T_{w_i}$ and $c_K$ are not diagonalizable in general; the higher degree $\pm$-powers are generalized eigenspaces, not eigenspaces.
We do not know the dimension of the higher degree quantum $\pm$ symmetric and exterior powers. Even in the type A setting developed by Berenstein and Zwicknagl, the dimensions are not known in general. It is known that the dimension is less than or equal to the classical (q=1) dimension and in fact, it is mostly the case that $S_q^dV$ or $\wedge_q^d V$ have (strictly) smaller dimension than $S_{q=1}^dV$ or $\wedge_{q=1}^d V$. Thus we expect that the dimensions of $S^{d,e}_\pm V$ and $\wedge^{d,e}_\pm V$ also depend on the values of $Q,q$.
Schur polynomial functors {#sec:schur}
=========================
The category ${\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d}$ is semisimple, and the classification of simple objects is given by the Schur-Weyl duality. In this section, we construct the simple objects explicitly in $\otimes^d$.
We first recall the type A quantum Schur functors from [@HH; @HY]. Given a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_r)$, let $$\wedge^\lambda := \wedge^{\lambda_1} \otimes \wedge^{\lambda_2} \otimes \cdots \otimes \wedge^{\lambda_r},$$ $$S^\lambda := S^{\lambda_1} \otimes S^{\lambda_2} \otimes \cdots \otimes S^{\lambda_r} ,$$ where $S^d, \Lambda^d$ are defined in equation .
We also write $$\otimes ^\lambda=\otimes^{\lambda_1}\otimes \cdots\otimes \otimes^{\lambda_r}$$ even if $\otimes^\lambda\cong \otimes^d$ for any $\lambda\vdash d$. For a partition $\lambda$ of $d$, the Schur functor $S_\lambda$ is defined as the image of the composition $$\label{schurfunctor}
s^A_\lambda:\wedge^{\lambda '} \xrightarrow{\iota_{\lambda'}}\otimes^d \xrightarrow{T_{c(\lambda)}}\otimes^d\to S^\lambda,$$ where $\lambda'$ denotes the transpose of $\lambda$. The first map is given, on the evaluation at $V_n$ by $$\label{wedgeinclusionexplicitformula}
\iota_{\lambda'}: v_{a_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge v_{ a_d}\mapsto \sum_{w\in S_{\lambda_1}\times\cdots \times S_{\lambda_r}\subseteq S_d}(-q)^{l(w)}v_{w\bold a},$$ for $\bold{a}=(a_1,\cdots,a_d)$ with $0<a_1<\cdots<a_d$. The second map is the conjugation $T_{c(\lambda)}:V_n^{\otimes\lambda'}\to V_n^{\otimes \lambda}$. (The conjugation $c(\lambda)$ reads the column of the standard tableau corresponding to $\lambda$; if $\lambda=(4,2)$ then $c(\lambda)$ is the permutation ${(1,2,3,4,5,6)}\mapsto {(1,5,2,6,3,4)}$.) Note that since $S_{\lambda_1}\times\cdots\times S_{\lambda_r}$ is a parabolic subgroup of $S_d$, there is no ambiguity on the Coxeter length $l(w)$.
Then the following statements are true under our assumption
1. the Schur functors $S_\lambda$ are irreducible;
2. any irreducible in $\mathcal{AP}_q^d$ (the category of degree $d$ polynomial functors in type A), is isomorphic to $S_\lambda$ for some $\lambda\vdash d$;
3. if $n\geq d$, then any irreducible for the quantum Schur algebra $S_q^A(n;d)$ is isomorphic to some $S_\lambda V_n$.
\[rem:rouschurfunctor\] When $q$ is a root of unity, the $S_\lambda$ are not irreducible. One should instead understand the $S_\lambda$ in the following context: the category $\mathcal{AP}_q$ (or the polynomial representations for $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_\infty)$ in the sense analogous to §\[stability\]) is highest weight where $S_\lambda$ are the costandard objects. The dual definition $$\Gamma^\lambda\to \otimes^d\to \wedge^{\lambda'}$$ gives the Weyl functors which are the standard objects.
The quantum definition of $S_\lambda$ is not immediately generalized to the coideal case because we cannot define the tensor products $\wedge_+^{a} \otimes \wedge_+^{b}$, $S_+^{a} \otimes S_-^{b}$, etc. in our category. The next three definitions bypass this difficulty.
Recall from Proposition \[eigenvaluesKi\] that $K_i$ has eigenvalues of the form $Q{^{-1}}q^{2j}$, $-Qq^{2j}$.
\[pluseigen\]\[defppower\] Let $\otimes_+^d$ be the largest quotients of $\otimes^d$ on which each $K_i$ has eigenvalues of the form $Q{^{-1}}q^{2j}$. Let $\otimes^d_-$ be the largest subfunctor of $\otimes^d$ on which each $K_i$ has eigenvalues of the form $-Qq^{2j}$.
There is a small problem. The “positive” eigenvalues and the “negative” eigenvalues are still not well-defined. For example, if $q$ is a primitive $8$th root of unity and $Q=1$ then $Q{^{-1}}q^4=-1=-Qq^8$. To make this definition valid, we need to impose a condition on $q,Q$ which we specify now.
\[fdandpmpower\] If $$f_d(Q,q) :=\prod_{i=1-d}^{d-1} (Q^{-2}+q^{2i}) \neq 0,$$ then Definition \[pluseigen\] is well-defined.
If $f_d(Q,q)\neq 0$ then $f_i(Q,q)\neq 0$ for all $i\leq d$. The claim follows from the following lemma whose proof is elementary algebra and omitted.
\[lemma:positivengativeev\] The set $\{-Qq^{2j}||j|<i\}$ and the set $\{Q{^{-1}}q^{2j}||j|<i\}$ are disjoint if and only if $f_i(Q,q)\neq 0$.
This lead us to the following assumption which is needed to define the Schur functors and which we impose until the end of the section.
\[universalassumption\] Let $k$ be a field. Let $Q,q\in k^\times$ be such that $f_d(Q,q)\neq 0$.
If $Q=q=1$, then Assumption \[universalassumption\] is equivalent to $\operatorname{char}k\neq 2$, which is the classical setting to define the symmetric and exterior power. We think of Assumption \[universalassumption\] as a correct two-parameter quantization of the assumption $\operatorname{char}k\neq 2$.
The $\otimes^d_\pm$ provide the easiest examples of quantum polynomial functors that do not have an analogue in type A (take $d=1$ for example).
The functor $\otimes^d_\pm$ is a direct summand of $\otimes^d$.
The (evaluation at $V_n$ of the) functor $\otimes^d$ decomposes into generalized eigenspaces for $K_i$, in particular, into (generalized) “positive” eigenspaces and “negative” eigenspaces. Since all $K_i$ commute (see Lemma \[lem:kicommute\]), their actions on $\otimes^d$ are simultaneously triangularizable. Such a triangularization realizes $\otimes^d_\pm$ as a direct summand of $\otimes^d$.
Since $\otimes^d_\pm$ is a direct summand of $\otimes^d$, we have the projections and inclusions $$\label{eq:pi}
\begin{split}
& p_\pm : \otimes^d\to \otimes^d_\pm, \\
& i_\pm : \otimes^d_\pm\to \otimes^d.
\end{split}$$ whose names will be repeatedly abused throughout the section: we denote by $p_\pm$ any projection that is induced by $p_\pm$ by a pushout diagram. We can show:
\[purelation\] $p_{\pm} (V_n) = V_n^{\otimes d} u^\pm_d$.
Recall that $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ decomposes into simultaneous eigenspaces for $K_i$, $i=1,\cdots,d$. Using Assumption \[universalassumption\] and Lemma \[lemma:positivengativeev\], we say an eigenvalue (of some $K_i$) is positive if it is of the form $Q{^{-1}}q^{2j}$ and negative if it is of the form $-Qq^{2j}$. Then we can say $p_+V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ is the positive eigenspace of $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$. The image of $u_d^+ = \prod_{j=1}^{d} (K_j + Q)$ acting on $V_n{^{\otimes d}}$ by definition annihilates all $-Q$-eigenvectors of $K_i$, for any $i$. Therefore we have $p_{\pm} (V_n) \subseteq V_n^{\otimes d} u^\pm_d$.
For the opposite inclusion we argue by contradiction. Recall the $K_i$’s commute with each other. Suppose there is $v\in V_n{^{\otimes d}}u^+_d$, an eigenvector for all $K_i$, which has a negative eigenvalue for some $K_i$. Let $j$ be the smallest such $i$, and (by Proposition \[eigenvaluesKi\]) let $m$ be an integer such that $vK_j=-Qq^{2m}v$. Let $a$ be the eigenvalue of $K_{j-1}$ for $v$. By assumption, $a$ is positive, in particular is not of the form $-Qq^{2m'}$. Thus the vector $w_{j-1}=(q{^{-1}}-q)(-Qq^{2m})v+(a+Qq^{2m})T_{j-1}v$ (see Lemma \[newlemma\] and its proof) is in the $-Qq^{2m}$-eigenspace for $K_{j-1}$. The vector $w_{j-1}$ is not necessarily in $V_n^{\otimes d} u^\pm_d$, we do not require it to be. Note that $w_{j-1}$ is again a simultaneous eigenvector for all $K_i$. Now construct for $j-2 \geq i \geq1$ the vector $w_i=(q{^{-1}}-q)(-Qq^{2m})w_{i+1}+(a_i+Qq^{2m})T_{i}w_{i+1}$, where $a_iw_{i+1}=w_{i+1}K_i$, inductively. Then each $w_i$ is an $-Qq^{2m}$-eigenvector for $K_i$. Since the only eigenvalues of $K_1$ are $-Q$ and $Q{^{-1}}$, its eigenvalue at $w_1$ needs to be $-Q=-Qq^{2m}$, that is $m=0$. But this means $vK_j=-Qq^{2m}v = -Qv$, which contradicts $v\in V_n{^{\otimes d}}u^+_d$.
A similar argument works for $p_-$.
Now we relate the $\otimes^d_\pm$ with the $\pm$-symmetric/exterior powers.
\[pmands6\] We have the pushout diagrams $$\begin{aligned}[c]
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=3em, column sep=4em]
\otimes^d \arrow[r]\arrow[d,twoheadrightarrow]\arrow[r,phantom, very near start]& \otimes^d_{\pm} \arrow[d,twoheadrightarrow,""] \\
S^d \arrow[r,"p_\pm"]& S^d_\pm
\end{tikzcd}
\qquad \qquad \qquad
\begin{aligned}
\end{aligned}
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=3em, column sep=4em]
\otimes^d \arrow[r]\arrow[d,twoheadrightarrow]\arrow[r,phantom, very near start]& \otimes^d_{\pm} \arrow[d,twoheadrightarrow,""] \\
\wedge^d\arrow[r,"p_\pm"]& \wedge^d_\pm
\end{tikzcd}
\end{aligned}$$
We prove this for $S_+^d$. Since each $T_i$ with $i>0$ acts on $S_+^dV_n$ as $q{^{-1}}$, if $K_0$ acts as $Q{^{-1}}$ then $K_i$ acts as $q^{-2i+1}Q{^{-1}}$. So each $(K_i-Q)$ is invertible on $S_+^dV_n$.
Proposition \[pmands6\] suggests the following definition.
We define $S^\lambda_\pm$, $\wedge^\lambda_\pm$ by the pushout diagrams $$\begin{aligned}[c]
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=3em, column sep=4em]
\otimes^d \arrow[r]\arrow[d,twoheadrightarrow]\arrow[r,phantom, very near start]& \otimes^d_{\pm} \arrow[d,twoheadrightarrow,""] \\
S^\lambda\arrow[r,"p_\pm"]& S^\lambda_\pm
\end{tikzcd}
\qquad \qquad \qquad
\begin{aligned}
\end{aligned}
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=3em, column sep=4em]
\otimes^d \arrow[r]\arrow[d,twoheadrightarrow]\arrow[r,phantom, very near start]& \otimes^d_{\pm} \arrow[d,twoheadrightarrow,""] \\
\wedge^\lambda\arrow[r,"p_\pm"]& \wedge^\lambda_\pm
\end{tikzcd}
\end{aligned}$$
Let us construct an analogue of the tensor product $\otimes_+^a$ with $\otimes_-^b$ that is a polynomial functor in $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d$. Since $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$ is a right module category over $\mathcal{AP}_{q}$, we can form $\otimes^b_-\otimes \otimes^a$ and $ \otimes^a_+\otimes \otimes^b$ in $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$.
\[defpmpower\] The signed tensor power ${^a_+\otimes ^b_-}$ is the image of the map $$\otimes^b_-\otimes \otimes^a\xrightarrow{T_{b,a}} \otimes^a_+\otimes \otimes^b.$$
By the previous definition and Lemma \[purelation\] we have $${^a_+\otimes ^b_-}(V_n)=V_n{^{\otimes d}}u_b^{-}T_{b,a}u_a^+.$$ With the help of Definition \[defpmpower\], we define $S^{(\lambda,\mu)}$ and $\wedge^{(\lambda,\mu)}$:
Let $S^{(\lambda,\mu)}$ be the image of the map $$S^\mu_-\otimes S^\lambda\xrightarrow{T_{b,a}\circ (i_- \otimes {\operatorname{id}})} S^\lambda\otimes S^\mu\xrightarrow{p_+\otimes {\operatorname{id}}} S^\lambda_+\otimes S^\mu;$$ and let $\wedge^{(\lambda,\mu)}$ be the image of the map $$\wedge^\mu_-\otimes \wedge^\lambda\xrightarrow{T_{b,a}\circ (i_- \otimes {\operatorname{id}})} \wedge^\lambda\otimes \wedge^\mu\xrightarrow{p_+\otimes {\operatorname{id}}} \wedge^\lambda_+\otimes \wedge^\mu.$$ Note that the tensor products of the objects and maps are well-defined because $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$ is a module category over the monoidal category $\mathcal{AP}_{q}$ as shown in Section \[sec:action\].
In other words, we have the following commutative diagrams where the left faces are the definition of ${^a_+\otimes ^b_-}$, and the right faces are the definitions of $S^{(\lambda, \mu)}$ and $\wedge^{(\lambda, \mu)}$, respectively.
$$\label{sym}
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=3em, column sep=4em]
& \otimes^b_- \otimes \otimes^a \arrow[rr] \arrow[dd,hook,pos=0.7,"T_{b,a}"]& & S^\mu_- \otimes S^\lambda \arrow[dl,pos=0.7,twoheadrightarrow] \arrow[dd,hook,pos=0.7,"T_{b,a}"] \\
^a_+\otimes^b_- \arrow[rr,crossing over] \arrow[dd,hook] \arrow[from=ur,twoheadrightarrow]& & S^{(\lambda,\mu)} & \\
& \otimes^{a+b} \arrow[rr] \arrow[dl,twoheadrightarrow]& & S^\lambda \otimes S^\mu \arrow[dl,twoheadrightarrow] \\
\otimes_+^a\otimes \otimes^b \arrow[rr] & & S^{\lambda}_+\otimes S^\mu \arrow[from=uu,hook,crossing over] & \\
\end{tikzcd}$$
$$\label{wedge}
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=3em, column sep=4em]
& \otimes^b_- \otimes \otimes^a \arrow[rr] \arrow[dd,hook,pos=0.7,"T_{b,a}"]& & \wedge^\mu_- \otimes \wedge^\lambda \arrow[dl,pos=0.7,twoheadrightarrow] \arrow[dd,hook,pos=0.7,"T_{b,a}"] \\
^a_+\otimes^b_- \arrow[rr,crossing over] \arrow[dd,hook] \arrow[from=ur,twoheadrightarrow]& & \wedge^{(\lambda,\mu)} & \\
& \otimes^{a+b} \arrow[rr] \arrow[dl,twoheadrightarrow]& & \wedge^\lambda \otimes \wedge^\mu \arrow[dl,twoheadrightarrow] \\
\otimes_+^a\otimes \otimes^b \arrow[rr] & & \wedge^{\lambda}_+\otimes \wedge^\mu \arrow[from=uu,hook,crossing over] & \\
\end{tikzcd}$$
We have $\wedge^{(\lambda,\mu)}\in \mathcal P_{Q,q}$ and $S^{(\lambda,\mu)}\in \mathcal P_{Q,q}$. Note that if $Q=q=1$, we have $$\wedge^{(\lambda,\mu)} \cong \wedge_+^{\lambda_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\wedge_+^{\lambda_r}\otimes\wedge_-^{\mu_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\wedge_-^{\mu_r}$$ and $$S^{(\lambda,\mu)} \cong S_+^{\lambda_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes S_+^{\lambda_r}\otimes S_-^{\mu_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes S_-^{\mu_r}.$$ Thus we may think of $\wedge^{(\lambda,\mu)}$ and $S^{(\lambda,\mu)}$ as deformed tensor products which are not tensor products in the usual sense, but devolve to the usual tensor product when $Q,q=1$.
(d=2) We have $$\otimes^2=S^{((1,1),0)}\oplus S^{((1),(1))}\oplus X \oplus S^{(0,(1,1))}$$ where $X$ is isomorphic to $S^{((1),(1))}$ and can for example be taken to be $V\otimes V/(T_0+Q,T_1T_0T_1-Q{^{-1}})$ (here we want a strict decomposition, not up to isomorphism). Note that for the bipartitions appearing here, there is no difference between $S$ and $\wedge$ (so we could have replaced $S^{((1),(1))}$ by $\wedge^{((1),(1))}$ in the equation above). Furthermore, there is a decomposition $$S^{(0,(1,1))}=\wedge^{(0,(1,1))}=\wedge^2_-\oplus S^2_-$$ and $$S^{((1,1),0)}=\wedge^{((1,1),0)}=\wedge^2_+\oplus S^2_+$$ into direct sum of irreducibles.
& \^b\_-\^a & & &S\^\_- S\^& & &S\_[(,)]{} S\_ & & & \^[’]{}\_- \^[’]{} &\
\^[a+b]{} & &\_+\^a\^b\_- & S\^S\^& & S\^[(,)]{} & S\_S\_& & S\_[(,)]{} & \^[’]{} \^[’]{} & & \^[(’, ’)]{}\
& \_+\^a\^b & & & S\^\_+S\^& & &S\_[(,)]{}S\_& & &\^[’]{}\_+ \^[’]{} &\
\[def:schurfunctor\] The Schur functor $S_{(\lambda,\mu)}$ is defined in the commutative diagram in Figure \[smallvalentinstear\]. The two leftmost diagrams form a subdiagram equivalent to the diagram in , while the leftmost and rightmost diamonds form a subdiagram equivalent to the diagram in . The rightward maps are induced from the definitions of symmetric and exterior power; the diamonds are induced from the definition of ${^a_+\otimes ^b_-}$. See also the diagrams , which are subdiagrams of the diagram in Figure \[smallvalentinstear\]. Then the leftward maps are induced from the map $s_\lambda^A\otimes s_\mu^A$ where $s^A_\lambda$ from defines the type A Schur functors.
In particular, the Schur functor $S_{(\lambda,\mu)}$ can be defined as the image of the map: $$\label{eq:schurexactsequence}
\wedge^{(\lambda',\mu')} \xrightarrow{c^B_{(\lambda,\mu)}} \: ^a_+\otimes^b_- \xrightarrow{} S^{(\lambda, \mu)},$$ where the right map is the projection in the diagram in Figure \[smallvalentinstear\] and the left map is induced from the map $c^A_\lambda \otimes c^A_\mu$ defined in equation , where $c^A_\lambda = T_{c(\lambda)}\iota_{\lambda'}$ (see and after).
$$\label{wedgeinclusion}
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=2em, column sep=3em]
& \wedge^{\lambda'}\otimes \wedge^{\mu'} \arrow[rr,hook,"c^A_\lambda \otimes c^A_\mu"] \arrow[dd,pos=0.7]& & \otimes^\lambda \otimes \otimes^\mu = \otimes^d \arrow[dl,pos=0.7] \arrow[dd,pos=0.7] \\
\wedge_+^{\lambda'} \otimes \wedge^{\mu'} \arrow[rr,crossing over,hook] \arrow[dd] \arrow[from=ur]& & \otimes_+^a\otimes \otimes^b & \\
& \wedge^{\mu'}_- \otimes \wedge^{\lambda'} \arrow[rr,hook] \arrow[dl]& & \otimes_-^b\otimes \otimes^a \arrow[dl] \\
\wedge^{(\lambda',\mu')} \arrow[rr,hook,"c^B_{(\lambda,\mu)}"] & & ^a_+\otimes^b_- \arrow[from=uu,crossing over] & \\
\end{tikzcd}$$
\[extremeschurfunctor\] For $\varpi_d=(1,\cdots,1,0,\cdots,0)$, we have $S_{(\varpi_d,0)}=\wedge^d_+$ and $S_{(0,\varpi_d)}=\wedge^d_-$. For $d\varpi_1=(d,0,\cdots,0)$, we have $S_{(d\varpi_1,0)}=S^d_+$ and $S_{(0,d\varpi_1)}=S^d_-$.
Schur functors in generic case
------------------------------
In this subsection, we relate the Schur functors with the Young symmetrizers in § \[subsec:youngsym\]. For this, it is necessary to assume that $k=\mathbb C$ and $Q,q$ are generic.
\[lem:schuryoungsymsame\] We have for each $n$, $\lambda,\mu$ $$S_{(\lambda,\mu)}(V_n)\cong (V_n{^{\otimes d}}) e'_{\lambda,\mu}$$ as ${S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d)$-modules where $e'_{\lambda,\mu}$ is the Young symmetrizer defined in .
The projection $\otimes^d \to S_\lambda \otimes S_\mu$ is isomorphic to (acting with) the Young symmetrizer $e_\lambda \otimes e_\mu =(e_\lambda\otimes {\operatorname{id}}) ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes e_\mu)$. The projection $\otimes^d\xrightarrow{u_b^-T_{b,a}u^+_a} ({^a_+\otimes ^b_-})$ from Definition \[defpmpower\] is isomorphic to multiplication by $e_{a,b}$ from equation . By Lemma \[purelation\] we have that $\oplus^d_\pm=\oplus^du^d_\pm$.
The claim now follows from the Definition in Figure \[smallvalentinstear\] (note specifically the implicit square containing $\otimes ^d, ^a_+\otimes^b_-, S_\lambda \otimes S_\mu, S_{(\lambda,\mu)}$) and the fact that $e_{a,b}$ and $e_\lambda \otimes e_\mu$ are idempotents and commute.
\[d=2schur\] ($d=2$) There are five bipartitions $(\lambda,\mu)\vdash 2$, namely $((1,1),0)$, $(0,(1,1))$, $((2),0)$, $(0,(2))$, $((1),(1))$. The only case that is not covered in Example \[extremeschurfunctor\] is $((1),(1))$. A defining sequence in this case is $$\wedge^{((1),(1))}\to \otimes^2\to S^{((1),(1))}.$$ One sees from the definition that $\wedge^{((1),(1))}=\ ^1_+\otimes^1_-=S^{((1),(1))}$ and that the composition is an isomorphism, hence we have $S_{((1),(1))}=S^{((1),(1))}\cong \wedge^{((1),(1))}$. Thanks to the Schur-Weyl duality, we know that $\otimes^2$ has four distinct irreducible summands with multiplicity one and a unique (up to isomorphism) irreducible summand with multiplicity 2. The former correspond to $((1,1),0)$, $(0,(1,1))$, $((2),0)$, $(0,(2))$ and the latter is necessarily isomorphic to $S_{((1),(1))}$.
Example \[d=2schur\] generalizes to give the following description/classification of the irreducible polynomial functors in $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$.
\[thm:schurfunctortheorem\] The Schur functors $S_{(\lambda,\mu)}$ are irreducible, mutually non-isomorphic, and form a complete list of irreducibles in $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$.
The claim follows from Proposition \[lem:schuryoungsymsame\], Proposition \[e’givesirred\] and Proposition \[thm:representability\].
We have that $S_{(\lambda,\mu)}(V_n) = L_{\lambda,\mu}(n)$. By [@LNX Theorem 3.1.1] and [@HH Theorem 6.19], the dimension of the ${S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d)$-module $S_{(\lambda,\mu)}V_n$ does not depend on $q,Q$. Thus it has a basis indexed by the set of semistandard bitableaux of shape $\lambda,\mu$.
It would be interesting to relate our construction of the irreducibles to the results of Watanabe [@Watanabe], where the author constructs crystal basis for irreducible representations of $U^B_{Q,q} (\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ for $n$ odd.
Schur functors in non-generic case
----------------------------------
Theorem \[thm:schurfunctortheorem\] is not true when $Q,q$ are roots of unity or $\operatorname{char}k>0$. But that is only because the formulation of the result is not the right one. (See Remark \[rem:rouschurfunctor\].) In this subsection, we place the Schur functors in the right context.
The category $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}$ is semisimple under the assumption of Theorem \[thm:schurfunctortheorem\] and therefore can be viewed as a highest weight category where the irreducible, standard and costandard objects coincide. Then Theorem \[thm:schurfunctortheorem\] is equivalent to saying that the Schur functors $S_{(\lambda,\mu)}$ give a complete list of mutually non-isomorphic costandard objects in $\mathcal P_{Q,q}$.
It is proved in [@LNX Theorem 3.1.1], assuming $f_d(Q,q)\neq 0$, that ${S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d)$ is quasi-hereditary for all $n,d$. Then by Theorem \[thm:representability\], the categories ${\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^d}$ and $\mathcal P_{Q,q}$ are highest weight. In that case, we expect that the $S_{(\lambda,\mu)}$ are the costandard objects in $\mathcal P_{Q,q}$ and the Weyl functors, which are defined by dualizing our definition of Schur functors, are the standard objects in $\mathcal P_{Q,q}$. We also expect that a direct proof of quasi-heredity using the Schur functors and Weyl functors similar to the approaches in [@ABW; @KrauseHW] exists. We note that without the assumption $f_d(Q,q)\neq 0$, the algebra ${S^B_{Q,q}}(n;d)$ is not quasi-hereditary in general (see [@LNX Example 6.1.2] and the remark thereafter).
Higher degree Schur functors {#subsec:higherschur}
----------------------------
We now assume $Q,q$ to be generic. Generalizing the functors $S^{d,e}_\pm,\wedge^{d,e}_\pm\in\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d,e}$ defined in § \[BZstuff\], we can define Schur functors in $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d,e}$. We give an outline of this construction.
First define $S^{\lambda,e}_+$ to be the largest quotient of $S^\lambda$ (here we denote by $S^\lambda$ the restriction of $S^\lambda=S^{\lambda_1}\otimes\cdots \otimes S^{\lambda_r}\in \mathcal{AP}_q^{d,e}$ to $\mathcal{P}_{Q,q}^{d,e}$) where $c_K^e\in \mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d,e)$ has eigenvalues of the form $+Q^iq^j$, $i,j\in\mathbb Z$, and define similarly $S^{\lambda,e}_-, \wedge^{\lambda,e}_\pm$. Then consider the higher degree analogue of the maps $T_{c(\lambda)}$ (see ) and $T_{b,a}$ (see Definition \[defpmpower\]), which are obtained by writing $T_{c(\lambda)}, T_{b,a}$ as a product of the standard generators $T_i$ in ${\mathcal{H}_{Q,q}^B(d)}$ and replacing the $T_i$ with the higher degree generator $T_{w_i}\in \mathcal{H}^B_{Q,q}(d,e)$ (see and ). The rest of the construction is now identical to that of the Schur functors in $\mathcal{P}^d_{Q,q}$ using Remark \[rem:highercylinder\].
The higher degree Schur functors supply many non-trivial examples of polynomial functors in $\mathcal{P}^{d,e}_{Q,q}$. Unlike in the case $e=1$, however, the Schur functors are decomposable in general. Their decomposition (even when $Q,q$ are generic) is a difficult and interesting problem. While we have little understanding on the higher degree Schur functors at the moment, we hope that they lead us to a structure theory of the categories $\mathcal{P}^{d,e}_{Q,q}$.
[^1]: The reason we need this assumption is that the coideal subalgebra $U^B_{Q,q}$ is defined and studied only when $q,Q$ are generic (to the authors’ knowledge at the point when this work is written). When $q$ or $Q$ is a root of unity, we expect there to be a definition of the coideal $U_{Q,q}^B$ similar to Lusztig’s quantum group at a root of unity [@Lusztigrou], which still surjects to the Schur algebra $S_{Q,q}^B$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the context of learning deterministic policies in continuous domains, we revisit an approach, which was first proposed in Continuous Actor Critic Learning Automaton (CACLA) and later extended in Neural Fitted Actor Critic (NFAC). This approach is based on a policy update different from that of deterministic policy gradient (DPG). Previous work has observed its excellent performance empirically, but a theoretical justification is lacking. To fill this gap, we provide a theoretical explanation to motivate this unorthodox policy update by relating it to another update and making explicit the objective function of the latter. We furthermore discuss in depth the properties of these updates to get a deeper understanding of the overall approach. In addition, we extend it and propose a new trust region algorithm, Penalized NFAC (PeNFAC). Finally, we experimentally demonstrate in several classic control problems that it surpasses the state-of-the-art algorithms to learn deterministic policies.'
author:
- |
Matthieu ZimmerPaul WengUM-SJTU Joint Institute\
{matthieu.zimmer, paul.weng}@sjtu.edu.cn
bibliography:
- 'ijcai19.bib'
- 'manually\_added.bib'
title: |
Exploiting the Sign of the Advantage Function to\
Learn Deterministic Policies in Continuous Domains
---
Introduction
============
Background
==========
Algorithms
==========
Discussions
===========
Extension to Trust Region
=========================
Experiments
===========
Conclusion
==========
In the context of learning deterministic policies, we studied the properties of two not very well-known but efficient updates, Continuous Actor Critic Learning Automaton (CACLA) and Continuous Actor Critic (CAC). We first showed how closely they both are related to the stochastic policy gradient (SPG). We explained why they are well designed to learn continuous deterministic policies when the value function is only approximated. We also highlighted the limitations of those methods: a potential poor sample efficiency when the dimension of the action space increases and no guarantee that the underlying deterministic policy will converge toward a local optimum of $J(\mu_\theta)$ even with a linear approximation.
In the second part, we extended Neural Fitted Actor Critic (NFAC), itself an extension of CACLA, with a trust region constraint designed for deterministic policies and proposed a new algorithm, Penalized NFAC (PeNFAC). Finally, we tried our implementation on various high-dimensional continuous environments and showed that PeNFAC performs better than DDPG and PPO to learn continuous deterministic policies.
As future work, we plan to consider off-policy learning and the combination of the updates of CAC and DPG together to ensure the convergence toward a local optimum while benefiting from the good updates of CAC.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work has been supported in part by the program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61872238). Experiments presented in this paper were carried out using the Grid’5000 testbed, supported by a scientific interest group hosted by Inria and including CNRS, RENATER and several Universities as well as other organizations (see https://www.grid5000.fr).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider a particle moving on the half line $x>0$ and subject to a constant force in the $-x$ direction plus a delta-correlated random force. At $x=0$ the particle is reflected inelastically. The velocities just after and before reflection satisfy $v_f=-rv_i$, where $r$ is the coefficient of restitution. This simple model is of interest in connection with studies of driven granular matter in a gravitational field. With an exact analytical approach and simulations we study the steady state distribution function $P(x,v)$.'
author:
- 'Theodore W. Burkhardt$^1$ and Stanislav N. Kotsev$^{1,2}$'
title: |
Equilibrium statistics of an inelastically bouncing ball,\
subject to gravity and a random force
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Consider a particle moving on the half line $x>0$ and subject to a constant force in the $-x$ direction, such as gravity, and an additional delta-correlated random force with zero mean. The Newtonian equation of motion has the form $${d^2x\over
dt^2}=-g+\eta(t)\thinspace,\quad\langle \eta(t)\eta(t')\rangle=
2\Lambda\delta(t-t')\;,\label{eqmo}$$ where $g$ is a positive constant. With no loss of generality we set $g=1$, $\Lambda=1$ throughout this paper, since this can be achieved by rescaling [@rescale] of $x$ and $t$. At the boundary $x=0$ the particle is reflected inelastically. The velocities just after and before reflection satisfy $$v_f=-rv_i\thinspace,\label{restitution}$$ where $r$ is the coefficient of restitution. The simple model defined by Eqs. (\[eqmo\]) and (\[restitution\]) is of interest in connection with driven granular gases, see, e.g., [@mss]. Cornell, Swift, and Bray [@csb] originally proposed the model and studied the case $g=0$.
According to Eq. (\[eqmo\]) the mean energy $E(t)=\left\langle {1\over 2}v(t)^2
+x(t)\right\rangle$ of the randomly accelerated particle at time $t$ increases as $E(t)=E(0)+t$ between boundary collisions but decreases, for $r<1$, in the collisions. Eventually an equilibrium is reached. In this paper we study the equilibrium distribution function $P(x,v)$ with an exact analytical approach and simulations. In related earlier work, but without gravity, we have considered (i) the equilibrium of a randomly accelerated particle moving on the finite line between two inelastically reflecting boundaries [@bfg; @bk], and (ii) non-equilibrium properties of a randomly accelerated particle on the half line [@twb93; @twb2000] and on the finite line [@kb] for absorbing, partially absorbing, and inelastic boundary conditions .
The equilibrium distribution function $P(x,v)$ of a particle, which moves according to Eq. (\[eqmo\]) for $x>0$ and is reflected inelastically at $x=0$, satisfies the steady-state Fokker-Planck equation [@fpeq] $$\left(v{\partial\over\partial x}-{\partial\over
\partial v}-{\partial^2\over
\partial v^2}\right)P(x,v)=0\thinspace,\label{fp}$$ with the boundary condition $$P(0,-v)=r^2P(0,rv)\;\;,\quad v>0\;.\label{bc}$$ The factors of $r$ in Eq. (\[bc\]) take the change in velocity (\[restitution\]) into account and ensure that the incident and reflected probability currents at the boundary have equal magnitude $$I= \int_0^\infty
dv\thinspace vP(0,-v)=\int_0^\infty dv\thinspace
vP(0,v)\thinspace.\label{collrate}$$ Here we have assumed the standard normalization, $$\int_0^\infty dx\int_{-\infty}^\infty dv\thinspace
P(x,v)=1\;,\label{normalization}$$ of the distribution function.
The main goal of the paper is to solve the steady-state Fokker-Planck equation (\[fp\]) with boundary condition (\[bc\]). In Section II we derive an integral equation for the distribution function $P(0,v)$ at the boundary and show how to obtain $P(x,v)$ from $P(0,v)$ by integration. In Section III the asymptotic form of $P(0,v)$ for large and small $v$ is determined, for arbitrary $r$, from the integral equation. For two particular values, $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$, the integral equation is solved exactly and the corresponding $P(x,v)$ obtained by integration. We have also carried out numerical simulations of the randomly accelerated accelerated particle in a gravitational field. The algorithm is described in Section IV, and the results of the simulations are compared with our analytic predictions. Section V contains closing remarks.
Integral Equation for $P(x,v)$
==============================
The Fokker-Planck equation (\[fp\]) is readily solved by separation of variables. The most general solution which vanishes for $x\to\infty$ and $v\to\pm\infty$ is given by [@twb93] $$P(x,v)=e^{-v/2}\int_0^\infty dF\thinspace
w(F)e^{-Fx}\psi_{1/4,F}(-v)\;,\label{fpsol}$$ where $w(F)$ is an arbitrary function, and $\psi_{s,F}(v)$, with $F>0$, is the solution of the ordinary differential equation $$\left(-{d^2\over dv^2}+Fv+s\right)\psi_{s,F}(v)=0\label{diffeq}$$ which vanishes for $v\to\pm\infty$. This solution is given by $$\psi_{s,F}(v)=F^{-1/6}{\rm Ai}\left(F^{1/3}v+F^{-2/3}s\right)\;, \label{psi}$$ where ${\rm Ai}(z)$ is the standard Airy function [@as]. Normalized as in Eq. (\[psi\]), the $\psi_{s,F}(v)$ have the orthogonality and closure properties [@twb93] $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty dv\thinspace v\psi_{s,F}(\pm v)\psi_{s,G}(-v)=
\left\{\begin{array}{l}0\;,\nonumber\\
\delta(F-G)\;,\end{array}\right.\begin{array}{l}{\rm upper\ sign}\nonumber\\
{\rm lower\ sign}\nonumber\end{array}\label{orthonorm1}$$ $$\int_0^\infty dF\thinspace
\left[\;\psi_{s,F}(-v)\psi_{s,F}(-u)-\psi_{s,F}(v)\psi_{s,F}(u)\;\right]=
v^{-1}\delta(v-u)\;.\label{closure}$$
Making use of Eqs. (\[fpsol\]), (\[psi\]), and the relation $\int_{-\infty}^\infty dt \thinspace e^{-at}{\rm Ai}(-t)=\exp\left(a^3/3\right)$ for $a>0$, one finds that the probability density $P(x)$ for the position of the particle is given by $$P(x)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty dv\thinspace P(x,v)=\int_0^\infty dF\thinspace
F^{-1/2}w(F)\exp\left[-(12F)^{-1}-Fx\right]\;,\label{P(x)1}$$ and that the normalization condition (\[normalization\]) is satisfied if $$\int_0^\infty dx\thinspace P(x)=\int_0^\infty dF\thinspace
F^{-3/2}w(F)\exp\left[-(12F)^{-1}\right]=1\;.\label{normalization2}$$
To invert Eq. (\[fpsol\]), it is convenient to use the auxiliary functions [@twb93] $$\phi_{s,F}(v)=\psi_{s,F}(v)-\int_0^\infty{dG\over 2\pi}\;{\exp\left[-{2\over
3}s^{3/2}\left(F^{-1}+G^{-1}\right)\right]\over F+G}\;\psi_{s,G}(-v)\;,\label{phi}$$ which vanish for $v>0$ and have the biorthogonality property $$\int_0^\infty dv\thinspace v\phi_{s,F}(-v)\psi_{s,G}(-v)=\delta(F-G)\label{biortho}$$ on the semi-infinite interval $v>0$. Functions of this type were first constructed by Marshall and Watson [@mw] and exploited in [@twb93; @mw; @kainz] in calculating first passage properties.
Using property (\[biortho\]) to solve Eq. (\[fpsol\]) for $w(F)$, we obtain $$w(F)=\int_0^\infty dv\;v\phi_{1/4,F}(-v)e^{v/2}P(0,v)\;.\label{weightfunc}$$ Substituting this result back in Eq. (\[fpsol\]) and imposing the boundary condition (\[bc\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&&r^2P(0,rv)=\int_0^\infty du\thinspace u G_{g}(v,u)P(0,u)\;,\label{inteq}\\
&&G_g(v,u)=e^{(v+u)/2}\int_0^\infty dF\thinspace
\psi_{1/4,F}(v)\phi_{1/4,F}(-u)\;.\label{kernel1}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[fpsol\]) and (\[weightfunc\])-(\[kernel1\]) provide us with a strategy for calculating $P(x,v)$. First $P(0,v)$ is determined by solving the integral equation (\[inteq\]). Then $w(F)$ and $P(x,v)$ are obtained by evaluating the integrals in Eqs. (\[weightfunc\]) and (\[fpsol\]), respectively.
The kernel in integral equation (\[inteq\]) has a simple physical interpretation. The quantity $vG_g(v,u)dv$ is the probability that a particle moving according to Eq. (\[eqmo\]) with initial position $x=0$ and initial velocity $u>0$ arrives with speed between $v$ and $v+dv$ on its first return to $x=0$. Integral equation (\[inteq\]) for the equilibrium distribution follows immediately from this interpretation. For consistency with the probabilistic interpretation, $G_g(v,u)$ should be symmetric in $v$ and $u$ and normalized so that $$\int_0^\infty dv\thinspace v G_g(v,u)=1\;.\label{normG}$$ That the expression for $G_g(v,u)$ in Eq. (\[kernel1\]) satisfies both these conditions can be shown with the help of Eqs. (\[psi\]), (\[closure\]), and (\[phi\]).
The integral representation of $G_g(v,u)$ in Eqs. (\[kernel1\]) is useful because of the simple orthogonality and closure properties of the basis functions. Two other useful representations, $$\begin{aligned}
G_g(v,u)&=&{e^{(v+u)/2}\over \pi^2 vu}\int_0^\infty
d\gamma\thinspace\gamma\thinspace{\sinh(\pi\gamma)\over
\cosh(\pi\gamma/3)}\thinspace
K_{i\gamma}(v)K_{i\gamma}(u)\label{kernel2}\\
G_g(v,u)&=&{3\over 2\pi}(vu)^{1/2}e^{(v+u)/2}\int_0^1 dy\left\{\thinspace
\exp\left[-(v^2-vu+u^2+3vuy^2)^{1/2}\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&\times&\left.\left[(v^2-vu+u^2+3vuy^2)^{-3/2}+(v^2-vu+u^2+3vuy^2)^{-1}
\right]\right\}\;,\label{kernel3}\end{aligned}$$ follow from a classic paper of McKean [@mck], as shown in Appendix A. In Eq. (\[kernel2\]), $K_\nu(z)$ is the standard modified Bessel function [@as; @gr]. Expressions (\[kernel2\]) and (\[kernel3\]) are particularly convenient for analytical (see Appendix B) and numerical calculations, respectively.
Solution of Integral Equation (\[inteq\])
=========================================
Asymptotic form of $P(0,v)$ for small $v$
-----------------------------------------
First we derive the asymptotic form of $P(0,v)$ for small and large $v$ from integral equation (\[inteq\]). Using representation (\[kernel3\]) for the kernel, one finds that the ansatz $$P(0,v)\sim v^{-\beta(r)}\;,\quad v\searrow 0\;\label{asym1}$$ is consistent with the integral equation if the exponent $\beta(r)$ satisfies $$r=\left[2\sin\left({2\beta+1\over
6}\thinspace\pi\right)\right]^{1/(\beta-2)}\;.\label{asym2}$$
The dependence of $\beta$ on the coefficient of restitution $r$ is shown in Fig. 1. As $r$ decreases from 1 to 0, $\beta(r)$ increases monotonically from 0 to 5/2. The probability density for finding the particle at the boundary with velocity $v$ diverges as $v$ approaches zero, and the greater the inelasticity, the stronger the divergence.
The exponent $\beta$ has the value 2 at $$r_c=e^{-\pi/\sqrt 3}=0.163\dots\label{rc}$$ For $r<r_c$, $\beta(r)>2$, so that $P(0,v)$ diverges more strongly than $v^{-2}$ in the limit $v\searrow 0$. Thus, for $r<r_c$ the mean collision rate, defined by the integral (\[collrate\]), diverges at the lower limit, i.e., the randomly accelerated inelastic particle makes an infinite number of collisions in a finite time. Cornell et al. [@csb] argued that even in the absence of a gravitational field this is the case.
The small $v$ behavior (\[asym1\]), (\[asym2\]) is precisely the same as for a randomly accelerated particle moving on the finite line $0<x<1$ with inelastic collisions at $x=0$ and $1$ and with no gravitational field [@bfg; @bk]. In both cases the divergent behavior for $v\searrow 0$ comes from the high rate of low velocity inelastic collisions with one of the walls. For short times the diffusive change in velocity due to the random force, which grows as $t^{1/2}$, exceeds the change due to the gravitational force, which is proportional $t$. Thus, the random force is primarily responsible for the rapid return to the boundary and determines the small $v$ behavior.
In both cases - the randomly accelerated particle on the half line with a gravitational field considered here, and on the finite line with no gravitational field considered in [@bk] - the distribution function $P(x,v)$ remains smooth, extended, and normalizable for $r<r_c$. In neither case does it collapse on the boundary. Thus, the infinite equilibrium collision rate does not lead to localization of the particle at the boundary.
Asymptotic form of $P(0,v)$ for large $v$
-----------------------------------------
For large $v$ one finds that the ansatz $$P(0,v)\sim v^{-m(r)}e^{-q(r) v}\;,\quad v\to\infty\;.\label{asym3}$$ is consistent with integral equation (\[inteq\]) with kernel (\[kernel3\]) if the quantities $m(r)$ and $q(r)$ are chosen as follows: For ${1\over 2}\leq r<1$, $$m(r)=1-{\ln r\over\ln[x(r)/r]}\;,\quad q(r)={3\over 2}\thinspace{1-r\over
1-r+r^2}\;,\label{asym4}$$ where $$x(r)={1\over 2}+{\sqrt 3\over 2}\thinspace{{1\over 2}-q\over \left[1-\left({1\over
2}-q\right)^2\right]^{1/2}}\;,\label{asym5}$$ and for $r<{1\over 2}$, $$m(r)={3\over 2}\;,\quad q(r)={1\over 2r}\;.\label{asym6}$$
The functions $m(r)$ and $q(r)$ are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. As $r$ decreases from 1 to ${1\over 2}$, $m(r)$ increases from 0 to 1 and then changes discontinuously to ${3\over 2}$ for $r<{1\over 2}$. As $r$ decreases from 1 to 0, $q(r)$ increases monotonically from 0 to $\infty$. The functional form of $q(r)$ changes at $r={1\over 2}$, in accordance with Eqs. (\[asym4\]) and (\[asym6\]). Both $q$ and $dq/dr$ are continuous at $r={1/2}$, but $d^2q/dr^2$ is discontinuous.
The functions $m(r)$ and $q(r)$ are both non-analytic at $r={1\over 2}$. Since they only characterize $P(0,v)$ in the large $v$ limit (see Eq. (\[asym3\])), it does not follow that $P(x,v)$ is non-analytic in $r$ for fixed finite $x$ and $v$. We have not found any indication of a phase transition, i.e., a non-analyticity of the distribution function $P(x,v)$, as $r$ is varied with $x$ and $v$ fixed.
Exact $P(0,v)$ for $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$
--------------------------------------------------
The curves for $\beta(r)$ and $m(r)$ in Fig. 1 cross at $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over
3}$. For these two values of $r$, the exponents in the asymptotic forms (\[asym1\]) and (\[asym3\]) for small and large $v$ are the same, with $\beta({1\over 2})=m({1\over 2})=1$ and $\beta({1\over 3})=m({1\over 3})={3\over
2}$. In fact, the functions $$P(0,v)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}A_{1/2}\; v^{-1}e^{-v}\;,\\
A_{1/3}\; v^{-3/2}e^{-3v/2}\;,
\end{array}\right.\quad\begin{array}{l}r={1\over2}\;,\\r={1\over
3}\;,\end{array}\label{P(0,v)}$$ turn out to be exact solutions of integral equation (\[inteq\]) for all $0<v<\infty$, as we discovered numerically and prove analytically in Appendix B. The quantities $A_{1/2}$ and $A_{1/3}$ in Eq. (\[P(0,v)\]) are normalization constants, which we now determine.
Substituting Eq. (\[P(0,v)\]) in Eq. (\[weightfunc\]) and making use of Eqs. (\[psi\]) and (\[phi\]), we find that the corresponding $w(F)$ are given by $$w(F)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}{1\over 2}A_{1/2}\; F^{-1/2}
\exp\left[-(12F)^{-1}\right]\;,\\
\left({2\over 27\pi}\right)^{1/2}A_{1/3}\; F^{-1/2}K_{1/6}\left((12F)^{-1}\right)\;,
\end{array}\right.\quad\begin{array}{l}r={1\over2}\;,\\r={1\over 3}\;,\end{array}
\label{weightfunc2}$$ where $K_\nu(z)$, as in Eq. (\[kernel2\]), is a modified Bessel function. Together with Eq. (\[normalization2\]), these $w(F)$ imply $$A_{1/2}={1\over 3}\;,\quad A_{1/3}=\left(27\over 32\pi\right)^{1/2}\label{constants}$$ for the normalization constants in Eqs. (\[P(0,v)\]) and (\[weightfunc2\]).
Combining Eqs. (\[P(x)1\]), (\[weightfunc2\]), and (\[constants\]), one obtains relatively simple expressions $$P(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}{1\over 3}K_0(\sqrt{2x/3})\;,\\{1\over
4\pi}\int_0^\infty dF\thinspace
F^{-1}K_{1/6}\left((12F)^{-1}\right)\exp\left[-(12F)^{-1}-Fx\right]\;,\\
\end{array}\right.\quad\begin{array}{l}r={1\over2}\;,\\r={1\over 3}\;,\end{array}
\label{P(x)2}$$ for the probability distribution of position. In the limit $x\to 0$, $P(x)$ diverges as $\log x$ and $x^{-1/6}$ for $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$, respectively, and as $x^{(1-\beta)/3}$ for general $r$, as in Ref. [@bk]. In the limit $x\to\infty$, $P(x)$ decays as $x^{-1/4}\exp(-\sqrt{2x/3})$ and $x^{-1/2}\exp(-\sqrt{2x/3})$ for $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$, respectively.
The distribution function $P(x,v)$ may be calculated numerically for $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$ by combining Eqs. (\[fpsol\]), (\[psi\]), (\[weightfunc2\]), and (\[constants\]) and carrying out the integration over $F$ numerically. The $v$ dependence of $P(x,v)$ for $r={1\over 2}$ and several values of $x$ is shown in Fig. 3. For $r={1\over 3}$ the curves are qualitatively similar. In both cases the curve for $x=0$ diverges at $v=0$, in accordance with Eqs. (\[asym1\]) and (\[asym2\]). For $x>0$ the divergence is replaced by a smooth peak, which becomes lower and broader as $x$ increases.
For large $x$ the height of the peak in Fig. 3 varies as $P(x,0)\sim
x^{-1/2}\exp(-\sqrt{2x/3})$ for $r={1\over 2}$ and as $P(x,0)\sim
x^{-3/4}\exp(-\sqrt{2x/3})$ for $r={1\over 3}$. For small $x$, $P(x,0)\sim x^{-1/3}$ and $x^{-1/2}$ for $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$, respectively, and $P(x,0)\sim
x^{-\beta/3}$ for general $r$, as in Ref. [@bk].
The curves in Fig. 3 are characterized by the moments $$\langle v^n\rangle_x=P(x)^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dv\;v^nP(x,v)\;,\label{moments}$$ where the normalizing denominator $P(x)$ is defined by Eq. (\[P(x)1\]). Taking the derivative of Eq. (\[moments\]) with respect to $x$, making use of the Fokker-Planck equation (\[fp\]), and integrating partially with respect to $v$, one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle v\rangle_x=0\;,\label{moment1}\\
&&\langle v^2\rangle_x=P(x)^{-1}\int_x^\infty dx\;P(x)\;.\label{moment2}\end{aligned}$$ According to Eqs. (\[collrate\]), (\[moments\]), and (\[moment1\]) the net probability current at a distance $x$ from the boundary vanishes, as expected in equilibrium. Inserting the asymptotic form of $P(x)$, given just below Eq. (\[P(x)2\]), in Eq. (\[moment2\]), one finds that the root-mean-square width $\langle v^2\rangle_x^{1/2}$ of the peak in Fig. 3 increases as $x^{1/4}$ in the large $x$ limit, for both $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$.
Simulations
===========
Algorithm
---------
In our simulations the motion of the particle is governed by the difference equations $$\begin{aligned}
x_{n+1}&=&x_n+v_n\Delta_{n+1}-{1\over 2}\;\Delta_{n+1}^2+\left({1\over
6}\;\Delta_{n+1}^3\right)^{1/2}(s_{n+1}+\sqrt{3}\thinspace r_{n+1})\;,\label{xstep}\\
v_{n+1}&=&v_n-\Delta_{n+1}+(2\Delta_{n+1})^{1/2}\thinspace r_{n+1}\;.\label{vstep}\end{aligned}$$ Here $x_n$ and $v_n$ are the position and velocity at time $t_n$, and $\Delta_{n+1}=t_{n+1}-t_n$. The quantities $r_n$ and $s_n$ are independent Gaussian random numbers with $\langle r_n\rangle=\langle s_n\rangle=0$ and $\langle
r_n^2\rangle=\langle s_n^2\rangle=1$. This is the same as the algorithm in Refs. [@bibu; @kb], except that a gravitational field $g=1$ has been included.
The algorithm (\[xstep\]), (\[vstep\]) is consistent with the exact probability distribution $P_g^{\rm free}(x,v;x_0,v_0;t)$ in free space, i.e. in the absence of boundaries, of a randomly accelerated particle in a gravitational field $g=1$ with initial conditions $x_0$, $v_0$ at $t=0$. This quantity satisfies the time-dependent Fokker-Planck equation (\[timefp\]) (see Appendix A) with initial condition (\[ic\]). The exact form of $P_g^{\rm free}(x,v;x_0,v_0;t)$ follows immediately from Eq. (\[0g\]) and the expression for $P_0^{\rm free}(x,v;x_0,v_0;t)$ in Eq. (27) of [@bibu]
In free space there is no time-step error in the algorithm (\[xstep\]), (\[vstep\]). The time step $\Delta_{n+1}$ is arbitrary. However, for a particle on the half line $x>0$, trajectories are not generated with the correct probability close to the boundary. This is because $P_g^{\rm free}(x,v;x_0,v_0;t)$ includes trajectories which travel from positive to negative $x$ and return during the time $t$, violating the restriction $x>0$. As in Refs. [@bibu; @kb], we make the time step smaller near the boundary to exclude these spurious trajectories. Generalizing the discussion in Ref. [@kb] to include a gravitational field $g=1$, we find that the spurious trajectories occur with negligible probability if the time step satisfies $$x_n+v_n\Delta_{n+1}-{1\over
2}\Delta_{n+1}^2-c\Delta_{n+1}^{3/2}>0\;,\label{criterion}$$ where the constant $c$ is about 5 or larger.
The most efficient time step is the largest $\Delta_{n+1}$ consistent with inequality (\[criterion\]), which we denote by ${\cal D}(x_n,v_n)$. Using a smaller time step slows the simulation without improving the accuracy. A convenient choice is $\Delta_{n+1}={\cal D}(x_n,v_n)+\delta$, where a small minimum time step has been included. Without it, the step size decreases to zero as the particle approaches the boundary, and it never gets there.
For small $r$ the typical speed of the particle becomes extremely small after many boundary collisions. To simulate the behavior reliably, we reduced the minimum time step $\delta$ as the speed decreased, following Ref. [@kb]. After each boundary collision we set the root-mean square velocity change $\Delta v=(2\delta)^{1/2}$, corresponding to the minimum time step, equal to to 1/500 of the velocity just after the collision and then used this value of $\delta$ until the next boundary collision. This $\Delta v$ is the smallest velocity the algorithm can handle reliably.
Results
-------
According to Eq. (\[collrate\]) the equilibrium rate of boundary collisions in which the particle is reflected with velocity between $v$ and $v+dv$ is given by $P(0,v)\thinspace v\thinspace dv$. We used this relation to determine $P(0,v)$ from our simulations.
In Fig. 4 the simulation results for $r=0.75$ and $r=0.25$ are compared with the exact asymptotic forms (\[asym1\]), (\[asym2\]) and (\[asym3\])-(\[asym6\]) for small and large $v$, respectively. Varying the proportionality constants in Eqs. (\[asym1\]) and (\[asym3\]) shifts the dashed and solid curves vertically in the figure, without changing the slope. The proportionality constants were chosen to best fit the simulation data, and the fit is excellent.
In Fig. 5 the simulation results for $r={1\over 2}$ and $r={1\over 3}$ are compared with the exact analytical predictions (\[P(0,v)\]) and (\[constants\]). No adjustable parameters are involved. The agreement is excellent.
Concluding Remarks
==================
In this paper we have studied the equilibrium of a particle on the half line subject to both a random force with zero mean and a constant gravitational force which drives the particle toward a single inelastic boundary. It is interesting to compare with the case [@bfg; @bk] of a randomly accelerated particle moving on the finite line between two inelastic boundaries with no gravitational field. In both cases the equilibrium distribution function has the same divergent behavior $P(0,v)\sim
v^{-\beta}$ for small $v$, given in Eqs. (\[asym1\]), (\[asym2\]). As discussed below Eq. (\[rc\]), this comes from a high rate of low velocity inelastic collisions with one of the boundaries. In both cases the random force, not gravity, is responsible for the rapid return of a low velocity particle to the boundary.
In contrast, the equilibrium behavior for high velocities is different in the two cases. With a single boundary and a gravitational field, $P(0,v)\sim v^{-m}e^{-qv}$ for large $v$, according to Eqs. (\[asym3\])-(\[asym6\]). With two boundaries and no gravitation, $P(0,v)\sim \exp[-(v/v_{\rm ch})^3]$, according to Eqs. (14) and (16) of Ref. [@bk]. Thus, in the case of two boundaries high velocities are far more strongly suppressed. This is not surprising. Since a high velocity particle quickly travels between the two boundaries with negligible change in velocity, the time between inelastic collisions decreases as $\vert v\vert^{-1}$ as $\vert v\vert$ increases. In the case of a single boundary and a gravitational field, on the other hand, a particle which leaves the boundary with a high velocity travels far from the boundary before it returns, and the mean time between the inelastic collisions increases linearly with $\vert v\vert$.
We conclude with quantitative answers to some simple questions one might ask on reading the title of the paper: What is the mean height $\langle x\rangle$ of the ball above the inelastically reflecting surface, how large is the root-mean-square fluctuation $\Delta x=\langle(x-\langle x\rangle)^2\rangle^{1/2}$, and what is the equilibrium collision rate $I$ ? In the two cases $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$ where we have found the exact equilibrium distribution function $P(x,v)$, Eqs. (\[collrate\]), (\[P(0,v)\]), (\[constants\]), and (\[P(x)2\]) imply $$\begin{array}{l} r={1\over 2}:\\
r={1\over 3}:
\end{array}\quad
\begin{array}{l}
\langle x\rangle=6\;,\\
\langle x\rangle=3.89\;,\end{array}\quad
\begin{array}{l} \Delta x=10.4\;,\\
\Delta x=7.68\;,\end{array}\quad\begin{array}{l} I={1\over 3}\;,\\I={3\over 4}\;,
\end{array}\label{xandDeltax}$$ For both values of $r$ the fluctuations in the height of the ball are larger than the mean height. For $r={1\over 3}$, the mean height is smaller and the collision rate is larger than for $r={1\over 2}$. The mean height is expected to decrease as $r$ decreases but remain positive for all $0<r<1$, since $P(x)$ remains positive and integrable. The collision rate is expected to increase as $r$ decreases and is infinite for $r<r_c$, as discussed below Eq. (\[rc\]). Finally, we note that these results for $g=\Lambda=1$ in Eq. (\[xandDeltax\]) are easily generalized to arbitrary values of the parameters $g$ and $\Lambda$ in Eq. (\[eqmo\]). In accordance with footnote [@rescale], the numerical values in Eq. (\[xandDeltax\]) for $\langle x\rangle$ and $\Delta x$ are multiplied by $g^{-3}\Lambda^2$ and for $I$ by $g^2\Lambda^{-1}$.
Alternate Expressions for $G_g(v,u)$
====================================
To discuss first-passage properties, we define $P_g(x,v;x_0,v_0;t)dxdv$ as the probability that the position and velocity of a particle, moving on the half line $x>0$ according to Eq. (\[eqmo\]) with $g=\Lambda=1$, have evolved from $x_0$, $v_0$ to values between $x$ and $x+dx$, $v$ and $v+dv$ in a time $t$ without ever reaching $x=0$. The quantity $P_g$ satisfies the time-dependent Fokker-Planck equation [@fpeq] $$\left({\partial\over\partial t}+v{\partial\over\partial
x}-{\partial\over
\partial v}-{\partial^2\over
\partial v^2}\right)P_g(x,v;x_0,v_0;t)=0\thinspace,\label{timefp}$$ with the initial condition $$P_g(x,v;x_0,v_0;0)=\delta(x-x_0)\delta(v-v_0)\;\label{ic}$$ and the absorbing boundary condition $$P_g(0,v;x_0,v_0;t)=0\;,\quad v>0\;.\label{timebc}$$
In the absence of the gravitational field, i.e. in the case $g=0$ instead of $g=1$, the corresponding probability distribution $P_0(x,v;x_0,v_0;t)$ satisfies the same Fokker-Planck equation, boundary condition, and initial condition, except that the third term $-\partial P/\partial v$ in Eq. (\[timefp\]) is absent. This leads to the simple relation $$P_g(x,v;x_0,v_0;t)=e^{-(v-v_0)/2-t/4}\;P_0(x,v;x_0,v_0;t)\label{0g}$$ between the distribution functions with and without gravity.
As discussed below Eq. (\[kernel1\]), the quantity $vG_g(v,u)dv$ in integral equation (\[inteq\]) represents the probability that a particle moving according to Eq. (\[eqmo\]) with initial position $x=0$ and initial velocity $u>0$ arrives with speed between $v$ and $v+dv$ on its first return to $x=0$. Since the return occurs between $t$ and $t+dt$ with probability $vP_g(0,-v;0,u;t)\;dv\;dt$, $$G_g(v,u)=\int_0^\infty dt\thinspace P_g(0,-v;0,u;t)=
e^{(v+u)/2}\tilde{P}_0(0,-v;0,u;\textstyle{1\over 4})\;,\label{GgP}$$ where we have made use of Eq. (\[0g\]) and introduced the Laplace transform $$\tilde{P}_0(x,v;x_0,v_0;s)=\int_0^\infty dt\thinspace e^{-st} P_0(x,v;x_0,v_0;t)\;.
\label{mainpointofA}$$
In a classic paper on the first passage properties of a randomly accelerated particle, McKean [@mck] derived the exact form of $P_0(0,-v;0,u;t)$ and its Laplace transform. The expressions for $G_g(v,u)$ in Eqs. (\[kernel2\]) and (\[kernel3\]) follow from Eq. (\[GgP\]) and McKean’s Eqs. (5) and (6).
Derivation of exact $P(0,v)$ for $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$
================================================================
Expression (\[kernel2\]) for $G_g(v,u)$ and the Kontorovich-Lebedev transforms [@lktransform] $$\begin{aligned}
f(v)&=&\int_0^\infty d\gamma\;g(\gamma)K_{i\gamma}(v)\;,\label{lk1}\\
g(\gamma)&=&2\pi^{-2}\gamma\sinh(\pi\gamma)\int_0^\infty dv\thinspace
v^{-1}f(v)K_{i\gamma}(v),\label{lk2}\end{aligned}$$ imply $$v^{-1}e^{v/2}K_{i\gamma}(v)=2\cosh\left({\pi\gamma\over 3}\right)\int_0^\infty
du\thinspace G_{g}(v,u)e^{-u/2}K_{i\gamma}(u)\;.\label{binteq}$$ For $i\gamma\to{1\over 2}$, $K_{i\gamma}(v)\to {\rm const}\times v^{-1/2}e^{-v}$, and integral equation (\[binteq\]) is entirely equivalent to Eq. (\[inteq\]), with $r={1\over 3}$ and $P(0,v)\propto v^{-3/2}e^{-3v/2}$. Thus, we have found the exact $P(0,v)$ for $r={1\over 3}$, already announced in Eq. (\[P(0,v)\]).
The other result in Eq. (\[P(0,v)\]), that $P(0,v)\propto v^{-1}e^{-v}$ for $r={1\over 2}$ is an exact solution of the integral equation (\[inteq\]), is readily proved by integrating Eq. (\[binteq\]) over $\gamma$ from $\gamma=0$ to $\infty$ and then using the results, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^\infty d\gamma\thinspace K_{i\gamma}(v)=
{\pi\over 2}\thinspace e^{-v}\;,\label{ident1}\\
&&\int_0^\infty d\gamma\thinspace \cosh\left({\pi\gamma\over 3}\right)
K_{i\gamma}(v)={\pi\over 2}\thinspace e^{-v/2}\;.\label{ident2}\end{aligned}$$ These relations, which are examples of the Kontorovich-Lebedev transforms (\[lk1\]), (\[lk2\]), follow directly from Ref. [@gr], Eq. (6.795-1).
[03]{} In terms of the dimensionless variables $\xi=g^3\Lambda^{-2}x$, $\tau=g^2\Lambda^{-1}t$, Eq. (\[eqmo\]) takes the form $d^2\xi/d\tau^2=-1+\zeta(\tau)\;,\ \langle \zeta(\tau)\zeta (\tau')\rangle=
2\delta(\tau-\tau')$. S. J. Moon, J. B. Swift, and H. L. Swinney, Phys. Rev. E [**69**]{}, 011301 (2004). S. J. Cornell, M. R. Swift, A. J. Bray, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1142 (1998). T. W. Burkhardt, J. Franklin, and R. R. Gawronski, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 2376 (2000). T. W. Burkhardt and S. N. Kotsev, Phys. Rev. E [**70**]{}, 026105 (2004). T. W. Burkhardt, J. Phys. A [**26**]{}, L1157 (1993). T. W. Burkhardt, J. Phys. A [**33**]{}, L429 (2000); G. De Smedt, C. Godrèche, and J. M. Luck, Europhys. Lett. [**53**]{}, 438 (2001). S. N. Kotsev and T. W. Burkhardt, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 046115 (2005). See, e.g., S. Chandrasekhar, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**15**]{}, 1 (1943); [*Statistical Mechanics*]{}, D. A. McQuarrie (Harper & Row, New York, 1976). , edited by M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun (Dover, New York, 1965). T. W. Marshall and E. J. Watson, J. Phys A [**18**]{}, 3531 (1985). A. J. Kainz and U. M. Titulaer, J. Phys. A [**24**]{}, 4677 (1991). H. P. McKean, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. [**2**]{}, 227 (1963). I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, [*Tables of Integrals, Series, and Products*]{} (Academic, New York, 1980). D. J. Bicout and T. W. Burkhardt, J. Phys. A [**33**]{}, 6835 (2000). , Bateman Manuscript Project, Vol 2, edited by A. Erdélyi (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954).
**Figure Captions**
[Figure 1:]{} The exponents $m(r)$ and $\beta(r)$, given by Eqs. (\[asym1\]), (\[asym2\]), and (\[asym3\])-(\[asym6\]). Note the discontinuity in $m(r)$ at $r={1\over 2}$.
[Figure 2:]{} The decay constant $q(r)$, given by Eqs. (\[asym4\]) and (\[asym6\]). Both $q(r)$ and $dq(r)/dr$ are continuous at $r={1\over 2}$, but $d^2q/dr^2$ is discontinuous.
[Figure 3:]{} Exact $P(x,v)$, given by Eqs. (\[fpsol\]), (\[psi\]), (\[weightfunc2\]), and (\[constants\]), for $r={1\over 2}$ and, from top to bottom, $x=0$, 0.001, 0.01, and 0.1.
[Figure 4:]{} Double-logarithmic plot (base 10) of $P(0,v)$ for $r=0.75$ and $0.25$. The points are the results of our simulations. The dashed and solid lines show the predicted asymptotic forms (\[asym1\]), (\[asym2\]) for small $v$ and (\[asym3\])-(\[asym6\]) for large $v$, respectively, with proportionality constants chosen to fit the simulation data.
[Figure 5:]{} Double-logarithmic plot (base 10) of $P(0,v)$ for $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$. The points are the results of our simulations. The solid curves show the exact theoretical predictions (\[P(0,v)\]) and (\[constants\]), with no adjustable parameters.
![The exponents $m(r)$ and $\beta(r)$, given by Eqs. (\[asym1\]), (\[asym2\]), and (\[asym3\])-(\[asym6\]). Note the discontinuity in $m(r)$ at $r={1\over 2}$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](burkotfig1.ps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"}\
![The decay constant $q(r)$, given by Eqs. (\[asym4\]) and (\[asym6\]). Both $q(r)$ and $dq(r)/dr$ are continuous at $r={1\over 2}$, but $d^2q/dr^2$ is discontinuous.[]{data-label="fig2"}](burkotfig2.ps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"}\
![Exact $P(x,v)$, given by Eqs. (\[fpsol\]), (\[psi\]), (\[weightfunc2\]), and (\[constants\]), for $r={1\over 2}$ and, from top to bottom, $x=0$, 0.001, 0.01, and 0.1.[]{data-label="fig3"}](burkotfig3.ps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"}\
![Double-logarithmic plot (base 10) of $P(0,v)$ for $r=0.75$ and $0.25$. The points are the results of our simulations. The dashed and solid lines show the predicted asymptotic forms (\[asym1\]), (\[asym2\]) for small $v$ and (\[asym3\])-(\[asym6\]) for large $v$, respectively, with proportionality constants chosen to fit the simulation data.[]{data-label="fig4"}](burkotfig4.ps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"}\
![Double-logarithmic plot (base 10) of $P(0,v)$ for $r={1\over 2}$ and ${1\over 3}$. The points are the results of our simulations. The solid curves show the exact theoretical predictions (\[P(0,v)\]) and (\[constants\]), with no adjustable parameters.[]{data-label="fig5"}](burkotfig5.ps "fig:"){width="70.00000%"}\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In a first course of general relativity it is usually quite difficult for students to grasp the concept of a geodesic. It is supposed to be straight (auto-parallel) and yet it ‘looks’ curved. In these situations it is very useful to have some explicit examples available which show the different behaviour of geodesics. In this paper we present the [*GeodesicViewer*]{}, an interactive tool for studying the behaviour of geodesics in many different space-times. The geodesics can be represented in several ways, depending on the space-time in question. The use of a local reference frame and ‘Cartesian-like’ coordinates helps the students to develop some intuition in various situations. We present the various features of the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} in the form of readily formulated exercises for the students.'
address:
- |
Visualisierungsinstitut der Universit[ä]{}t Stuttgart (VISUS),\
Allmandring 19, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
- |
Department of Mathematics & Statistics, University of Otago,\
P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9010, New Zealand
author:
- 'Thomas M[ü]{}ller'
- 'J[ö]{}rg Frauendiener[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'lit\_geod.bib'
title: 'Studying null and time-like geodesics in the classroom'
---
Introduction
============
The intrinsic curvature of a space-time in general relativity is a concept that contradicts our every day experience of space and time. The necessary mathematical set of tools is difficult to learn and fairly abstract. To get some impression what a curved space-time means, is to study the behaviour of light rays and particles in free motion. In the geometric optics limit and for particles whose mass has no back-reaction on the curvature of space-time, light rays and particles in free motion can be represented by null and time-like geodesics, respectively.
For a first glimpse on how null and time-like geodesics behave, it may be sufficient to use off-the-shelf/standard software like for example Maple, Mathematica, or Octave. All of them could integrate the geodesic equation and show the geodesic as 2d- or 3d-plot. However, to explore the behaviour of geodesics, an interactive tool is indispensable.
In this article we present the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} [@mueller2010a], an interactive tool to thoroughly examine the behaviour of light-like and time-like geodesics in a space-time whose metric is provided analytically. The database of metrics is taken from the Motion4D library [@mueller2009b]. The metrics with the corresponding Christoffel symbols and local tetrads are detailed in Ref. [@mueller2009a]. The graphical user interface, see Fig. \[fig:screenshot\], is written using the object-oriented, cross-platform application framework Qt[@qt]. The graphical 2D and 3D output is realized by means of the Open Graphics Library (OpenGL)[@opengl]. For the numerical integration of the geodesics, we use a standard fourth-order Runge-Kutta method and the integrators of the GNU Scientific Library (GSL)[@gsl].
![\[fig:screenshot\]Screenshot of the [*GeodesicViewer*]{}’s user interface.](figure1.png)
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \[sec:GV\] we give a short description of the [*GeodesicViewer*]{}. Sec. \[sec:schwarzschild\] discusses the standard situations in the Schwarzschild space-time. Periodic orbits of time-like geodesics in black hole space-times are worked out in Sec. \[sec:kerrPeriodic\]. Secs. \[sec:wormhole\] and \[sec:multiBH\] deal with the more exotic space-times like the Morris-Thorne wormhole and the extreme Reissner-Nordstr[ø]{}m diblack hole.
The [*GeodesicViewer*]{} is freely available for Linux and Windows. The source code and several examples can be downloaded from *www.vis.uni-stuttgart.de/relativity*.
GeodesicViewer {#sec:GV}
==============
The two main outputs of the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} are 3D and 2D representations of the geodesic data. In the standard 3D representation, a geodesic is depicted by means of pseudo-Cartesian coordinates, where the inherent coordinates are transformed into Cartesian coordinates as usual. If an embedding diagram is defined for a specific hypersurface of the space-time, the geodesic can also be represented in this form. (In principle, the user can implement any representation he wants.) The standard 2D representation of a geodesic is also given in pseudo-Cartesian coordinates, where now only a specific hypersurface is used. Another representation shows coordinate or velocity relations. For example, the radial coordinate could be plotted against the affine parameter. A third representation follows from the Euler-Lagrangian formalism, where an effective potential can be defined. This representation is particularly helpful to find bound orbits.
The numerous features of the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} are described by means of examples which are formulated as exercises. The mathematical explanations are directed to the teacher. The exercises can be made either from scratch or a configure file can be prepared in advance, so that the student only has to change a few parameters. Each result description is accompanied by a configure file which holds the final result for reproduction in the [*GeodesicViewer*]{}. To familiarize oneself with the graphical user interface of the [*GeodesicViewer*]{}, there are several online tutorials. These can be worked through either alone or with guidance from the teacher.
Basic examples in the Schwarzschild space-time {#sec:schwarzschild}
==============================================
The prime example of general relativity is the Schwarzschild metric which we will give here in isotropic coordinates $x^{\mu}=(t,x,y,z)$. The line element $ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}$ reads $$ds^2 = -\left(\frac{1-\rho_s/\rho}{1+\rho_s/\rho}\right)^2c^2dt^2 + \left(1+\frac{\rho_s}{\rho}\right)^4\left[dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\right],
\label{eq:schwMetricIso}$$ where $\rho^2=x^2+y^2+z^2$, $\rho_s=GM/(2c^2)$ is the Schwarzschild radius, $G$ is Newton’s constant, $M$ is the mass of the black hole, and $c$ is the speed of light. The transformation between the usual Schwarzschild radial coordinate $r$ and the isotropic radial coordinate $\rho$ is given by $r=\rho\left(1+\rho_s/\rho\right)^2$. If $M=0$, Eq. (\[eq:schwMetricIso\]) simplifies to the Minkowski metric in Cartesian coordinates.
Because of the spherical symmetry of the Schwarzschild space-time, we can restrict geodesics to the $xy$-plane. Then, the geodesic equations read $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \ddot{t} + 2\Gamma_{tx}^t\dot{t}\dot{x} + 2\Gamma_{ty}^t\dot{t}\dot{y},\\
0 &= \ddot{x} + \Gamma_{tt}^x\dot{t}^2 +\Gamma_{xx}^x\dot{x}^2 + 2\Gamma_{xy}^x\dot{x}\dot{y}+\Gamma_{yy}^x\dot{y}^2,\\
0 &= \ddot{y} + \Gamma_{tt}^y\dot{t}^2 +\Gamma_{xx}^y\dot{x}^2 + 2\Gamma_{xy}^y\dot{x}\dot{y}+\Gamma_{yy}^y\dot{y}^2,\end{aligned}$$ with the Christoffel symbols $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{tt}^x = \frac{2c^2\rho^3\rho_s\left(\rho-\rho_s\right)x}{\left(\rho+\rho_s\right)^7}, \quad \Gamma_{tt}^y = \frac{2c^2\rho^3\rho_s\left(\rho-\rho_s\right)y}{\left(\rho+\rho_s\right)^7},\\
\Gamma_{tx}^t = \frac{2\rho_s x}{\rho^3\left[1-\rho_s^2/\rho^2\right]}, \quad \Gamma_{ty}^t = \frac{2\rho_s y}{\rho^3\left[1-\rho_s^2/\rho^2\right]},\\
\Gamma_{xx}^x = \Gamma_{xy}^y = -\Gamma_{yy}^x = -\frac{2\rho_s}{\rho^3}\frac{x}{1+\rho_s/\rho},\\
\Gamma_{yy}^y = -\Gamma_{xx}^y = \Gamma_{xy}^x = -\frac{2\rho_s}{\rho^3}\frac{y}{1+\rho_s/\rho}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, a dot represents the derivative with respect to the affine parameter $\lambda$, hence $\dot{t}=dt/d\lambda$.
To integrate the geodesic equations, we need not only an initial position but also an initial direction. For this purpose, we first introduce the local reference frame $\{\mathbf{e}_{(i)}\}_{i=t,x,y,z}$ of an observer which defines a local Minkowskian system. The four base vectors $\mathbf{e}_{(i)}=\mathbf{e}_{(i)}^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}$ have to fulfill the orthonormality condition $g_{\mu\nu}\mathbf{e}_{(i)}^{\mu}\mathbf{e}_{(j)}^{\nu}=\eta_{(i)(j)}$ with $\eta_{(i)(j)}=\mbox{diag}(-1,1,1,1)$. Here, the most convenient choice for the local reference frame is the one which is adapted to the coordinates and the symmetries of the metric, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}_{(t)} &= \frac{1+\rho_s/\rho}{1-\rho_s/\rho}\frac{\partial_t}{c}, \qquad& \mathbf{e}_{(x)} = \left(1+\frac{\rho_s}{\rho}\right)^{-2}\partial_x,\\
\mathbf{e}_{(y)} & = \left(1+\frac{\rho_s}{\rho}\right)^{-2}\partial_y, \qquad& \mathbf{e}_{(z)} = \left(1+\frac{\rho_s}{\rho}\right)^{-2}\partial_z.
\end{aligned}$$ Now, an initial direction, $\mathbf{k}=k^{(i)}\mathbf{e}_{(i)}^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}=k^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}$, of a null or a time-like geodesic can be defined with respect to this local reference frame as shown in Fig. \[fig:initDir\].
![Initial direction $\mathbf{k}=k^{(i)}\mathbf{e}_{(i)}$ with respect to the local reference frame of an observer.[]{data-label="fig:initDir"}](figure2)
For a null geodesic we have $\mathbf{k}=\mathbf{e}_{(0)}+\sin\chi\cos\xi\mathbf{e}_{(1)}+\sin\chi\sin\xi\mathbf{e}_{(2)}+\cos\chi\mathbf{e}_{(3)}$. The initial direction of a time-like geodesic, on the other hand, equals the initial four-velocity $\mathbf{k}=\mathbf{u}=\gamma c\mathbf{e}_{(0)}+\gamma\beta c\left(\sin\chi\cos\xi\mathbf{e}_{(1)}+\sin\chi\sin\xi\mathbf{e}_{(2)}+\cos\chi\mathbf{e}_{(3)}\right)$, where $\beta=v/c$ is the initial velocity $v$ scaled by the speed of light, and $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$. Because we restrict to geodesics in the $xy$-plane, we must set $\chi=90\degree$. The geodesic equations can now be solved using the initial position $x^{\mu}\big|_{\lambda=0}$ and the initial direction $\dot{x}^{\mu}\big|_{\lambda=0}=k^{\mu}$.
The numerical integration of the geodesics are accomplished by either a standard fourth-order Runge-Kutta method or by the integrators of the GNU Scientific Library. After each integration step, the geodesic is tested if it still fulfills the constraint equation $g_{\mu\nu}\dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^{\nu}=\kappa c^2$ with $\kappa=0$ for light-like and $\kappa=-1$ for time-like geodesics. If this constraint is not fulfilled within a certain accuracy, the integration stops.
For the following examples, we set $G=c=M=1$. In physical units, this means that $G/c^2=1~ls/\mathcal{M}$ which equals one light second per mass unit $\mathcal{M}\approx 2.03\times 10^5M_{\astrosun}$. Hence, $M=1$ represents an object of $2.03\times 10^5$ solar masses and distances are measured in light seconds.
Deflection of light {#subsec:deflection}
-------------------
In the neighbourhood of a black hole, light rays are no longer straight lines but they are deflected due to the curvature of space-time. The size of the deflection depends on how close the light ray passes the black hole.
Start the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} and select the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates (SchwarzschildIsotropic) in the “Metric/Integrator/Constants” window. Set the position of an observer in the “Local Tetrad” window to $(t=0,x=6,y=6,z=0)$. With respect to his local reference frame, the observer starts light rays in the negative $y$-direction, $\mathbf{k}=\mathbf{e}_{(0)}-\mathbf{e}_{(2)}$. For that, set the direction angle $\xi=180\degree$ within the “Geodesic” window. Modify the initial position $y$ and describe the behaviour of the light rays. What is the closest approach where the light ray can still escape from the black hole?
Figure \[fig:deflLightRays\] shows light rays for several initial positions $y_i$. The closer the light ray passes the black hole the stronger the rays are deflected. If the light ray crosses the photon orbit, $r_{\mbox{\tiny po}}=\frac{3}{2}r_s$ $(\rho_{\mbox{\tiny po}}=(2+\sqrt{3})\rho_s)$, the light ray cannot escape from the black hole.
![Light rays starting from $x=6$, $y_i=\left\{6,5.5,5,4.5,4,3.5,2\right\}$ in the negative $y$-direction are deflected by the curved space-time close to the Schwarzschild black hole (black disk). The dashed circle represents the photon orbit which represents the limit of the closest approach for light rays.[]{data-label="fig:deflLightRays"}](figure3)
defl\_of\_light.
A detailed explanation of the configuration file can be found in \[app:conf\].
It could also be interesting to find the initial position $y$ where the light ray approaches the photon orbit asymptotically. Here, we have $y\approx 3.9508265$. For that, however, it would be better to change the numerical integration from the standard Runge-Kutta fourth order integrator without step size control to the Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg integrator with step size control and absolute error tolerance of $\varepsilon_{\mbox{\tiny abs}}=10^{-12}$. Then, the constraint equation for the light ray is fulfilled until the light ray reaches the horizon.
Einstein ring
-------------
In the previous example, we have seen that for some specific initial positions $y$, the light ray orbits the black hole and returns to the observer. Due to the symmetry of the Schwarzschild space-time, this happens also for light rays which lie in a plane that is rotated around the connecting axis between the observer and the black hole. As a result, the observer will see himself as an Einstein ring around the black hole. However, there is not only one but an arbitrary number of Einstein rings.
One method to find the geodesics that return to the observer would be to solve the geodesic equations analytically, see e.g. M[ü]{}ller [@mueller2008prdB]. But this is extremely laborious even for the more adequate spherical coordinates. Another possibility, known from solving ordinary differential equations, is the shooting method which we can be easily simulated using the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} and varying the initial direction $\xi$.
Start the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} and select the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates (SchwarzschildIsotropic) in the “Metric/Integrator/Constants” window. Set the position of an observer in the “Local Tetrad” window to $(t=0,x=6,y=6,z=0)$. Find the initial directions $\xi$ of the light rays that orbit the black hole once, twice, or thrice, cf. Fig. \[fig:einsteinRings\], before returning to the observer.
![Light rays starting from the observer at $(x=6,y=6)$ return to him after orbiting the black hole once (solid line) or twice (dashed line). Hence, the observer will see himself as an Einstein ring of first or second order.[]{data-label="fig:einsteinRings"}](figure4)
The initial directions $\xi$ with respect to the observer’s local reference frame, cf. Fig. \[fig:initDir\], read: $\xi_1=195.668165\degree$, $\xi_2=195.96490458\degree$, and $\xi_3=195.965451625\degree$.
einstein\_ring\_1,einstein\_ring\_2,einstein\_ring\_3.
The situation is as before. But now, the observer sends out a flash of light and measures the time until the Einstein rings appear: $\tau_1\approx 40.1480$, $\tau_2\approx 69.2052$, $\tau_3\approx 98.2203$. What is the relation between proper time and coordinate time? Switch to the 2D view and use the coordinate time ’t’ as abscissa and ’x’ as ordinate.
From Fig. \[fig:lightTravelTime\] we can read the light travel times $t_i$ for the light rays with initial directions $\xi$. The relation between the coordinate time $t_i$ and the proper time $\tau_i$ for a fixed observer position is constant.
![Light travel times for the light rays of Fig. \[fig:einsteinRings\] in 2D coordinate representation: $t_1\approx 45.1758$, $t_2\approx 77.8718$, $t_3\approx 110.5205$. []{data-label="fig:lightTravelTime"}](figure5)
light\_travel\_time.
This example could be also formulated for given observer positions $\rho$ and corresponding light travel times $\tau(\rho)$ as measured by the observer. To prepare this exercise, the coordinate times $t$ for one orbit have to be determined in advance for several radial positions $\rho$. Then, by means of the relation $\tau/t=\sqrt{1-r_s/r}=\sqrt{1-4\rho_s/\left[\rho\left(1+\rho_s/\rho\right)^2\right]}$, which shall be found by the students, the proper times $\tau$ can be determined. Probably, this relation could be easier found in the standard spherical Schwarzschild coordinates.
Shapiro time delay
------------------
In Ref. [@rindler], Rindler discusses the Shapiro time delay by means of a situation similar to the one shown in Fig. \[fig:shapiro\]. A light ray emitted at $x_{\mbox{\tiny source}}=-X$ passes a spherical mass $M$, which is located at $(x=0,y=0)$, at $y=R$ and reaches the observer at $x_{\mbox{\tiny obs}}=X$. From the isotropic metric, Eq. (\[eq:schwMetricIso\]), together with $ds=0$ and $\rho=\sqrt{X^2+R^2}$, he deduces the total coordinate time $$\Delta t\approx 2X+r_s\ln\frac{4X^2}{R^2},
\label{eq:shapiro}$$ where the logarithmic term is the Shapiro time delay.
Start the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} and select the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates. Find a geodesic that connects the observer, located at $x{\mbox{\tiny obs}}=200$, with a light source at position $x_{\mbox{\tiny source}}=-200$. Compare the total light travel time with the approximation by Rindler.
![Shapiro time delay. The solid line represents the real light ray, whereas the dashed line is the rectilinear approximation. Impact parameter: $y=R$. Position of observer and source: $x_{\mbox{\tiny obs}}=X$, $x_{\mbox{\tiny source}}=-X$.[]{data-label="fig:shapiro"}](figure6)
The light ray that connects the observer and the light source in Fig. \[fig:shapiro\] has initial angle $\xi\approx 173.8578332\degree$. Rindler’s approximation, Eq. (\[eq:shapiro\]), yields $\Delta t\approx 412.0797$, whereas from the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} we obtain $\Delta t\approx 414.579$.
shapiro.
Periodic orbits of time-like geodesics in black hole space-times {#sec:kerrPeriodic}
================================================================
The most simple periodic orbit of a time-like geodesic in the Schwarzschild space-time is a circular orbit. The relation between the radius $r$ of the orbit and the corresponding velocity $\beta$ can be easily found within the original, spherically symmetric Schwarzschild coordinates. In isotropic coordinates, this relation reads $$\beta^{-1} = \sqrt{2\left[\frac{\rho}{4\rho_s}\left(1+\frac{\rho_s}{\rho}\right)^2-1\right]},$$ which is valid only down to the last stable orbit, $\rho\geq\rho_{\mbox{\tiny lso}}=(5+2\sqrt{6})\rho_s$. However, beside these circular orbits, there are also more complex periodic orbits. Levin and Perez-Giz [@levin2008] give a whole taxonomy of periodic orbits. See \[app:periodic\] on how to reproduce the orbits shown in their paper.
In the following exercise, we will consider periodic orbits for Kerr black holes. In Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, see e.g. Bardeen et al. [@bardeen1972], the Kerr metric reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kerrBLbardeen}
ds^2 &= -\left(1-\frac{r_sr}{\Sigma}\right)c^2dt^2-\frac{2r_sar\sin^2\vartheta}{\Sigma}c\,dt\,d\varphi + \frac{\Sigma}{\Delta}dr^2 + \Sigma d\vartheta^2\\
&\quad + \left(r^2+a^2+\frac{r_sa^2r\sin^2\vartheta}{\Sigma}\right)\sin^2\vartheta d\varphi^2,\end{aligned}$$ with $\Sigma=r^2+a^2\cos^2\vartheta$, $\Delta=r^2-r_sr+a^2$, and $r_s=2GM/c^2$. $M$ is the mass and $a$ is the angular momentum per unit mass of the black hole. As the observer’s local reference frame we use the locally non-rotating tetrad $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}_{(t)} &= \sqrt{\frac{A}{\Sigma\Delta}}\left(\frac{1}{c}\partial_t + \omega\partial_{\varphi}\right), \qquad& \mathbf{e}_{(r)} = \sqrt{\frac{\Delta}{\Sigma}}\partial_r,\\
\mathbf{e}_{(\vartheta)} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Sigma}}\partial_{\vartheta}, \qquad& \mathbf{e}_{(\varphi)} = \sqrt{\frac{\Sigma}{A}}\frac{1}{\sin\vartheta}\partial_{\varphi},\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega = r_sar/A$ and $A=\left(r^2+a^2\right)\Sigma+r_sa^2r\sin^2\vartheta$.
Select the Kerr metric in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates (KerrBL) and set the mass and angular momentum parameters to $M=1$, $a=1/2$. The observer is located at $(r=6,\vartheta=\pi/2,\varphi=0)$. With respect to his locally non-rotating reference frame, cf. ’Natural local tetrad’ in the ’Local Tetrad’ window, he starts a future directed time-like geodesic with initial velocity $\beta=1/2$ and direction $\chi=90\degree$, $\xi=67.649\degree$, see Fig. \[fig:kerrPeriodicOrbits\]. By varying the initial direction $\xi$, find periodic orbits of higher order. Instead of varying the initial direction, the initial velocity could also be changed.
![Periodic orbits in the Kerr space-time with parameters $M=1$ and $a=1/2$. The observer is located at $r=6,\varphi=0$ and starts a time-like geodesic with $\beta=1/2$ and $\chi=0\degree$, $\xi_1=67.65\degree$ (left), or $\xi_2\approx 82.95\degree$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:kerrPeriodicOrbits"}](figure7a "fig:")![Periodic orbits in the Kerr space-time with parameters $M=1$ and $a=1/2$. The observer is located at $r=6,\varphi=0$ and starts a time-like geodesic with $\beta=1/2$ and $\chi=0\degree$, $\xi_1=67.65\degree$ (left), or $\xi_2\approx 82.95\degree$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:kerrPeriodicOrbits"}](figure7b "fig:")
Periodic orbits of higher order follow from initial directions $\xi_2\approx 82.95\degree$, $\xi_3\approx 72.6\degree$, $\xi_4\approx 70.58\degree$, $\xi_5\approx 75.1\degree$, etc. For the fixed direction $\xi_1=67.65\degree$, we can also change the initial velocity: $\beta_2\approx 0.545$, $\beta_3\approx 0.52006$, $\beta_5\approx 0.528$.
kerr\_periodic.
Wormhole space-time {#sec:wormhole}
===================
The most simple non-trivial space-time is that of a Morris-Thorne [@morris1988] wormhole whose metric, given in spherical coordinates, reads $$ds^2 = -c^2dt^2 + dl^2 + (b_0^2+l^2)\left(d\vartheta^2+\sin^2\!\vartheta\,d\varphi^2\right).$$ Here, $b_0$ is the throat radius and $l$ is the proper radial coordinate. The local reference frame of a static observer is given by $$\fl\qquad \mathbf{e}_{(t)} = \frac{1}{c}\partial_t, \quad \mathbf{e}_{(l)} = \partial_l,\quad \mathbf{e}_{(\vartheta)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{b_0^2+l^2}}\partial_{\vartheta}, \quad \mathbf{e}_{(\varphi)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{b_0^2+l^2}\,\sin\vartheta}\partial_{\varphi}.$$ To receive an impression of how the inner geometry of this wormhole space-time looks like, we take advantage of the spherical symmetry and embed the $(t=\mbox{const},\vartheta=\pi/2)$ hypersurface into the three-dimensional Euclidean space, cf. for example Ref. [@mtw]. The resulting embedding function reads $$z(r) = \pm b_0\ln\left[\frac{r}{b_0}+\sqrt{\left(\frac{r}{b_0}\right)^2-1}\right],$$ where the radial coordinates $r$ and $l$ are related via $r^2=b_0^2+l^2$. Figure \[fig:mtEmbedding\] shows an embedding diagram for a wormhole with throat size $b_0=1$ and an observer at $(l=10,\vartheta=\pi/2,\varphi=0)$.
![Embedding diagram of a Morris-Thorne wormhole space-time with $b_0=1$ and some exemplary null geodesics (black lines) with initial direction $\mathbf{k}=\mathbf{e}_{(t)}-\cos\xi\mathbf{e}_{(l)}+\cos\xi\mathbf{e}_{(\varphi)}$ starting at the observer’s position $(l=10,\vartheta=\pi/2,\varphi=0)$.[]{data-label="fig:mtEmbedding"}](figure8)
Select the Morris-Thorne wormhole and set the throat size parameter $b_0=1$. The observer is located at $(l=10,\vartheta=\pi/2,\varphi=0)$ and uses the inward-oriented tetrad $\mathbf{e}_{(0)}=\mathbf{e}_{(t)}$, $\mathbf{e}_{(1)}=-\mathbf{e}_{(l)}$, $\mathbf{e}_{(2)}=\mathbf{e}_{(\varphi)}$, $\mathbf{e}_{(3)}=\mathbf{e}_{(\vartheta)}$ as local reference frame. A light ray with initial direction $\chi=90\degree, \xi_0=0\degree$ traverses the wormhole and hits the point $P=(l=-10, \varphi=0)$. Now, find the initial direction $\xi_1$ where the new light ray hits the point $P$ again but now with $\varphi=2\pi$. Explain what an observer would see between $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$.
A light ray with initial angle $\xi\approx 5.64336\degree$ travels around the wormhole throat before reaching the point $P$. Between $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$ the observer would see the whole lower universe. Here, an interactive tool is indispensable to comprehend this fact.
morristhorne.
Detailed discussions for the first-person visualizations of the Morris-Thorne wormhole can be found in M[ü]{}ller [@mueller2004] or Ruder [@ruder2008].
Multi black hole solution {#sec:multiBH}
=========================
Interesting general relativistic situations occur when several black holes are combined. These configurations will be inherently dynamical due to the mutual gravitational attraction between the black holes. However, it is possible to construct static situations if one allows the black holes to carry an electric charge. Then the gravitational attraction can be compensated exactly by the electric repulsion. These solutions have been discovered by Majumdar [@majumdar1947] and Papapetrou [@papapetrou1947]. They can be described as a collection of any number of extreme Reissner-Nordstr[ø]{}m black holes. We consider here the case of only two such black holes, see Chandrasekhar [@chandrasekhar1989a],
In Cartesian coordinates, the extreme Reissner-Nordstr[ø]{}m metric reads $$ds^2 = -\frac{dt^2}{U^2}+U^2\left(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\right),$$ where $U=1+M_1/r_1+M_2/r_2$, $r_1=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+(z-1)^2}$, and $r_2=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+(z+1)^2}$. Here, we use geometric units with $G=c=1$. The two black holes are located at $x=y=0, z=\pm 1$. As local reference frame, we use $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}_{(t)}=U\partial_t,\quad \mathbf{e}_{(x)}=\frac{1}{U}\partial_x, \quad \mathbf{e}_{(y)}=\frac{1}{U}\partial_y, \quad \mathbf{e}_{(z)}=\frac{1}{U}\partial_z.\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we set $M_1=M_2=1$.
![Time-like periodic orbits in the extreme Reissner-Nordstr[ø]{}m metric with the two black holes located at $z=\pm 1$. **Left:** The geodesic starts at $(x=y=0,z=3)$ with four-velocity $\mathbf{u}=\gamma\left(\mathbf{e}_{(t)}+\beta\mathbf{e}_{(x)}\right)$, where $\beta\approx 0.591943$ and $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$. **Right:** The geodesic starts at $(y=z=0,x=3)$ with four-velocity $\mathbf{u}=\gamma\left(\mathbf{e}_{(t)}+\beta\cos\xi\mathbf{e}_{(x)}+\beta\sin\xi\mathbf{e}_{(y)}\right)$, where $\beta=0.2$ and $\xi\approx 69.26$.[]{data-label="fig:extrRN"}](figure9a "fig:")![Time-like periodic orbits in the extreme Reissner-Nordstr[ø]{}m metric with the two black holes located at $z=\pm 1$. **Left:** The geodesic starts at $(x=y=0,z=3)$ with four-velocity $\mathbf{u}=\gamma\left(\mathbf{e}_{(t)}+\beta\mathbf{e}_{(x)}\right)$, where $\beta\approx 0.591943$ and $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$. **Right:** The geodesic starts at $(y=z=0,x=3)$ with four-velocity $\mathbf{u}=\gamma\left(\mathbf{e}_{(t)}+\beta\cos\xi\mathbf{e}_{(x)}+\beta\sin\xi\mathbf{e}_{(y)}\right)$, where $\beta=0.2$ and $\xi\approx 69.26$.[]{data-label="fig:extrRN"}](figure9b "fig:")
Select the extreme Reissner-Nordstr[ø]{}m metric (ExtremeReissnerNordstromDihole) and set the mass parameters of the two black holes to $M_1=M_2=1$. Find time-like periodic orbits in the $xy$- and $xz$-planes.
Some exemplary time-like orbits are the following: **1)** $(x=0,y=0,z=3)$, $\mathbf{u}=\gamma\left(\mathbf{e}_{(t)}+\beta\mathbf{e}_{(x)}\right)$, $\beta\approx 0.896899$; **2)** $(x=0,y=0,z=3)$, $\mathbf{u}=\gamma\left(\mathbf{e}_{(t)}+\beta\mathbf{e}_{(x)}\right)$, $\beta\approx 0.591943$; **3)** $(x=0,y=0,z=10)$, $\mathbf{u}=\gamma\left(\mathbf{e}_{(t)}+\beta\mathbf{e}_{(x)}\right)$, $\beta\approx 0.451$;
A light-like orbit is given by $(x=0,y=0,z\approx 1.720218)$, $\mathbf{k}=\mathbf{e}_{(t)}+\mathbf{e}_{(x)}$.
extrRNdihole1, extrRNdihole2, extrRNdihole3, extrRNdihole4, extrRNdihole5.
Summary and outlook
===================
The [*GeodesicViewer*]{} is a valuable tool to study the behaviour of light-like and time-like geodesics in space-times whose metrics are provided analytically. While geodesics could also be visualized using standard software, a clear understanding of their behaviour can only be achieved by interactively manipulating the corresponding parameters.
In this paper, we have given a small number of possible applications formulated as exercises for students in the classroom. This can only hint at various other possibilities. The strength of [*GeodesicViewer*]{} lies in its visualization capabilities and to a large part in the available database of exact solutions. This allows the user to study the behaviour of geodesics in many different circumstances. The possibility to choose the curve parameters in an interactive way means that one can make numerous parameter studies depending on the problem under consideration.
So far, the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} can only handle one geodesic at once. This limitation will be overcome in a future version. We also plan to make the [*GeodesicViewer*]{} scriptable to realize more complex demonstrations.
Configuration file example for the GeodesicViewer {#app:conf}
=================================================
As an example, we give here the configuration file for the ’Deflection of light’ exercise of Sec. \[subsec:deflection\] as written by the [*GeodesicViewer*]{}. Although this file is a plain text file, we do not recommend to modify it by hand. Besides, note that not all of these parameters are crucial for this exercise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
METRIC SchwarzschildIsotropic
PARAM 0 mass 1.000000000000
INIT_POS 0.00000000 6.00000000 6.00000000 0.00000000
INIT_DIR -1.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
INIT_ANGLE_VEL 180.00000000 90.00000000 0.99000000
TIME_DIR 1
AXES_ORIENT 0
GEOD_SOLVER_TYPE 4
GEODESIC_TYPE lightlike
STEPSIZE_CTRL 1
STEPSIZE 1.00000000e-02
STEPSIZE_MAX 1.00000000e+00
EPSILONS 1.00000000e-12 0.00000000e+00
CONSTR_EPSILON 1.00000000e-06
MAX_NUM_POINTS 3000
TETRAD_TYPE 0
BASE_0 1.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
BASE_1 0.00000000 1.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000
BASE_2 0.00000000 0.00000000 1.00000000 0.00000000
BASE_3 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 1.00000000
BOOST 0.00000000 90.00000000 0.00000000
SPEED_OF_LIGHT 1.000000
GRAV_CONSTANT 1.000000e+00
DIELECTRIC_PERM 1.000000e+00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the parameters are self-explanatory. The time-direction (`TIME_DIR`) can be either plus or minus one depending on the geodesic being future- or past-directed. The method for solving the geodesic equation (`GEOD_SOLVER_TYPE`) is encoded by just a number, cf. `m4dMotionList.h` of the Motion4D library. The absolute and relative error tolerances are given by the `EPSILONS` values. The numerical integration of the geodesic stops when the constraint equation with `CONSTR_EPSILON` is no longer fulfilled. For the local reference frame in this exercise, we use the default natural local tetrad. Hence, the `TETRAD_TYPE` is set to zero, the base vectors `BASE_0` to `BASE_3` build the identity matrix, and there is no boost transformation (the last value is the boost velocity). Since we use geometrical units, the speed of light and the gravitational constant are set to unity.
Periodic orbits by Levin and Perez-Giz {#app:periodic}
======================================
The periodic orbits in the Schwarzschild space-time shown in the paper by Levin and Perez-Giz [@levin2008], can be reproduced in isotropic coordinates in the following way. For a nearly arbitrary radial coordinate $r$, the initial velocity $\beta$ and the initial direction $\xi$ read $$\beta = \sqrt{1-\frac{1-r_s/r}{E^2}},\quad \xi=\arcsin\frac{L}{r\sqrt{E^2/(1-r_s/r)-1}}.$$ The isotropic position is given by $$x = \frac{1}{4}\left(2r-r_s+2\sqrt{r(r-r_s)}\right).$$ For example, to reproduce the periodic orbit of Fig. 12 in their paper with parameters $L=3.9$ and $E=0.987160$, we set $r=10$ and obtain $\beta\approx 0.423147$, $\xi\approx 56.62467$, and $x\approx 8.972136$.
This work has been partly supported by the Marsden Fund of the Royal Society of New Zealand under contract number UOO0922.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: and: Centre of Mathematics for Applications, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1053, Blindern, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '10000 Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) is a means of generating keys between a pair of computing hosts that is theoretically secure against cryptanalysis, even by a quantum computer. Although there is much active research into improving the QKD technology itself, there is still significant work to be done to apply engineering methodology and determine how it can be practically built to scale within an enterprise IT environment. Significant challenges exist in building a practical key management service for use in a metropolitan network. QKD is generally a point-to-point technique only and is subject to steep performance constraints. The integration of QKD into enterprise-level computing has been researched, to enable quantum-safe communication. A novel method for constructing a key management service is presented that allows arbitrary computing hosts on one site to establish multiple secure communication sessions with the hosts of another site. A key exchange protocol is proposed where symmetric private keys are granted to hosts while satisfying the scalability needs of an enterprise population of users. The key management service operates within a layered architectural style that is able to interoperate with various underlying QKD implementations. Variable levels of security for the host population are enforced through a policy engine. A network layer provides key generation across a network of nodes connected by quantum links. Scheduling and routing functionality allows quantum key material to be relayed across trusted nodes. Optimizations are performed to match the real-time host demand for key material with the capacity afforded by the infrastructure. The result is a flexible and scalable architecture that is suitable for enterprise use and independent of any specific QKD technology.'
address:
- '$^{1,3,4}$ Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC), University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W., Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada'
- '$^{2}$ XLNTec Inc., 329 Deerfoot Trail, Waterloo, Ontario, N2K 0B4, Canada'
- '$^{4}$ Department of Combinatorics and Optimization, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W., Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada'
- '$^{4}$ Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline St. N., Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 2Y5, Canada'
- '$^{4}$ Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, 180 Dundas St. W., Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1Z8, Canada'
- '$^{3,4}$ evolutionQ Inc., 295 Hagey Blvd., Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 6R5, Canada'
author:
- 'Piotr K. Tysowski$^1$, Xinhua Ling$^2$, Norbert L[ü]{}tkenhaus$^3$, and Michele Mosca$^4$'
bibliography:
- 'qkd.bib'
title: 'The Engineering of a Scalable Multi-Site Communications System Utilizing Quantum Key Distribution (QKD)'
---
=4
[: quantum key distribution, quantum cryptography, software engineering, network engineering, network security, software architecture, enterprise computing]{}
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Background
----------
Secure network communication is a principal function of IT infrastructure. In particular, secure inter-domain communication is important to larger organizations that are distributed across multiple geographical sites. Computing hosts on a local site will regularly establish communication sessions with arbitrary computing hosts of a remote site. The key management service of an IT security system will typically provide a data encryption service on top of a standard network protocol. Although there are many commercially available crypto-systems in use today, the majority of them rely upon key exchange under public-key cryptography where the computational problem is infeasible to break using today’s computing technology. However, rapid advances are occurring in the field of quantum computing. Once a quantum computer is built to solve problems of a practical scale, currently-deployed conventional public-key cryptography will become completely vulnerable to attack, and a new way of protecting transactions over a network will be needed.
New quantum-resistant public-key cryptography, also known as post-quantum public-key cryptography, is being researched and experimented on, and there is growing effort toward its global standardization. While promising, and an important part of the future cryptographic landscape, post-quantum cryptography is still potentially vulnerable to future (quantum and classical) algorithmic advances. In particular, there has been limited scrutiny against novel quantum cryptanalysis, especially considering the lack of a large-scale quantum computer to facilitate the design and testing of new quantum algorithms and heuristics. Furthermore, post-quantum key establishment is susceptible to being recorded and cracked at a future date.
To mitigate the risk of successful attack, Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) has been devised, which is based on the laws of quantum physics and is a theoretically secure form of generating keys that is resistant to attacks by both conventional and quantum computers. There has been significant research activity over recent years relating to the theory and implementation of QKD techniques. QKD is already in operation today in large-scale experiments using commercially-available equipment, and promising research has been presented on how trusted nodes can be utilized to build a larger system. However, there is still work to be done to determine how QKD key management can be practically utilized within an enterprise environment to flexibly serve a large host population, from a practical engineering perspective. QKD must evolve from point-to-point links to network designs that can support high user populations over wide geographical coverage [@diamanti16].
Our Contributions and Impact
----------------------------
The overall goal of our work has been to show the feasibility of integrating QKD technology with classical networks, to uncover unique design challenges and propose flexible solutions, and to provide a holistic view of a system as a viable target for migration. We viewed the problem primarily from an engineering lens. Our aim has been to apply best practices in contemporary security, network, and software engineering, including leading industry practices, in the application of QKD to practical real-world systems.
Our main contribution is the design of a scalable QKD-based system that enables secure multi-site communication, and is compatible with various QKD technologies. We provide a scalable service to support enterprise-level secure traffic between arbitrary hosts in a large metropolitan network comprising sites that may be indirectly connected. The architecture consists of a full protocol stack, including an enterprise-level key management layer that manages and issues keys to hosts from a key pool, and a quantum network layer that performs quantum key generation via trusted nodes. To maximize efficiency, the key generation system dynamically adapts to changes in demand and network infrastructure based on real-time monitoring and prediction from history. Hosts are issued session keys to securely communicate over a conventional network, while quantum key generation occurs over quantum links that may form an independent topology. Integrations with standards such as TLS, IPSec, and Kerberos have also been studied. The results of the research included design artifacts to lay the groundwork for the implementation of a research test bed or a pilot system for industry use.
Our work has numerous impacts: it informs QKD practitioners and equipment designers of the operating requirements of such an enterprise system; it informs architects of key design choices and trade-offs to make when incorporating QKD technology into a communications system; and, it demonstrates to software engineers how client applications can be built to make use of secure QKD key material in transparent fashion. These insights aim to tackle what sometimes appear to be insurmountable obstacles in standards acceptance and widespread use of QKD, despite its compelling intrinsic security benefits. Our research shows how the integration of QKD has implications on the entire systems design, and we suggest new avenues for study in the areas of security and network engineering to make QKD practical for widespread use. We concur with the ultimate goal cited in [@sasaki17]: to realize a quantum-safe infrastructure in which post-quantum cryptography, QKD, and physical-layer cryptography will be integrated.
This article presents a high-level architecture and design of a QKD-enabled communications system, to show how enabling quantum-safe communication security poses unique challenges to traditional network engineering; furthermore, it demonstrates how a feasible solution requires significant interplay between the various networking domains, from security protocols at the user level to network management at the infrastructure level. In the rest of this Section \[sec:introduction\], related literature on practical deployment of QKD through protocol and network design is discussed, followed by a model which describes the typical enterprise network where quantum-safe communications security is desired. In Section \[sec:system\_design\], the overall design is presented, consisting of a layered protocol stack; the functionality and responsibility of the various layers that make up the protocol stack are described in turn from top-to-bottom. In Section \[sec:procedures\], the main procedures that run in the system within the various layers of the stack and spanning them are described, including: the issuance of keys to hosts, demand management, and synchronization of the quantum key pool in the service layer, and the various key generation, routing, scheduling, and relaying functions of the control and data planes of the network layer. In Section \[sec:trust\_and\_security\], the trust and security models are described, and as well as options for integration with post-quantum algorithms to attain further security robustness. Finally, in Section \[sec:recommendations\], the key lessons learned throughout the design process are summarized, and recommendations given for further work in this area.
Related Work
------------
A significant focus of research in the application of QKD technology has been to find ways of integrating it into conventional crypto-systems so as to ease the migration. Current literature on the use of QKD-generated key material for securing communication sessions delves into some options for integration with existing popular security protocols. For instance, integration with IPSec and TLS is accomplished in [[@mink09]]{} by replacing the calculated Diffie-Hellman shared secret or the master secret, respectively, with QKD-generated key material contained within a key database. The protocols periodically request fresh keying material and fall back to conventional key exchange if QKD is not operational. Another option for TLS integration is suggested in [[@elboukhari10]]{}, where the handshake protocol is modified so that QKD is carried out in the middle of the handshake, and a configuration protocol is added to agree on parameters such as the key length. Our own proposal relies upon a pre-established QKD channel such that QKD-generated key material is continuously made available for each party, and takes advantage of the existing pre-shared secret key standards to avoid significant re-work in the protocols; the transmitted fields relating to the pre-shared secret are appropriately modified so that both parties obtain the same quantum-generated key, and significant re-work to the protocols are avoided. Proposals in the current literature result in different trade-offs in efficiency and implementation complexity but they address the most basic scenario of point-to-point communication only; the works do not further show how to engineer such systems for practical use within an enterprise environment to serve a large and dynamic host population, and to flexibly support different key generation technologies; these themes are a key focus of our work. In [[@assche06]]{}, the implementation of a QKD crypto-system is proposed through a secret-key distillation protocol, which occurs in the QKD process itself. A pair of users negotiates various quantum transmission parameters and performs on-demand key generation; it is also noted that synchronization of the pools containing quantum key material may be lost. The protocol, however, is again not extrapolated from a pair of users to a network, and the synchronization logic between parties that seems necessary is not elaborated upon.
Some work has been done to study the architecture required for securing communications within a network scenario. In [[@pattaranantakul12]]{} and [[@pattaranantakul15]]{}, a conceptual framework is presented consisting of QKD, key management, and application layers. The key management layer implements the standard Key Management Interoperability Protocol (KMIP) [[@kmip09]]{}. The system relies upon a global key management service that provides service to hosts. A key caching protocol is proposed for transferring QKD-generated keys from the QKD layer to the key management layer. Multiple key management servers can transfer quantum-generated keys between themselves via Virtual Private Network (VPN) tunnels. The QKD-generated keys may be transmitted from the source to the destination in a hop-by-hop manner along a path of fully-trusted peer nodes using an encrypted transfer protocol; each pair of nodes along the path encrypts the QKD key using existing pairwise symmetric keys. Finally, a routing protocol is used to find the best next hop for each node. Although the framework is useful, it lacks strategy for coping with resource constraints in the network and dealing with the resulting limitations on the key generation rate. A very similar high-level framework for e-governance applications is presented in [[@murali15]]{}, where the QKD layer relies upon a cloud-hosted quantum processor [[@bristol17]]{}. In contrast, our proposed key management service is fully decentralized to minimize bottlenecks; we provide a comprehensive design for issuing keys in a scalable and technology-agnostic manner; we provide concrete implementation strategies for making best use of the available network capacity, applying flexible security policies to serve the encryption needs of a large user base, and for synchronizing the key generation and issuance processes across multiple sites. In short, we have designed a QKD-based communications system suitable for enterprise use.
Other work has explored the impact of a larger QKD system on network engineering. A prototype European QKD network called SeCoQC (Secure Communication based on Quantum Cryptography) has been proposed in [@peev09], where backbone nodes form a network for key distribution and provide best-effort and guaranteed-rate services. A backbone node contains modules for key forwarding and routing, and a load-balancing policy is enforced based on a shortest-path calculation. A multi-layer protocol stack is also defined. We propose more extensive routing and forwarding functions that optimize key generation in highly-dynamic environments with constant host demand and network changes. Furthermore, we provide a mechanism for providing different levels of security service based on the available network capacity at any time. Finally, our session keys utilizing quantum key material are negotiated directly between hosts to ensure scalability. In [@tajima17], a QKD platform was proposed with an architecture consisting of application, key supply, key management, and quantum layers. The platform was demonstrated on the Tokyo QKD network in the context of a smartphone system. A hybrid approach was proposed in which streaming data is encrypted with AES while the cryptographic key is periodically refreshed from the quantum key supply. Key relay is used for key generation across longer distances in the network. However, scalability aspects and the flexibility of having different operating modes in the system are not specifically addressed, while they are central to our work. In [@hughes13], a trusted authority becomes a central node for multiplexed quantum communication; it provides hierarchical trust to clients in a hub-and-spoke topology. This arrangement is argued to be more scalable than general trusted QKD networks that rely upon a mesh of point-to-point links between all communicating entities; however, each client still requires its own link to the trusted authority. Our QKD network nodes are co-located with key management servers that provide quantum key material to local enterprise hosts on conventional local networks and thus require less dedicated infrastructure overall.
The Network Model
-----------------
There is generally a need for a quantum-safe multi-site secure communications network for commercial entities as well as governments. The network model being addressed, as shown in Figure \[fig:network\_model\], is assumed to comprise multiple *sites* that are geographically separated, such as buildings in a metropolitan area. Each site is a physically secure domain that contains a Local Area Network (LAN) consisting of potentially thousands of heterogeneous *hosts*, or computing devices attached to the network, including desktop and mobile devices. Sites may be connected by fibre-optic channels with user data multiplexed through Wavelength-Division Multiplexing (WDM), and these are considered conventional traffic channels; the fibre is typically shared as opposed to being dark. LANs are connected to switches, and in turn, to Wavelength Division Multiplexers (WDMs), as shown in Figure \[fig:site\_model\]. The fibre channels can be exploited to carry both secure user traffic as well as to perform QKD; thus, they form a *quantum network* consisting of *quantum links* between each pair of communicating sites. The links between sites may not necessarily consist of fibre, however. The sites may alternatively be connected by any other channel enabling both quantum and classical communication, notably such as a free-space optical channel; the proposed architecture supports any such link. For the purpose of this discussion, it will be assumed that fibre channels are being utilized.
![The network model consists of multiple communicating sites, each containing hosts that request session keys from their local KMS (Key Management Service). Each KMS maintains a quantum key pool that contains QKD-generated key material. QKD is executed over a quantum network of such sites. Once hosts obtain session keys to encrypt individual communication sessions, they can engage in secure communication across sites over a conventional network connection, which may exhibit a different topology.[]{data-label="fig:network_model"}](network_model)
A fundamental difficulty is that the QKD protocol is designed to work for two parties only; however, in a metropolitan network, quantum-safe communication must be permitted between any arbitrary hosts on any arbitrary sites; a flexible addressing mechanism and scalability are therefore required. Additional challenges are the distances involved; sites may be separated by tens of kilometres, limiting the key generation rate. A metropolitan network may consist of tens of sites, and each site may contain thousands of hosts, so that there is great contention for quantum key material. Additionally, sites may not be fully mesh-connected by quantum links, so that relaying of quantum key material to remote sites is required. Finally, dedicated quantum links through dark fibre for QKD may not be available or cost-effective, so that existing fibre-optic lines for client traffic may need to be utilized for QKD. Each node[^1] in the network may have dual roles; it may act as an end-point for a connection or as a relay for the QKD key generation process, or both.
The host of each site retrieves a *session key* from the locally-hosted Key Management Service (KMS); this key encrypts a single communication session between any two hosts located on separate sites. The same pair of users can engage in multiple secure sessions such as chat, file transfer, and videoconferencing, each requiring its own session key; this approach minimizes the impact of a single key compromise, and permits different algorithms and key types to be used for different applications as appropriate. Each KMS maintains a key repository, called a *quantum key pool*, that contains key material generated through Quantum Key Distribution (QKD), referred to here as QKD-generated key material or *quantum key material*. Once hosts obtain session keys to encrypt individual communication sessions, they can engage in secure communication across sites over a *conventional network* connection, including a wireless broadband network, copper cable network, or long-haul optical fibre. The conventional network may have a different topology than that of the quantum network, and may include the use of routers and switches.
Other network engineering design options may be relevant to the QKD network. It is possible to have some QKD network backbone nodes, which are not associated with any specific sites, acting as relays only; these can improve network operation by adding possible paths and capacities. Note that conventional network devices cannot extend the range of the quantum channels used in QKD; transparent all-optical switching results in attenuation [@chapuran09], while conventional routers and amplifiers are incompatible with QKD. Nevertheless, conventional passive optical switches can result in the creation of large and flexible network topologies for the purpose of executing QKD; this avoids sole reliance on a mesh of point-to-point links only where all nodes must function as relays for others. The routing logic in our design is compatible with any general approach to the topology. The scalability of the communications system is an important consideration that must be factored into applicable areas of its design, including processing, network, and storage capacities. As a very general example, a large enterprise network may reasonably be expected to consist of 5 to 20 sites, within a single major city, housing a total population of 10,000 to 20,000 hosts, with a total of 1,000 communication requests being generated per second.
The Design of a Scalable and Secure Communications System {#sec:system_design}
=========================================================
Layered Architectural Style
---------------------------
Overall, we have designed a system for enterprise-level sites to securely communicate in a large metropolitan network. Key generation occurs using QKD technology over quantum channels connecting pairs of sites with maximum utilization of available capacity. A scalable service issues session keys from a quantum key pool, containing QKD-generated quantum key material, to local hosts on each site. Hosts can then use the session keys to securely communicate over conventional TCP/IP channels. The key generation and distribution mechanisms are designed to scale to many sites and hosts.
The system is composed in a layered architecture style, as shown in Figure \[fig:system\_layers\]; this software engineering model ensures that the major functions are grouped separately with well-defined interfaces across the layers that can be standardized. Traversing the protocol stack in the bottom-up direction, the Quantum Link Layer (QLL) produces raw key material by employing QKD hardware across a quantum link between two sites, based on instructions received from the Quantum Network Layer (QNL) above. The QNL issues key generation and routing requests for raw key material to be produced through the trusted-node network, and assembles and provides it to the Key Management Service (KMS) Layer above to fill its key pool. The KMS responds to key requests from the Host Layer above by issuing keys from its pool of QKD-generated key material that it manages, in accordance with a configured security policy. The Host Layer at the top encapsulates the software applications running on host hardware within a site, such as desktops and mobile devices, that require secure communication with other hosts; these applications request session keys, either through a proprietary or standard protocol.
The system optimizes key generation through a network of sites in which the majority would be expected to function as trusted nodes; these are sites which volunteer to act as intermediaries for other sites that do not share a direct quantum link over which key generation through QKD could occur. A trusted node engages in QKD with one site that is an endpoint in secure communication, and then in turn, the other endpoint; the trusted node then provides a translation between the two keys that it participates in generating, so that the endpoints are able to construct and share a single key in the end. A chain of trusted nodes can be built to cover larger geographical distances. Because each trusted node unavoidably knows the keys that it creates, it must be fully trusted by the endpoints. Although trusted nodes are the current state-of-the-art, there is very active research in developing practical quantum repeaters utilizing entanglement that will replace the need for trusted nodes, and will result in fewer compromises in the trust model.
The layered architecture results in a technology-independent design that can accommodate any QKD technology with minimal changes. Replacing fibre-link QKD with free-space QKD, for example, can occur just by modifying or replacing the lowermost link layer that communicates directly with the QKD devices. One can even design the option to use QKD in host applications irrespective of the current availability of QKD; should the service become available in the future, then those applications will be immediately enabled for it. This design choice can be made at the same time as post-quantum alternatives are designed into those applications. An implementation-level security policy can dictate which available technology to use to satisfy business needs. Application hosts can be made to choose an appropriate key agreement protocol such as SSL or IPSec based on engineering considerations; issues such as compatibility, ease of configuration, support for data compression, interoperability, and transfer speed are discussed in [@alshamsi05]; irrespective of the protocol chosen, QKD will generate quantum key material at a lower layer for its use. Further discussion on how QKD can be best combined with the use of post-quantum algorithms is found later in section \[sec:combination\_post\_quantum\].
The following subsections examine the high-level responsibilities and functionalities of each individual layer in greater detail. The layers are presented in top-to-bottom order, to match the general direction of the control flow within the system. Then, in the next section, the operations of the system that enable interaction across the entire suite of layers are detailed.
![The QKD communications system is composed of multiple layers. Various high-level procedures are constantly running across the stack. In the User Service Procedure, a host inside the Host Layer requests and is issued keys from the key pool within the Key Management Service (KMS) Layer. In the Core Procedure, the KMS layer in turn reports the demand for keys to the QKD Network Layer (QNL), which finds capacity in the quantum network to perform the key generation, and determines how the key generation data flows are to be routed through the trusted nodes. In the Base Procedure, the QNL then issues instructions to the Quantum Link Layer (QLL) to generate raw key bits along each route by employing QKD devices; these key bits are then passed up to the QNL, assembled as a key bit stream shared by the endpoints, and then passed up to the key pool in the KMS. There is a clear dependency between each pair of layers that is implemented by an interface contract.[]{data-label="fig:system_layers"}](system_layers)
The Host Layer {#sec:host_layer}
--------------
The Host Layer encompasses the end user applications engaging in secure information exchange required by various government and industry verticals. The applications run on a heterogenous mix of hardware including desktop computers, notebooks, and mobile devices. In particular, this layer may be manifested in software as a protocol stack in itself that will in its entirety act as a consumer of keys generated by the proposed QKD system; in this respect, the proposed system is agnostic to the security protocol used within the Host Layer. For example, one possible operating context is a mobile application running on a smartphone that utilizes Transport Layer Security (TLS) to open an encrypted connection to a service running on a web server situated on another site. As will be described later, TLS provides a mechanism that can be adapted to request keys from the proposed QKD system. TLS itself, or at least significant components of it, may be considered to map to the presentation layer of the OSI model (layer 6) or the application layer of the TCP/IP model; these mappings may be open to debate, but it is of no consequence here; for the purpose of describing the interaction of the user with the proposed QKD communications system, the mobile application and its use of TLS is considered to strictly occupy the Host Layer being defined here. The application will request QKD-generated keys from the Key Management Service layer below. Local access by hosts to this layer through the LAN is not restricted in the proposed solution; if warranted by the IT policy of the organization, then access controls such as Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) or one of many other controls may be additionally deployed, and may be integrated with the security policy enforcement function in this layer. Such local access controls would rely upon conventional, not quantum-safe, cryptographic techniques; they would strictly provide authentication internally within a site only.
Optional Third-Party Local Key Management Service Layer {#sec:local_kms_layer}
-------------------------------------------------------
Optionally, a KMS (Key Management Service) layer, implemented by a third-party, may reside between the Host Layer and the KMS Layer of the proposed QKD communications system. Its existence depends on the nature of the deployment of the proposed QKD communications system, and is not depicted in Figure \[fig:system\_layers\]; it may be part of a standardized or a custom solution. This layer is responsible for disseminating QKD-generated session keys obtained from the proposed QKD system via some additional mechanism to local hosts on one or more sites. For instance, the Kerberos network authentication system (the integration of which will be covered later in Section \[subsec:standard\_protocol\_integration\]) provides its own Key Distribution Centre (KDC) that works in concert with a Ticket-Granting Service (TGS) to issue session keys to clients. The TGS will obtain its session keys from the QKD system’s KMS Layer below, rather than generating them itself; in this way, the QKD system’s functionality is abstracted from the third-party key management service. Furthermore, the third-party KMS may fall back to using conventional cryptography if the QKD communications system is unavailable.
The (QKD) Key Management Service Layer {#sec:kms_layer}
--------------------------------------
The Service Layer contains a KMS (Key Management Service) that issues QKD-generated keys to hosts to secure new communication sessions with hosts on other sites. The KMS reads quantum-generated key material from the network layer below, and manages the key material in a quantum key pool. At all times, the KMS maintains synchronization of the key pool with other sites. It constructs session keys for hosts using an appropriate key construction strategy that is consistent with the security policy contained in its policy engine; for instance, the policy may dictate different key lengths and lifetimes, depending on the cryptographic algorithm to be utilized by the host; suggestions for quantum-safe algorithms and suitable parameters are found in [@etsi2015]. The KMS will issue session keys to local hosts upon request while the quantum key pool contains sufficient key material. A limited key lifetime will require refresh of the key through a re-issue process similar to the original issue. As dictated by the policy, the KMS will make an appropriate response when the key pool is nearly exhausted; for example, it may wait for additional quantum key material to be fed by the network layer, or re-use existing material using a key expansion technique, such as the Rijndael key schedule [@fips197]. The KMS consists of several functional areas that may be decomposed into a modular software structure, as shown in Figure \[fig:kms\_functional\_view\] and described in detail in Table \[tab:kms\_functions\_described\].
[|P[2.5 cm]{}|>X|]{}\
Key Request module & As the primary interface point for hosts, this module services requests for session keys. It also collects and analyzes demand statistics. When the quantum key pool is exhausted, it falls back to key derivation if allowed by the policy, or blocks the host.\
Remote KMS Coordination module & This module coordinates with the remote KMS over the conventional network to start the process of key generation through the network layer. It also terminates the process for maintenance or error recovery.\
Session Key Assignment module & This module assigns session keys from the quantum key pool if sufficient bits are available.\
Session Key Generation module & This module starts and stops the key generation process by notifying the network layer of its local host demand, and will suggest a key generation rate; it will also initialize the quantum key pool size based on the projected peak demand.\
\
Key Status module & This module keeps track of the current status of key bits as keys are assigned to fulfill session key requests. Key bits will need to be reserved (even after allocation to the local host) until the remote host also retrieves the same key, and the key negotiation protocol concludes.\
Quantum Key Database module & This module contains a copy of available QKD-generated key bits, also referred to as quantum key bits, read from the QKD network layer. The key bits, once populated in this database, are guaranteed to be synchronized with the remote site.\
Remote Pool Synchronization module & This module ensures that the key pool database on the remote site is synchronized at all times with the local database. This module will handle various exceptional conditions which may require purging the database and halting the QKD process.\
\
Policy Enforcement module & This module verifies the security policy requirements on the hosts and keys. Rules are enforced during key assignment, such as those pertaining to key length and lifetime.\
Policy Injection module & This module allows an administrator to inject a policy into the policy database.\
Policy Database module & This module contains all of the security policies. Different policies may be defined for different classes of users and resources.\
\
Host interface & This interface accepts key requests from hosts in the Host Layer by the Key Request module. The interface may be implemented using an appropriate remote method invocation that is externally accessible.\
QKD Network Layer interface & This interface reads quantum key bits from the QKD Network Layer and stores them in the Quantum Key Database. The network layer is typically accessed through an internal call into the immediate layer below the current Service Layer within the protocol stack.\
KMS Peer interface & This interface is utilized by the Remote KMS Coordination module for synchronization with the KMS on the remote site, and may be implemented by a TCP/IP socket over a network.\
The KMS can issue keys to hosts using a proposed generic protocol as shown at high-level in Figure \[fig:key\_negotiation\]. To ensure scalability, minimal server state is maintained by the KMS. The host is responsible for negotiating a secure session after retrieval of the session key. The crucial characteristic is that for hosts Alice and Bob communicating from separate sites, Alice’s KMS issues a session key to her; Alice then transmits key selection information to Bob so that he may retrieve the same session key from his own KMS. Because the quantum key pools are always in sync during the QKD process, and the selection information is an index into the pool, the session key itself is never actually transmitted and thus cannot be eavesdropped. Within a single site, the KMS can be hosted as a virtualized service on a rack or blade server to achieve scalability. The server should be physically secured so that there is no direct access to the quantum key pool.
It is also possible to utilize a variant of this generic protocol where the local and remote KMSs, rather than the hosts, directly interact during key agreement. After the initial key grant to the originating host, Alice’s KMS will directly transmit the key selection information to Bob’s KMS through the authenticated KMS peer-to-peer interface. Although this results in slightly greater complexity in the KMS implementation and requires limited state information on the session to be kept server-side, it reduces host-to-host communication which can be costly especially in a wireless context; furthermore, it allows both KMSs to perform host authentication, and the remote KMS can notify the remote host of the incoming session through an efficient push-based notification mechanism. The process of agreement of QKD-generated keys has also been integrated with standard security protocols such as TLS; the integration approach is discussed later in Section \[subsec:standard\_protocol\_integration\].
![The generic protocol for key negotiation between Alice on Site A and Bob on Site B is shown with a high-level representation of the actual message exchange. Alice requests a session key from the local KMS in order to begin secure communication with Bob. Alice’s local KMS enforces any relevant policies, and grants a session key to Alice with an optional expiry time, as well as a signed packet containing key selection information. Alice then contacts Bob directly over the conventional network and provides this packet so that Bob can refer his own KMS to retrieve the same key; this is possible because the key pools of both sites are synchronized with the same content. Alice and Bob can then begin secure communication with the same symmetric session key. This key will be periodically refreshed by the hosts if necessary through an exchange with the KMS similar to the key grant scenario; the refresh requirements are specified by the KMS during key grant.[]{data-label="fig:key_negotiation"}](key_negotiation)
The KMS ensures continuous synchronization of its quantum key pool with that of the corresponding remote site for each site-to-site connection. The key pools must always be in sync so that the same quantum key material can be referenced and discovered during session key negotiation conducted by the sites’ hosts. The KMS’s coordinate securely through a communications channel that is typically a conventional network; the connection is authenticated through a mechanism such as that which will be described later in Section \[sec:authentication\_sites\]. Another possibility is to have each KMS make a request into its respective underlying network layer, and all KMS coordination occurs through that layer.
The KMS Layer communicates with the Network Layer below to extract the quantum key material for storage in the quantum key pool. The KMS also initializes and terminates the overall site-to-site connection process. The underlying network layer is normally assumed to perform QKD key generation, but if the performance of this process is deemed insufficient or is interrupted, then another crypto-system can be utilized as a fall-back mechanism if allowed by the security policy. The other crypto-system may be based on another quantum-safe, or even a classical, algorithm and protocol, while its implementation maintains the same interface to the KMS layer.
The QKD Network Layer
---------------------
The QKD Network Layer (QNL) provides quantum key material to the local KMS and negotiates key generation with other sites to enable inter-site communication. The QNL can flexibly contend with any network topology; for instance, some end nodes may not be directly connected as neighbours through a point-to-point quantum link; such nodes could be connected via more than one hop in a given network topology such as ring, star, or a partially meshed topology. In this case, the QNL needs to relay the key material via trusted nodes; in so doing, the QNL effectively forms a quantum network so that it can generate key material for any arbitrary pair of nodes.
The QNL performs network control and management of the nodes via a *control plane* technology suite, while key generation is undertaken by a *data plane* technology suite. The data plane activities are controlled by the control plane technologies; the key generation activities conducted by the QKD link and physical layers are initiated, coordinated, scheduled, and terminated by the control plane. In the context of the data plane, *data* refers to the key bits generated by the QKD devices over all the links in the network, which are independent of the end users’ application traffic data transported in the integrated classical communication network. The QNL controls the lower layer activities according to requests from the KMS. The QNL consists of several functional areas that may be decomposed into a modular software structure, as shown in Figure \[fig:qnl\_functional\_view\] and described in Table \[tab:qnl\_functions\_described\].
The control plane within the QNL establishes a path for the relay through by issuing key generation requests through a routing function. As part of its optimization, the routing takes into consideration the link capacities of the quantum network as well as the demand for key generation as determined through host demand monitoring by the KMS. The QNL establishes one or even multiple paths for key generation between any arbitrary pair of nodes, and performs automatic reassembly in the latter case. The QNL schedules key generation real-time in response to demand dynamics reported by the KMS. Its routing function is able to adapt to and perform computation on a dynamic network structure where nodes are usually fixed in place but not necessarily so; for instance, a satellite- or aircraft-based QKD setup could serve as a travelling node to provide temporary connectivity if a fibre link is unavailable or longer range is required. When multiple paths are employed, the key material can be combined at the destination site with some record-keeping overhead; for instance, the combination can occur through an exclusive OR operation on the various key material inputs; various options are described in [[@salvail10]]{}. If some of the multiple paths may be unreliable, then Shamir’s secret sharing scheme [[@shamir79]]{} can be employed to recover the key, but at the cost of some overhead in the transmission of key data along the multiple paths. All such techniques are compatible with our design.
The security policy may dictate which key forwarding tactics are allowed, and the KMS is charged with enforcing its ruleset by informing the network layer about any applicable policy. Such rules may be additional attributes of the defined security classes; in this case, the classes will dictate not only how key material is to be used, but also how it is to be generated. For instance, for higher security, the KMS can request the sole use of a direct quantum channel with the other site, if it is available. If forwarding along trusted nodes is allowed, then the KMS may specify whether a single or multiple concurrent paths are to be used, and how many hops along each path are acceptable.
The data plane within the QNL temporarily stores the key material that is relayed between nodes; every trusted node along the path maintains a temporary local key pool for this purpose, as will be explained later in Section \[subsec:qnl\_data\_plane\], and the QNL at the originating end performs final assembly of the key material. Once the QNL passes up the completed key bits to the KMS, the QNL no longer continues to store it. The KMS will maintain the key material within its own key pool until it is issued to users. Robustness is built into the fabric; if the QNL sees any service interruption, it notifies the KMS which performs a retry or passes the error up the stack, as appropriate.
[|P[2.5 cm]{}|X|]{}
\
Key Generation Messaging Function & This function enables both neighbouring and non-neighbouring QKD nodes to exchange key generation demands.\
QKD Routing Function & This function determines the path or multiple paths to be used for generating keys between any pair of nodes.\
QKD Scheduling Function & This function schedules the task of relaying keys for different pairs of QKD nodes.\
\
Key Relaying Function & This function performs the key relaying operations for a given pair of nodes, according to the schedule given by the QKD Scheduling Function.\
Temporary Key Pool Management Function & This function manages the local key pool to supply the key bits needed by the Key Relaying Function for other sites, as well as the ones needed by the local site.\
\
Interface to the Service Layer & This interface provides a communication mechanism between the KMS and the QNL, through which the two layers can exchange key generation demand and response messages. The KMS can demand a particular operating mode for key generation, a generation rate, and amount of key material for particular sites, depending on the context.\
Interface to the QKD Link Layer & This interface provides a communication mechanism between the QNL and the QKD Link Layer (and ultimately the physical layer), through which key generation request and response messages are exchanged. This interface has to be extensible so that it can work with different QKD devices, as the command interfaces of those devices are typically vendor-dependent. In the context of the relevant QKD ETSI Industry Specification Group (ISG) standard [[@etsi2010]]{}, this interface could satisfy the ETSI QKD Application Interface API, which is used to obtain key material for an associated key handle. The network layer can specify Quality of Service (QoS) information to the link layer to request a particular bit rate, based on the demand data provided by the KMS.\
The QNL will ultimately optimize the key generation across the entire network so that throughput in the system is maximized. For users that are of higher priority, the policy may typically dictate frequent session key refresh and perhaps even a one-time pad for very limited use for certain users. In this case, these key generation demands may be weighed more heavily in the optimization calculation.
The QKD Link Layer
------------------
Immediately below the QNL, the QKD Link Layer (QLL) produces raw quantum key bits over each link by executing a QKD protocol. It establishes quantum key material between connected node pairs and provides it to the QNL. There is a plethora of QKD protocols and link technologies to choose from, with varying implementation complexities, key rates, and robustness; some are mentioned in [@padamvathi16] and [@lo15]. A “quantum Internet” will likely need to integrate various quantum technologies [@pirandola16]. Metropolitan-scale distances are achievable through a combination of fibre and limited free-space links. Longer distances could be supported by quantum repeaters and satellites, and physical routing accomplished via optical switching, whether active or passive. Resource sharing is possible with the multiplexing of QKD and classical signals. Ultimately, the target context will help select suitable QKD technologies.
The QLL can expose switching and addressing functionality to the QNL, so that the QNL can configure QKD devices and their connectivity to achieve an effective setup for the routing of key generation. However, only the QLL has direct access to the quantum link; any instructions issued from the QNL must traverse through the QLL layer. The QLL can make use of dedicated infrastructure as well as shared resources to carry out the key generation. The QLL also informs the QNL of its current rate as well as its practical limits, and additional constraints, so that the link capacity can be understood; for example, there may be a predicted temporal window of opportunity for key generation via free-space transmission.
High-Level Procedures in the Communications System {#sec:procedures}
==================================================
A number of critical procedures are always executing in the QKD communications system, some of which will result in interactions spanning multiple layers in the proposed software architecture. The procedures are described at high-level in the following subsections.
Session Key Issuance Within the Host Layer {#subsec:key_issuance}
------------------------------------------
A generic protocol to initiate and conduct secure communication between computing hosts, based on the use of quantum-generated encryption keys, is described. The protocol is host-based; it provides full control of the communication session to the hosts. Although this particular protocol is formulated from scratch and requires custom implementation work, it is instructive in its unique approach to session key agreement based on the use of QKD. Direct integrations of similar mechanisms with existing standardized transport protocols such as TLS have also been investigated. For brevity, the generic protocol will be examined at this point: suppose that Alice, the originating host on Site A, wishes to initiate a secure communication session with Bob, a host on remote Site B, and requires confidentiality of user data transmitted over the network. Alice and Bob may each communicate with their respective local KMS via their LAN network or a separate encrypted channel. Prior to the session initiation, or alternatively as a direct result of it, Sites A and B will have engaged in the QKD protocol so that they will share a pool of key material. In this protocol, the hosts are responsible for completing the key negotiation protocol sequence by communicating with their respective KMS’s, and between the hosts themselves. As multiple communication sessions may be initiated between each pair of hosts in the metropolitan network, each session will be identified by a globally unique session identifier. The pair will initially require mutual authentication prior to key negotiation, which may be accomplished through the use of a pre-shared secret or public key signatures (that are not quantum-safe but are used only in the short-term, and issued by a certificate authority) [@etsi2015]. Alice commences by requesting a new session key from her KMS. Alice identifies that the remote host resides on the remote site B through a Domain Name System (DNS) or similar query. Alice assigns a globally unique session ID to the new communication session being initiated. Alice’s KMS constructs a new session key by obtaining quantum key material from the quantum key pool, if it is not already immediately available for assignment. Alice’s KMS must enforce any security policies that are defined. Alice’s KMS obtains advice from the policy engine based on a previously injected policy and the identities of the parties involved. The policy engine returns pertinent parameters enforced by the policy, such as the minimum key length and maximum allowed session key lifetime.
The KMS provides a symmetric session key to Alice constructed from the material in the quantum key pool; the key may be a block cipher key. Alice caches it for use in secure communication with Bob for the duration of the session and no longer than its required lifetime. The KMS also provides an associated key selection information packet sufficient for the remote host to obtain the same key on the remote site. This packet is encrypted using an existing inter-site symmetric key to secure communication between the pair of KMS’s on separate sites. The KMS also provides a Message Authentication Code (MAC) for the packet to detect and prevent tampering. Alice then provides the packet to Bob so that he can recover the same session key from his own KMS. Bob’s KMS verifies what constraints must be enforced on session key generation and management, based on an injected policy and the parameters specified by the requesting host; modification or re-negotiation of some parameters may occur. Bob then sends back a confirmation to Alice, and secure communication between the two hosts can then begin.
During construction of the session keys from the quantum key material in the pool, it is possible for a race condition to occur as a result of the possibility of multiple hosts simultaneously initiating communication sessions, and thus session key requests, at each site. The likelihood of this occurrence increases with the size of the host population and the frequency of their communication with hosts on external sites. For instance, Alice may initiate a session request and be granted a session key from her KMS. Before Alice sends a session negotiation message to Bob with the key selection information, another user Charlie on the remote site B may engage his KMS. Charlie may make a similar session key request and be granted the same session key on his end that Alice intended for Bob. In this case, Bob’s KMS will report an error to Bob which will get relayed back to Alice and result in the session key request having to be re-tried with a new key. In a highly scalable system, such race conditions may occur at significant frequency and result in unnecessary and frustrating delays for users. To reduce the impact of round-trip error handling, an appropriate key allocation strategy may be utilized that lessens the chance of race conditions occurring. For instance, although the quantum key pools between sites A and B are synchronized, Alice’s KMS can start consuming key material from the beginning of the pool, and Bob’s KMS can start consuming it from the end. However, an effort should be made to reduce fragmentation of the key pool, since new key material will be generated in the same memory or disk region from which it is consumed; such fragmentation could lead to wasted space. A possible tactic to mitigate fragmentation is to designate a small portion of the quantum key pool as a working set, and have each KMS consume key material from a different end within this working set only.
Care should be exercised when independently issuing copies of key material produced by QKD to multiple parties across sites to avoid security issues. For example, if Alice is issued a session key that Charlie (as a third-party) obtains on the remote site for an unrelated session rather than Bob (Alice’s intended recipient), then none of these parties must be allowed to proceed with the use of the keys and risk the possibility of Alice and Charlie reading each other’s communication. The KMS must deny a host from using key selection information to retrieve a key previously issued on the same site; furthermore, a host being granted a key must receive confirmation from the remote host that the same key was successfully retrieved, before the key in question is used to encrypt user communication. There are ways to enforce this problem beyond host protocol rules, such as fully synchronizing the KMS’s on each key issuance and updating their key pool status, or by maintaining separate key pools for each host at each site; however, these techniques carry overhead and scalability may be adversely affected. Another approach may be to use a token system: when Alice requests a key, she obtains a token, not the key itself yet. The token is then sent to Bob to retrieve the actual key on his end. Upon confirmation of this, Alice can then use the token to get her own copy of the key. In this way, the keys are not immediately issued by the KMS’s until there is assurance of no race condition being present, whether intentional or not. Ultimately, this issue must be accepted, with hosts being trusted to obey the protocol, or a suitable solution must be devised.
Integration with Standard Security Protocols Within the Host and Third-Party Local KMS Layers {#subsec:standard_protocol_integration}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to defining generic protocols, the process of agreement of QKD-generated keys has been integrated by using the pre-shared key cipher-suites of TLS (Transport Layer Security) [@rfc4279; @rfc5246], IPSec [@rfc2409], and Kerberos [@rfc4120], where the key selection information is transmitted using supported fields. Generically, *pre-shared key* is a secret that was previously shared over a secure channel; in this case, QKD-generated key material becomes a pre-shared key that enables a security protocol and may even be an input to further key generation algorithms. The integration with the standard cipher-suites requires minimal changes to the client implementation and avoids additional complexity, which is enemy to practical security engineering as explained in [@ferguson10]. The use of QKD key material results in a quantum-safe handshake and key agreement; an appropriate cryptographic suite and key length are then negotiated to provide quantum-safe computational security for encrypted user data. Information-theoretic security through a one-time-pad is not directly available in standard deployments unless a custom cipher suite is made available that consumes quantum key material to encrypt user data bit-by-bit in a one-time pad manner. The high-level approaches to the integrations are as follows:
- In the case of TLS, security is provided at the transport layer. The pre-shared key (PSK) identity hint field can be re-purposed to contain the quantum key selection information encoded as a string of numeric characters, and encrypted by an inter-site key. It will be transmitted in the client key exchange message between the originating and the remote hosts, and supplied to the respective KMS’s in key grant messages, in order for the two hosts to retrieve the final session key. To provide computational security while being considered quantum-safe, when using a QKD-generated key as the pre-shared key, AES-256 can be used for encryption and HMAC-SHA384 for message integrity and authentication [@etsi2015].
- In the IPSec protocol suite, the Internet Key Exchange (IKEv1) protocol is used to set up a security association (SA) to provide security at the IP packet layer. In the less-verbose Aggressive Mode, the key selection information can be supplied in the identification payload between the initiator and the responder hosts; this is in contrast to the original purpose of the payload being to create a Diffie-Hellman shared secret which would not be quantum-safe [@etsi2015]. This PSK is typically used for mutual authentication in the first phase of the protocol in order to set up a secure channel for key exchange. The authentication key, or the shared master secret, is derived from the PSK through IPSec’s key construction strategy. In later phases, the IPSec tunnel is established and encryption keys may be generated.
- Finally, Kerberos provides a mechanism for mutual authentication of a client and server located on different domains. Each party retrieves the same session key from their respective Ticket-Granting Service (TGS), which is derived from key material generated through QKD between these local and remote services. The key selection information can be specified in the service ticket issued by the local TGS and provided in encrypted form to the remote server (located on another site); from it, the remote TGS will then provide the final session key to the remote server to encrypt user communication. Kerberos is widely used to provide Single-Sign On (SSO) functionality by having the client provide service tickets, that confirm the client’s identity, to various sites without the necessity of re-entering credentials. With the described integration of QKD, each service ticket could contain a reference to a different session key from the quantum key pool accessed by the TGS, so that each client-server communication is protected.
The integration of each protocol provides a different but secure avenue through which the quantum key selection information is provided as a pre-shared secret to both parties, and then used to construct an encryption key to provide confidentiality for the exchange of user data, or to provide an authentication function, depending on the context; all of this is accomplished without significant modification to the protocol. In the case of the TLS and IPSec protocols, which are essentially consumers of the QKD-generated key material, their client implementations are assumed to occupy the Host Layer in the architecture of the proposed QKD system. In the case of Kerberos, client logic may exist within the Host Layer, while components such as the TGS would be expected to lie within an additional Third-Party Local KMS Layer. In all cases, the next layer down is the KMS Layer of the QKD system, which supplies the QKD-generated session keys to be used by the protocols.
Adapting to multiple standard protocols is useful, as although they are highly versatile and complex, they are generally used for different purposes. IPSec is embedded within the Internet Protocol (IP) stack and is typically used to create secure Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) that operate at the network layer of the TCP/IP model, so it protects all upper-layer transports so that remote hosts function as if they were directly attached to the local network; however, it requires specialized client software and supporting network devices. TLS functions above the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) layer, can be utilized by lightweight clients, and is supported by all browsers for use in e-commerce; it is used for server-side authentication through certificates and provides remote access, fine-grained access controls, and end-to-end data encryption for applications. The Kerberos protocol is generally used for mutual authentication of a client and server through a third-party with the use of passwords; it enforces user access rights to multiple services and permits single-sign on, as described above; however, the Kerberos server can be a single point of failure.
Demand Monitoring and Key Generation Requests Within the Service Layer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When requesting initiation of QKD key generation by the QNL, the KMS specifies one of the following types of key generation to conduct:
1. *Continuous* key generation at a particular rate with a given remote site. Key material is generated while the key pool has capacity remaining. Once it fills up, key generation can be temporarily suspended, or existing content in the pool can be overwritten. The KMS may simply request the maximum rate supported by the current QKD equipment and infrastructure that are installed; these are reported to the QNL by the link layer.
2. A *one-time* demand for generating key bits of a specified amount for a given remote site. This may occur when a client requests a new session key for the first communication with a remote site since the last time that the QKD process ran, and the pool is otherwise empty. The quantity of key material to generate is based on the expected demand and may be periodically adjusted. It should be limited by the size of the database that has been allocated for the pool.
The KMS will request key generation according to the current operating context. The various heuristics that will affect this choice, particularly for the continuous generation mode, include the following:
- The expected steady-state demand for key material will dictate the continuous key generation rate; the demand is based on the expected number of hosts at a site, and the expected frequency at which they will request new communication sessions at particular times. In turn, based on the resulting required rate of session key assignment and key sizes involved, the key generation rate can be estimated. The frequency can be estimated based on historical traffic patterns such as host arrival rates.
- The expected peak demand for key material at regular or irregular times can determine the amount of key material that needs to be cached by the KMS. The ability to satisfy peak demand can be accomplished by specifying a statically-allocated key pool database that is sufficiently large, or by allowing it to grow to a sufficiently large size. Once the database is exhausted during the peak period, hosts will have to wait for new key material to be generated.
- The key assignment strategy will also determine the key generation rate. The quantum key material may be used to construct session keys or it may be used as a one-time pad, as dictated by the security policy in place. The key size to employ will also be specified in the policy. In the case of session keys, one key will be assigned for one entire communication session, and the key generation rate will set based on the number of hosts and the number of sessions that they initiate. In the case of a one-time pad, one bit of key material will be consumed for every bit of user data, so the rate will be set based on the total amount of data to be transmitted by a site. The highest security level will typically require the implementation of a one-time pad.
- The frequency at which session key material needs to be refreshed will affect the demand and thus the key generation rate for the same expected number of hosts. The frequency of key refresh is specified by the security policy. Key refresh may only be required at higher security levels.
- The economical costs of the network channels used to conduct the QKD protocol may limit the key generation rate that is employed in practice. Likewise, the infrastructure utilized for QKD will impose a practical upper bound on the rate. If the costs limit the key generation rate to a level that cannot meet the expected demand, the security policy may need to be sufficiently relaxed to allow the re-use of key material; this may be manifested by key derivation algorithms.
The key generation rate may be dynamically adjusted by a KMS while QKD is in operation. The request for key material from the KMS may be impossible to completely fulfill by the QKD Network Layer. The physical limitations of the QKD hardware and supporting infrastructure that are installed will impose an upper bound on the key generation rate that can be implemented. Limitations will apply as a result of the kind of technology employed, the network infrastructure in use, and the physical length of the quantum channel between sites. As only the QNL has knowledge of the underlying infrastructure, it will limit the KMS requests as appropriate based on the QKD link capacities reported up from the QKD Link Layer.
The KMS may alternate between the two operating modes to best serve its local host demand for session keys, which it is constantly monitoring through various heuristics. The quantum key pool that it maintains can serve as a cache for a surge in traffic. Once the pool is depleted, the KMS can request on-demand key generation by the QNL. On the other hand, if there is a constant level of demand, the KMS can request continuous key generation. A hybrid operating mode is also possible, where a certain rate of key generation occurs in continuous mode, and reserve capacity is left for occasional use in the on-demand mode; this strategy may be appropriate if utilization of existing quantum links carries a cost, such as on shared fibre-optic lines. The proposed design is flexible enough to allow the operator or owner of the integrated system to pursue and achieve different business goals.
Multiple security classes of connections may be defined within the security policy managed by the policy engine, which specify how the quantum key material is to be utilized to provide data encryption. The levels are shown in Table \[tab:security\_classes\].
[|C[1.5cm]{}|P[10.5cm]{}|]{} **Security Class & **Strategy\
& The quantum key material will be utilized as a one-time pad. The same amount of key material is required as the size of the message being encrypted; this use will consume the quantum key material at the highest rate.\
& The quantum key material will be utilized to generate session key material. Each new secure connection initiated by a host to a remote host will be assigned a new single session key. The session key will expire after a specified interval, and will need to be refreshed.\
3 & As in class 4, but no key refresh occurs.\
2 & As in class 3, but if insufficient new quantum key material is currently available, then key extension will occur to generate a session key from the current material. A suitable key expansion technique may also be utilized, such as the Rijndael key schedule in AES [@fips197]. This scenario may occur in a highly scalable application, where the number of users engaging in simultaneous communication with other sites may exceed the maximum quantum key generation rate that may be attained given hardware and infrastructure limitations.\
1 & The quantum key material is used to generate a host-specific key that is used for all communication sessions that the host engages in.\
& Insufficient quantum material exists to provide a key, or QKD key generation is not functioning for some reason. A classical key generation mechanism will be utilized, instead, to produce a session key; the mechanism must be quantum-resistant, if possible, and key refresh should occur. This class may be utilized if the QKD protocol cannot be currently operated, or if the key generation rate cannot keep up with the current demand for key material and hosts cannot be delayed.\
****
Quantum Key Pool Management Within the Service Layer
----------------------------------------------------
The quantum (QKD-generated) key bits occupying the quantum key pool undergo a series of state transitions during normal operation of the system, as show in Figure \[fig:qkp\_states\]. When the key pool is initialized, quantum key material is read from the quantum network layer and injected into the key pool; this is effectively a copy to a permanent store. When a local host makes a request for a new session key in the context of a local session key grant, a subset of the bits is assigned as a session key, and reserved. When the remote host is contacted and obtains key selection information and retrieves the same key material on the remote site, in the context of a remote session key grant, the key bits are immediately purged on confirmation of the key grant. The key bits are then replenished with new ones as a result of the QKD key generation process. Note that the key material cannot be deleted from the originating site until it is assigned on the remote site; the reason is that the contents of both quantum key pools must be exactly the same at all times; this guarantees that the remote host is able to obtain the same session key as the local host through a remote session key grant. This principle also applies to the state associated with each key bit.
![A state diagram shows the functional states of the Quantum Key Pool contained within the KMS and the possible transitions between them. QKD-generated key bits are assigned from the quantum key pool during key grant to a local host, and then reserved until the same bits are retrieved by the remote host, so that the same bits cannot be assigned to more than one host. If the key bits that the remote host tries to retrieve have already been assigned to some other host, due to a race condition, then an error is reported and the entire process must be restarted.[]{data-label="fig:qkp_states"}](qkp_states)
Normally, quantum key pool bits that are available for assignment are preserved until the assignment occurs. Once the quantum key pool becomes full, then no new key bits are read. However, if the QKD process is operating in the continuous mode, then it is also possible for the available bits to be overwritten with new ones. It is also possible that once the pool becomes full, then additional space may be allocated to increase the size of the pool in order to contain more key material. The remote site must be informed that it needs to allocate more space, too. Note that special conditions can occur, such as: a system shutdown (due to an error or disaster or planned maintenance outage), interruption of the QKD process, or unexpected loss of synchronization of quantum key pool content. These conditions will cause the key pool contents to be purged immediately. The QKD protocol can be restarted once the system returns to a normal state. Backup and restore functions can reduce the recovery time if a secure backup store exists. Synchronization of the key pools belonging to a pair of sites occurs through direct communication of the respective KMS layers through the KMS peer interface.
The key pools on both sides of a quantum network connection must match in content so that the same quantum key material can be referenced and discovered during session key negotiation conducted by the site hosts. If content synchronization is lost for any reason, then the key pools will be purged, and new quantum key material will be generated to regain a known good state. A policy may enforce the expiration of the pool content after some time has elapsed or a threshold number of session keys have been assigned, which will also lead to key re-generation. Such re-generation may be automatic or will occur as the result of normal operation of the QKD protocol.
Key Generation, Routing, and Scheduling Within the Control Plane of the Network Layer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Key Generation Messaging Function (KGMF) in the QKD Network Layer enables both neighbouring and non-neighbouring QKD nodes to exchange key generation demands. The local KGMF software module within the QNL receives key generation requests from the KMS with either a continuous or one-time demand operating mode specified. Consequently, the KGMF will form a Key Generation Message (KGM). For continuous key generation, this message will be broadcasted to the whole trusted network so that every node in the QNL formulates the same map of global demand, which is critical to ensure the correct operation of the routing function. The KGM will be routed over a transport available to the QNL, such as a hop-by-hop TCP connection. The messages over a given TCP connection will be encrypted by utilizing a site-to-site key.
For on-demand key generation, the KGMF will pass the information of the remote site and the length of the key requested to the scheduling function, which will place this task in the appropriate queue for scheduling. Occasionally, the KGMF may also receive from the KMS a command terminating the key generation for a remote node. This command will trigger the KGMF to broadcast a stop message to the whole network; every node receiving it will update its copy of the global demand matrix, and will trigger the QKD Routing Function (QRF) to take action accordingly. The QRF determines the path or paths to be used for generating a certain amount of, or a sustained rate of, key bits between any given pair of nodes.
The QRF has an initialization phase and a normal working phase. In the initialization phase, each node needs to collect the following two inputs:
1. From the lower-layer QLL, the *key generation capacities* over all quantum links in the network, and the identities of the neighbouring nodes associated with the links.
2. From the upper-layer KMS Layer, the *key generation demands*, which depend on the system operation mode. If the system is operating in *continuous mode*, a node collects key generation demands between itself and each of the other reachable remote nodes in the network, as well as those of each and every pair of other nodes. An intermediary relay node will record the requested key generation rate for the source and the destination node pair in each and every KGM that it routes. If the system is operating in *on-demand mode*, the QRF collects key generation demands locally only.
Each node employs the principle of *link-state routing* [@tanenbaum2011] to determine the best key generation paths in the network. Each node exchanges custom Link-State Advertisements (LSAs) with all of its neighbouring nodes, adapted from those found in the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) TCP/IP Internet routing protocol that uses a Link State Routing (LSR) algorithm [@rfc2328]. An LSA communicates a node’s local routing topology to all other local nodes in the same area by flooding. An advertisement packet includes the identity of the node itself, the identities of all the other nodes to which it is directly connected, and the associated link capacities in terms of the key generation rate; it also includes a sequence number that is necessary for the recipients to keep track of the latest information on the link status. Each node, after receiving an LSA with a newer sequence number, incrementally constructs a graph of the connectivity to the network; after receiving a complete set of LSAs, it will be able to compute the whole network topology. From it, the node can then independently calculate the current best logical path for key generation to every possible endpoint in the network. Each collection of best paths will be used to produce the node’s local routing table by employing a scheme such as shortest-path or least-cost-routing computation.
In the normal working phase, the QRF’s main tasks are determined by the operating mode of the system:
- In the *continuous mode*, the QRF solves the problem of maximizing the key generation workloads, referred to as *flows*, within the network; it strives to maximize the overall proportion of requested demand that it can satisfy along all paths, such that each flow is bounded by the capacity of the quantum link. After the solution has been obtained, the QRF will then know the key generation workload for any QKD link; this information will be passed on to the scheduling algorithm.
- In the *on-demand mode*, the QRF finds the route from the source node to the destination node for a given demand. Consulting the routing table produced in the continuous mode of operation (and updated when the topology changes), if it exists, each node can route all the key generation messages received. Occasionally, the QRF will need to update the network topology and recalculate the workloads. This will be triggered by events such as node or link failures, which can be reflected in new LSAs from directly-affected neighbouring nodes.
The routing capability of the QNL takes into consideration the residual capacity of all the QKD links within the whole network. In link state routing, each node can independently calculate a new route in case of a node or link failure. All nodes need to have a highly-consistent or synchronized view of the topology; this is feasible because the number of sites in the network is relatively small, topology changes due to planned new nodes joining or existing nodes leaving the network are infrequent, and the sites of the integrated network should be designed to operate with high reliability; such changes will be made known to all the nodes in the network rapidly via the “distributing maps” stage of the link-state routing protocol [@kurose13]. All nodes must have the capability of detecting changes in the connectivity between themselves and their neighbours; there are at least two ways to achieve this: firstly, the underlying QLL will send error indication messages to the QNL if it detects any error at the link layer that changes the capacity of the link; secondly, changes can be indicated in the “hello" messages exchanged between neighbours [@kurose13]. If all retries fail, then an updated LSA will be sent out to announce the new topology to other nodes in the network.
In the continuous mode of operation, the demands are expressed in terms of key generation rates for source-destination pairs. The problem can be formulated mathematically as a Maximum Concurrent Multi-Commodity Flow Problem (MCFP) [@girard90]; such a problem may be solved using a fast approximation algorithm such as the one proposed in [@karakostas08]. The organization that runs the network can learn from the operational history and gradually adjust the demands to achieve a trade-off between maximizing the utilization of the network and the unbalanced demands of different source-destination pairs. Another way to deal with the problem is to formulate it as a Maximum Multi-Commodity Flow Problem, where the objective is to maximize the total amount of flows through the network or to maximize the network utilization, as in [@fleischer00]. The solution is an important input to both the control and data planes. Special treatment can be applied to higher priority demands within source-destination node pairs; one way to cater to such a need is to pre-allocate QKD capacities along chosen paths for such pairs in the network, and subtract these capacities before solving for the general capacity problem.
The QKD Scheduling Function (QSF) is responsible for scheduling the tasks of relaying QKD key bits for different pairs of QKD nodes. The output of the scheduling algorithm in the QSF is a sequence of work tickets on a per-link basis. When a local node has more than one immediate neighbouring node, the algorithm handles all workloads over each individual link independently.
When the system is operating in the *continuous mode*, the QSF inputs the workload assignments from the QRF. It then schedules the tasks for any given link following a deficit-weighted round-robin algorithm [@shreedhar95]. When the system is operating in the *on-demand mode*, the scheduling algorithm will follow a simple First-In-First-Out (FIFO) queuing mechanism. That is, all the flows over one outgoing link will be put in a single queue for that link, and will be served according to their arrival sequence.
Key Relaying Within the Data Plane of the Network Layer {#subsec:qnl_data_plane}
-------------------------------------------------------
The Key Relaying Function (KRF) is responsible for conducting QKD key generation within the network of quantum links. It generates and relays key bits across trusted nodes in a mechanism like that described in [@salvail09]. The KRF processes the flows over any given quantum link as scheduled by the QSA based on the flow assignment dictated by the QRF. As a prerequisite, all links along a path connecting source-destination endpoints must have established their own key pools for secure communication between the neighbouring nodes. Referring to Figure \[fig:trusted\_node\], suppose that node $A$ is the source node and node $B$ is the immediate downstream neighbour in the chosen path to destination node $E$. Node $B$ will select bits from its local key pool shared with $A$ as the key $K$ to be eventually passed to node $E$. Node $B$ encrypts the key $K$ using a one-time pad (OTP) with shared key bits between itself and the next downstream node $C$. Node $B$ forwards the encrypted key to node $C$, and so on, until the destination node $E$ is reached.
![A possible mechanism for key generation and relay across a trusted node network is illustrated. Suppose that a host on site $A$ wants to establish a secure communication session with a host on another site $E$. The two parties need to establish a shared key $K$ as their session key. As the two sites are not directly connected via a quantum link, the Quantum Network Layer (QNL) will find a path from $A$ to $E$ that traverses over trusted nodes $B$ to $D$. In the first step 0, part of the initialization process, $A$ and $B$ will establish a key stream $K_{AB}$ over their quantum link using QKD, and then in step 1, $B$ will select a subset of this stream as the session key $K$ to be used by endpoints $A$ and $E$. In step 2, $B$ and $C$ will establish a key stream $K(BC)$, and so on in the following steps for each pair of trusted nodes until $E$ is reached. The session key $K$ will be ferried across the chain of nodes by being encrypted by the additional key streams and transmitted over a conventional network between each pair of trusted nodes; for instance, re-visiting step 2, after establishing $K(BC)$, $B$ will send the session key $K$ to $C$ such that it is encrypted with the keystream $K(BC)$, serving as a one-time-pad, as denoted by $E_{BC}(K)$. After $C$ receives the encrypted key, the key stream $K(BC)$ is discarded. Thus, each node in succession decrypts the session key and forwards it on to the next node in secure fashion until the endpoint is reached, and all key streams used for the encryption will be deleted, as the one-time-pad forbids re-use. At the end of the process, nodes $A$ and $E$ will share the same session key $K$ and use it to secure communication between themselves.[]{data-label="fig:trusted_node"}](trusted_node)
The KRF at each node performs the relaying activity following the work ticket output from the scheduling algorithm in the QSF. For each ticket, the KRF retrieves the corresponding decrypted key material from the local temporary key pool. If the destination is the local node to which it is attached, it passes the key material up to the KMS. Otherwise, the KRF retrieves temporary key bits of length equal to that indicated in the ticket, which were previously generated through the QKD protocol. The KRF then performs the OTP operation (possibly by combining through an exclusive-OR the temporary key bits with the to-be-relayed key material) and sends the result to a neighbouring site. The transport channel over which these key relaying events occur is dedicated for the data plane traffic of the QKD network. This persistent connection between neighbouring nodes can be realized through a classical communication channel between neighbouring QKD devices and accessed at the QLL level; it may be authenticated by using a site-to-site authentication key.
Improvements in the design of the QKD network topology can yield greater performance in key generation; for instance, backbone nodes can provide access to a higher-capacity sub-network. Such high-capacity data plane channels can be incorporated into the workload assignment problems.
The Temporary Key Pool Management (TKPM) function temporarily stores and manages key material at the QNL layer so that the Key Relaying Function can make use of raw key material as the input into the one-time pad for key encryption. The raw key material generated falls into three categories, which are allocated separate buffers within the temporary key pool:
1. The key bits that will be used by the host traffic between the local site and a directly-connected remote site.
2. The key bits that will be used by relaying the keys to be used for host traffic between the local site and a remote site via one or more intermediary nodes.
3. The key bits that will be used by relaying the keys for other node pairs that are using the local site as an intermediary node.
The TKPM also manages the temporary storage of the keys being relayed by the local node, which is used by the Key Relaying Function. Figure \[fig:temp\_key\_pool\_management\] shows the different categories of key bits being managed by the TKPM for various possible links.
![Quantum key material buffers, also called temporary key pools, are allocated for each site to fulfill the temporary key pool management responsibility of the data plane in the Quantum Network Layer. Various buffers are required for the various categories of key bits that are generated. Refer first to Figure \[fig:trusted\_node\] for an explanation of how key generation occurs via trusted nodes. Now refer to the example node connection graph illustrated here: between two nodes that share a direct quantum link (such as $A$-to-$N$, where the endpoints for secure communication are $A$ and $N$), the raw key bits output from execution of the QKD protocol are immediately provided to the key pool in the KMS Layer above. If $A$ is an endpoint node without a direct quantum link to the other endpoint (such as $A$-to-$Z$), then $A$ must trust other nodes ($N$ and $X$ in this case) to form a relay, so it allocates a temporary buffer for the key stream with adjacent node $N$ from which the session key is extracted. If $A$ is a trusted node intermediary between two other endpoints (such as $B$-to-$Z$), then it will keep a buffer for the key streams established through QKD with its immediately adjacent nodes ($B$ and $N$), which are used in the encryption of the session key being transported to the remote endpoint $Z$. Buffers will also be maintained for session keys that are being relayed. For instance, if $A$ is an endpoint (such as in $A$-to-$Z$), it will pass session keys that are relayed to it from the remote endpoint $Z$ up to the KMS; $A$ will also maintain a temporary buffer for a session key that it decrypts and then re-encrypts as part of the relay to other endpoints. Raw quantum key material is discarded once the relay function is fulfilled, and the material is passed up to the KMS Layer as required, to reclaim storage and minimize risk.[]{data-label="fig:temp_key_pool_management"}](temp_key_pool_management)
Trust and Security in the Communications System {#sec:trust_and_security}
===============================================
Network Trust Model
-------------------
The KMS is entrusted by all hosts within each site to aid in securing host communication. In particular, the KMS will generate, manage, and distribute symmetric private key information used to encrypt host communication. While the KMS is able to decrypt host communication, hosts will not share their communication content directly with the KMS.
Any intermediate trusted nodes that may be used to conduct the key generation and relay processes may have sufficient knowledge of the quantum-based key material to construct decryption keys and access user communication. In fact, the key relay protocol requires decryption and re-encryption of key material at each intermediate hop. Thus, trusted nodes participating in the QKD process must be fully trusted by both origin and destination sites. An alternative would be to employ multiple paths for the relaying of quantum key material between the source and destination sites and through the trusted node network. As long as the nodes along at least one path are not successfully compromised by an attacker, then the security of the key material is kept intact. An attack could be mounted by an active adversary or simply by having the trusted nodes function in an honest-but-curious manner such that they occasionally eavesdrop. If all the key bits generated from multiple paths are combined to construct the final key, then single nodes along different paths will have access to just subsets of the entire key material, while the source and destination sites have access to all of it. A successful attack on one path will not compromise the key material generated on another path. However, the overall effective key length may be reduced in proportion to the subset of key material that a single node, compromised by an attack, is forwarding along its own path. To maintain the same effective key length, the use of multiple paths will require an increase in the transmission of key bits (e.g. a doubling of keys bits when using a pair of key relaying paths, compared to a single path).
Authentication of Sites {#sec:authentication_sites}
-----------------------
Sites engaging in secure communication, for instance to exchange control messaging traffic, must be authenticated so that they can trust each other in multiple scenarios and across multiple layers of the communications stack. For instance, sites must communicate with each other securely at the KMS layer in order to coordinate the start and termination of the QKD protocol in the network layer below. They must also communicate at the network layer in order to relay the quantum key material over intermediate hops. In all cases, one or more TCP channels may be typically utilized; because the channels may be public, confidentiality and authentication is required through the use of an inter-site, or site-to-site, key; one of the following means may be used as the basis for the key, with the first option being simplest in the early stages of QKD networks, but other alternatives may be used instead as the networks become more sophisticated:
1. A pre-shared key is utilized. The first instance of this key is generated through some means other than QKD (which is not yet executing), and then disseminated through a secure out-of-band channel. It is then re-assigned during initial operation of the QKD hardware, using QKD-generated key bits. For instance, it may comprise the sequence of bits found in a reserved area of the quantum key pool, once those bits are generated, and then refreshed regularly with new key bits.
2. Short-term public cryptography is utilized as a boot-strap to initially authenticate a new site-to-site channel. Later, once QKD is operational and a secure quantum channel exists, a pre-shared key is constructed from quantum key material to replace the public cryptographic key.
3. Post-quantum cryptography, in the form of public-key algorithms that are considered secure against attack by quantum computers, may be utilized to boot-strap authentication in a fashion similar to the previous option; a public-key infrastructure or a system such as Kerberos may be required.
Sites must also communicate at the link layer over a classical channel to carry out the discussion required in the QKD protocol. The above approaches may be used to ensure unconditionally secure authentication of this channel. Note that these options only apply to the initial authentication, and encryption if appropriate, of a new communications channel between sites at the appropriate layer; they do not apply to host communication, which relies on QKD operation and the issuance of QKD-generated key material through a key establishment protocol as described in section \[sec:kms\_layer\], in order to conduct symmetric key encryption of user data.
Security of the System
----------------------
The design of the KMS assumes the satisfaction of certain security properties, including the following:
1. The encoding and decoding devices within the network layer are physically secure from attack.
2. The conventional channel used for coordination of the QKD protocol between parties may be read by an eavesdropper. However, an attacker cannot modify the contents of it or inject unauthorized contents into it without being detected. Thus, the conventional network channel must be authenticated, and there is a feasible method of doing so.
3. Once a quantum computer capable of mounting a successful attack against the security of a protocol such as TLS exists, any random number generator that is employed must be truly random. A Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG) may be used for the purpose of generating a random nonce to prevent a replay attack during key negotiation in such protocols as TLS. Otherwise, a pseudo-random number generator may suffice.
The proposed host-based protocol described in Section \[subsec:key\_issuance\] provides confidentiality of user data by encrypting it using the symmetric session key, once it is successfully negotiated and secure communication has begun between hosts of separate sites. The only relevant traffic transmitted over the conventional network prior to the secure communication is the remote session key negotiation message sent from the originator to the recipient, and the remote session confirmation reply-back. An attacker Eve will be unable to mount a successful man-in-the-middle attack. If Eve intercepts the remote session key negotiation message from Alice to Bob, then the encrypted key selection packet cannot be read, as it is encrypted with an inter-site key. Eve cannot successfully replay this message to Bob, since authenticated encryption is utilized. The key negotiation message should be protected by an authentication tag such as a Message Authentication Code (MAC) as part of a method such as encrypt-then-MAC. This method ensures that Bob will only read valid messages from Alice, and it makes them unforgeable under chosen-ciphertext attack (where Eve chooses to decrypt known ciphertexts and recover the key from the resulting plaintexts). The MAC can be applied using additional key material from the quantum key pool, which may be retrieved at the same time as the key material intended for the host-to-host session key itself. Encrypt-then-MAC has been prescribed for TLS [@rfc7366].
The session key is changed at regular intervals with the assumption that it will increase security. If a session key is successfully defeated, then only the communication encrypted with that session key will be unlocked; the protocol thus achieves perfect forward secrecy, as the session keys that are assigned are independent of each other. The compromise of one session key will compromise only the messages encrypted with that session key, and not messages belonging to other sessions that were encrypted with different session keys.
The QKD technology prevents key material from being made accessible by the attacker. Suppose that an attacker Eve attempts to interfere with the protocol. Eve will be unable to access the quantum key pools, as they are externally inaccessible, and will thus be unable to read the QKD-generated key material. Furthermore, Eve will be unable to contribute any invalid key material to the pools, as the QKD process cannot be successfully interfered with. Also, the KMS is accessible only within its own site through its published external interface API; it is not externally accessible from parties outside of its network domain and firewall. The KMS operates within a physically secured environment that protects physical access to the computer hardware responsible for the KMS and quantum key pool storage.
The policy engine enforces rules for the issuance and use of key material. The policy engine can enforce what cipher to use for host communication, the minimum key length, and the usable lifetime of the session key. Furthermore, the policy engine can validate a remote host before issuing the session key. Different hosts on different sites may be associated with different sets of permissions. These permissions may indicate the required levels of security for host-to-host communication to be carried out.
When utilizing the session keys issued by the KMS to encrypt host traffic, a suitable symmetric-key algorithm can be utilized, such as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) [@fips197]. The cipher will be initialized with the session key issued by the KMS. The cipher will provide privacy of host information. The security schemes presented do not rely upon public-key cryptography, which is considered vulnerable to successful attack by a quantum computer. The schemes rely upon pre-shared symmetric keys only; the keys are generated on both hosts through QKD, which is considered secure based on the laws of quantum physics.
Combination with Post-Quantum Algorithms {#sec:combination_post_quantum}
----------------------------------------
It is important to note that exclusive reliance on QKD may not be justifiable. In fact, QKD augments well the conventional post-quantum ecosystem; the aim is not to have QKD replace it. QKD protocols are fundamentally and provably secure against cryptanalysis and keys remain secure forever from the time of creation, as the technology is based on the laws of quantum physics; however, practical implementations of QKD may possess vulnerabilities. The principal problem in practice is that QKD requires special hardware and has limited key rate over long distance, so that it is likely not suitable for providing key material for one-time pad encryption for large volumes of data in an enterprise setting. Post-quantum public key cryptography[^2], on the other hand, requires no new infrastructure, and works within a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). Both QKD protocols and post-quantum algorithms are an active research area and there is a long road ahead to build confidence in primitives and implementations, and to define standards; thus, they are not yet ready for widespread commercial use.
A possible key construction strategy to diversify risk is to combine the two techniques:
1. Firstly, as suggested in section \[sec:authentication\_sites\], quantum-safe algorithms authenticate the QKD channel via PKI. In this case, future cryptanalysis of the post-quantum authentication does not compromise the security of the QKD key established before the post-quantum algorithm was broken. In other words, one only relies on the short-term security of the post-quantum algorithm.
2. Secondly, post-quantum algorithms and QKD are used independently to create two session keys; the two keys are combined, such as through an exclusive OR operation, so that an attacker must break both. In this case, if either the QKD or the post-quantum key generation become vulnerable, the overall security is not compromised. Furthermore, each type of key generation would certainly have to fail in a different way. This solution is consistent with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) approving the use of quantum-resistant cryptography in FIPS-140 approved systems, as long as the hybrid solution includes one FIPS-validated algorithm [[@nist17]]{}.
Lessons Learned and Recommendations {#sec:recommendations}
===================================
We propose that our four-layered architecture is a valuable framework for the QKD community to facilitate the advancement and adoption of QKD in practical network systems. There is a myriad of QKD technologies that are still evolving; a flexible framework can accommodate any QKD technology without rework, and disruption to the entire tool chain is avoided. End-users may design their applications to obtain QKD-generated keys from a KMS without adapting to changes in the inner workings of the KMS, or the QNL algorithms and topology, or the underlying QLL technologies.
Our design is not generic in nature; rather, it is highly customized for the challenges of QKD. It maximizes the security benefits of QKD while mitigating its limitations. Because the quantum key generation rate is still relatively lower than in conventional cryptosystems, there needs to be flexibility in how quantum key material is consumed; the policy engine can dictate various key consumption strategies. Since hosts may wish to communicate across the entire network, it is useful to have intermediate nodes assist with key generation. Because the demand for keys may continually change, the system must adapt by deciding when to run QKD, using what paths in the network, and for how long.
The size of investment in QKD technology and infrastructure is an important consideration. To minimize the switching cost and to speed up adoption, it may be best to integrate with existing security and authentication protocols and standards. The use of shared infrastructure, such as multiplexing the QKD protocol with conventional user traffic on a shared fibre-optic line, is another tenet of rationalization and fast ramp-up.
Our recommendations for designing and implementing a QKD-based system in the future would be to design in a manner that is agnostic to the underlying QKD technology. Running the system as a set of micro-services will provide plug-and-play modularity within the layered architecture. The use of both QKD and quantum-safe algorithms enables sufficient session keys to be generated for a large host population that is governed by policy rules.
Finally, it is important to create a system that can effectively scale and support popular use cases. Optimizing the key generation activity based on real-time demand monitoring ensures maximum utilization of the security infrastructure. Defining flexible security levels and associated key issuance strategies will result in more efficient consumption of keys.
A useful performance metric is the key generation rate for an arbitrary pair of nodes that are not directly connected. The rate is upper-bounded by the implemented QKD technology, but the network designer has the opportunity to improve performance to a degree through sound network engineering. Possibilities include reducing the number of hops in the paths between source and destination pairs experiencing higher demand, increasing the capacity of key quantum links, and utilizing more optimal network topologies that are highly meshed. Agile networking such as software-defined networks with centrally-managed intelligence and control can help optimize in this regard.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
10000
[^1]: The terms *site* and *node* may be used almost interchangeably in the discussion of the metropolitan network; a site describes a physically secure domain housing a population of hosts utilizing secure communication services, and this facility becomes addressable as a node in inter-site data exchange over a conventional or quantum network.
[^2]: To avoid ambiguity, the term “quantum-safe algorithms" is not used, as QKD is also considered to be quantum-safe.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Vision is often used as a complementary modality for audio speech recognition (ASR), especially in the noisy environment where performance of solo audio modality significantly deteriorates. After combining visual modality, ASR is upgraded to the multi-modality speech recognition (MSR). In this paper, we propose a two-stage speech recognition model. In the first stage, the target voice is separated from background noises with help from the corresponding visual information of lip movements, making the model ‘listen’ clearly. At the second stage, the audio modality combines visual modality again to better understand the speech by a MSR sub-network, further improving the recognition rate. There are some other key contributions: we introduce a pseudo-3D residual convolution (P3D)-based visual front-end to extract more discriminative features; we upgrade the temporal convolution block from 1D ResNet with the temporal convolutional network (TCN), which is more suitable for the temporal tasks; the MSR sub-network is built on the top of Element-wise-Attention Gated Recurrent Unit (EleAtt-GRU), which is more effective than Transformer in long sequences. We conducted extensive experiments on the LRS3-TED and the LRW datasets. Our two-stage model (audio enhanced multi-modality speech recognition, AE-MSR) consistently achieves the state-of-the-art performance by a significant margin, which demonstrates the necessity and effectiveness of AE-MSR.'
author:
- |
First Author\
Institution1\
Institution1 address\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Second Author\
Institution2\
First line of institution2 address\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: 'Watch Once to Listen Clearly, Watch Again to Understand Precisely: Double Visual Awareness Speech Recognition'
---
Introduction
============
In the book *The Listening Eye: A Simple Introduction to the Art of Lip-reading* [@clegg1953listening], Clegg mentions that “When you are deaf you live inside a well-corked glass bottle. You see the entrancing outside world, but it does not reach you. After learning to lip read, you are still inside the bottle, but the cork has come out and the outside world slowly but surely comes in to you." Lip reading is an approach for people with hearing impairments to communicate with the world, so that they can interpret what other say by looking at the movements of lips [@assael2016lipnet; @chung2016out; @fisher1968confusions; @mcgurk1976hearing; @woodward1960phoneme]. Lip reading is a difficult skill for human to grasp and requires intensive training [@easton1982perceptual; @stafylakis2017combining]. Lip reading is also an inexact art, because different characters may exhibit the similar lip movements (*e.g.* ‘b’ and ‘p’) [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018]. Consequently, several machine lip reading models are proposed to discriminate such subtle difference [@cooke2006audio; @kumar2007profile; @petajan1985automatic]. However they still suffer difficulties on extracting spatio-temporal features from the video.
![Overview of the audio enhanced multi-modality speech recognition network (AE-MSR). [**Mag:**]{} magnitude. Different from other MSR methods [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018; @chung2017lip; @yang2019lrw; @stafylakis2017combining; @petridis2018end] with only single visual awareness, we firstly filter the voices of speakers and background noises with help from visual awareness. Then we combine visual awareness again for MSR to benefit speech recognition.[]{data-label="fig:long"}](figs/outline_of_our_model.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
\[fig:onecol\]
Automatic lip reading becomes achievable due to rapid development of deep neural network in computer vision [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @simonyan2014very; @szegedy2015going], and with help from large scale training datasets [@chung2017lip; @chung2016lip; @cooke2006audio; @czyzewski2017audio; @russakovsky2015imagenet; @yang2019lrw]. In addition to serving as a powerful solution to hearing impairment, lip reading can also contribute to audio speech recognition (ASR) in adversary environments, such as in high noise level where human speaking is inaudible. Multi-modality (video and audio) is more effective than single modality (video or audio) in terms of both robustness and accuracy. Multi-modality (audio-visual) speech recognition (MSR) is one of the main extended applications of multi-modality. But similar to ASR, there is a significant deterioration in performance for MSR in noisy environment as well [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018]. Compared to audio modality operating in a clean voice environment, the one in noisy environment shows less gain because of upgrading from ASR to MSR. [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018] demonstrates that the noisy level of audio modality directly impacts the performance gain of MSR compared to single modality.
The goal of this paper is to introduce a two-stage speech recognition method with double visual-modality awareness. In the first stage, we reconstruct the audio signal which only contains the target speaker’s voice with the guiding visual information (lip movements). In the second stage, the enhanced audio modality is combined with the visual modality again to yield better speech recognition. Compared to typical MSR methods with single time of visual modality awareness, our method is more advantageous in terms of robustness and accuracy.
We propose a deep neural network model named audio-enhanced multi-modality speech recognition (AE-MSR) with double visual awareness to implement the method. The AE-MSR model consists of two sub-networks, the audio enhancement (AE) and MSR. Before being fed into the MSR sub-network, audio modality is enhanced with help from the first visual awareness in the AE sub-network. After enhancement, audio stream and revisited visual stream are then fed into the MSR sub-network to make speech predictions.The techniques we incorporated into AE-MSR include pseudo 3D residual convolution (P3D), temporal convolutional network (TCN), and element-wise attention gated recurrent unit (EleAtt-GRU). Ablation study shown in the paper demonstrates the effectiveness of each of the above sub-modules and the combination of them. The MSR sub-network is also built on top of EleAtt-GRU.
The intuition of our AE-MSR is as follows. Typically, a deep learning-based MSR uses symmetric encoders for both audio and video. Though visual encoder is trained in an e2e fashion, we conduct experiments to show this is not the optimal way to leverage the visual information. The reason might be that the intrinsic architecture of the typical MSR implicitly suggests equal importance of audio and video. However we tell from various experiments that audio is still much more reliable to recognize speech, even in a noisy environment. Therefore, we re-design the architecture to embed this bias between video and audio as a prior.
Overall, the contributions of this paper are:
- We propose a two-stage double visual awareness MSR model, where the first visual awareness is applied to remove the audio noise.
- We introduce the P3D as visual front-end to extract more discriminative visual features and EleAtt-GRU to adaptively encode the spatio-temporal information in AE and MSR sub-networks, benefiting performance of both networks.
- We upgrade the temporal convolution block of 1D ResNet to a TCN one in AE sub-network for establishing temporal connections.
- Extensive experiments demonstrate that AE-MSR surpasses state-of-the-art MSR model [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018] both in audio clean and noisy environments on the Lip Reading Sentences 3 (LRS3-TED) dataset [@afouras2018lrs3]. The word classification model we build based on P3D also outperforms the word-level state-of-the-art [@stafylakis2017combining] on the Lip Reading in the Wild (LRW) dataset [@chung2016lip].
Related works
=============
In this section, we introduce some related works about audio enhancement (AE) driven by visual information and multi-modality speech recognition (MSR).
[6in]{} {width="0.85\linewidth"}
[6in]{} {width="1.05\linewidth"}
Audio enhancement
-----------------
A few researchers have demonstrated that the target audio signal can be separated from other speakers’ voices and background noises, Gabbay [@gabbay2018seeing] introduce a trained silent-video-to-speech model previously proposed by [@ephrat2017improved] to generate speech predictions as a mask on the noisy audio signal which is then discarded in the pipeline of audio enhancement. Gabbay [@gabbay2017visual] also use the convolution neural networks (CNNs) to encode multi-modality features. The embedding vectors of audio and vision are concatenated before audio decoder and fed into transposed convolution of audio decoder to produce enhanced mel-scale spectrograms. Hou [@hou2018audio] build a visual driven AE network on the top of CNNs and fully connected (FC) layers to generate enhanced speech and reconstructed lip image frames. Afouras [@afouras2018conversation] use 1D ResNet as temporal convolution unit to process audio and visual features individually. Then the multi-modality features are concatenated and encoded into a mask by another 1D-ResNet-based encoder to remove noisy components in the audio signal. In their latest article, they propose a new approach that replaces the multi-modality feature encoder with Bi-LSTM [@afouras2019my].
Multi-modality speech recognition
---------------------------------
Vision is often used as a complementary modality for audio speech recognition (ASR), especially in noisy environments. After combining visual modality, ASR is upgraded to the multi-modality speech recognition (MSR). Reciprocally, MSR is also an upgrade to the lip reading and benefits people with hearing impairments to recognize speech by generating meaningful text.
In the field of deep learning, research on lip reading has longer history than MSR [@zhou2014review]. Assael [@assael2016lipnet] propose LipNet, an end-to-end model on top of spatio-temporal convolutions, LSTM [@hochreiter1997long] and connectionist temporal classification (CTC) loss on variable-length sequence of video frames. Stafylakis [@stafylakis2017combining] introduce the state-of-the-art word-level classification lip reading network on LRW dataset [@chung2016lip]. The network consists of spatio-temporal convolution, residual network and Bi-LSTM.
On the basis of lip reading, MSR is developed [@chung2017lip; @Triantafyllos-avsr2018]. Various MSR methods often use encoder-to-decoder (enc2dec) mechanism which is inspired by machine translation [@bahdanau2014neural; @chan2016listen; @graves2006connectionist; @graves2014towards; @sutskever2014sequence; @vaswani2017attention]. Chung [@chung2017lip] use a dual sequence-to-sequence model with enc2dec mechanism. Visual features and audio features are encoded separately by LSTM units. Then multi-modality features are combined and decoded into characters. Afouras [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018] introduce a sequence-to-sequence model of encoder-to-decoder mechanism. The encoder and decoder of the model are built based on the transformer [@vaswani2017attention] attention architecture. In encoder stage, each modality feature is encoded with self-attention individually. After multi-head attention in decoder stage, the context vectors produced by multiple modalities are concatenated and fed to the feed forward layers to produce probable characters. However, their state-of-the-art method suffer in noisy scenarios. In noisy environments, the performance dramatically decreases, this is the main reason why we propose the method of AE-MSR. In this paper, we qualitatively evaluate performance of the AE-MSR model for speech recognition in the noisy environments.
Architectures
=============
In this section, we describe the double visual awareness multi-modality speech recognition (AE-MSR) network. It first learns to filter magnitude spectrogram from the voices of other speakers or background noises with help from the information of visual modality (*Watch once to listen clearly*). The subsequent MSR then revisits the visual modality and combines it with filtered audio magnitude spectrogram (*Watch again to understand precisely*). The model architecture is shown in detail in Figure \[fig:architecture\].
[1.4in]{} ![Temporal convolution blocks. [**a) TCN ResNet block**]{}. [**US:**]{} Up-sample; [**AP:**]{} Average Pooling [@he2016deep]. [**b) The 1D ResNet block**]{}. [**DS:**]{} Depthwise separable [@chollet2017xception]; [**BN:**]{} Batch Normalization. The non-upsample convolution layers are all depthwise separable.[]{data-label="fig:temporal_conv"}](figs/TCN_ResNet_block.pdf "fig:"){width="1.5\linewidth"}
[1.4in]{} ![Temporal convolution blocks. [**a) TCN ResNet block**]{}. [**US:**]{} Up-sample; [**AP:**]{} Average Pooling [@he2016deep]. [**b) The 1D ResNet block**]{}. [**DS:**]{} Depthwise separable [@chollet2017xception]; [**BN:**]{} Batch Normalization. The non-upsample convolution layers are all depthwise separable.[]{data-label="fig:temporal_conv"}](figs/1D_ResNet.pdf "fig:"){width="1.1\linewidth"}
Watch once to listen clearly
----------------------------
[**Audio features.**]{} We use Short Time Fourier Transform (STFT) to extract magnitude spectrogram from the waveform signal at a sample rate of 16kHz. To align with the video frame rate at 25fps, we set the STFT window length to 40ms and hop length to 10ms, corresponding to 75% overlap. We multiply the resulting magnitude by a mel-spaced filter to compute the audio feature of mel-scale magnitude with mel-frequency bins of 80 between 0 to 8 kHz.
[**Visual features.**]{} We produce image frames by cropping original video frames to $112 \times 112$ pixel patches and choose mouth patch as region of interest (ROI). To extract video features, we build a 3D CNN (C3D) [@tran2015learning] -P3D [@qiu2017learning] network to produce a more powerful visual spatio-temporal representation instead of using C3D plus 2D ResNet [@he2016deep] which is mentioned in many other lip-reading papers [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018; @afouras2018conversation; @afouras2018deep; @afouras2019my; @chung2017lip; @stafylakis2017combining].
C3D is a beneficial method to capture spatio-temporal features of videos and widely adopted [@stafylakis2017combining; @Triantafyllos-avsr2018; @afouras2018conversation; @petridis2018end; @afouras2019my]. Multi-layer C3D can achieve even better performances in temporal tasks than a single layer one, however they are both computationally expensive and memory demanding. We use P3D to replace part of the C3D layers to alleviate this situation. The three block versions of P3D are shown in Supplementary Material, P3D ResNet is implemented by separating $N\times N\times N$ convolutions into $1\times3\times3$ convolution filters on spatial domain and $3\times1\times1$ convolution filters on temporal domain to extract spatial-temporal features. P3D ResNet achieves superior performances over 2D ResNet in different temporal tasks [@qiu2017learning]. We implement a 50-layer P3D network by cyclically mixing the three blocks in the order of P3D-A, P3D-B, P3D-C.
The visual front-end is built on a 3D convolution layer with 64 filters of kernel size $5\times7\times7$, followed by batch normalization (BN), ReLU activation and max-pooling layers. And then the max-pooling is followed by a 50-layer P3D ResNet that gradually decreases the spatial dimensions with depth while maintaining the temporal dimension. For an input of $T\times H\times W$ frames, the output of the sub-network is a $T\times512$ tensor (in the final stage, the feature is average-pooled in spatial dimension and processed as a 512-dimensional vector representing each video frame). The visual feature and corresponding magnitude spectrogram are then fed into audio enhancement sub-network.
[**Audio enhancement with the first visual awareness.**]{} Noise-free audio signal achieves satisfactory performance on audio speech recognition (ASR) and multi-modality speech recognition (MSR). However there is a significant deterioration in recognition performance in noisy environments [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018; @afouras2018conversation]. Architecture of the audio enhancement sub-network is illustrated in Figure \[fig:architecture\_ae\], where the visual features are fed into a temporal convolution network (video stream). The video stream consists of $N_v$ temporal convolution blocks, outputting video feature vectors. We introduce two versions of temporal convolution blocks, one is the temporal convolutional network (TCN) proposed by [@bai2018empirical] and the other is 1D ResNet block proposed by [@afouras2019my].
Architectures of temporal convolution blocks are shown in Figure \[fig:temporal\_conv\], the residual block of TCN consists of two dilated causal convolution layers, each layer followed by a weight normalization (WN) [@salimans2016weight] layer and a rectified linear unit (ReLU) [@nair2010rectified] layer. A spatial dropout [@srivastava2014dropout] layer is added after ReLU layer for regularization [@bai2018empirical]. Identity skip connection are added after the second dilated causal convolution layer. By combining causal convolution and dilated convolution, TCN guarantees no leakage from the future to the past and effectively expands the receptive field to maintain a longer memory size [@bai2018empirical]. The 1D ResNet block is based on 1D temporal convolution layer, followed by a batch normalization (BN) layer. Residual connection is added after ReLU activation layer.
Two of the intermediate temporal convolution blocks containing transposed convolution layers up-sample the video features by 4 to match the temporal dimension of the audio feature vectors (4$T$). Similarly, the noisy magnitude spectrograms are proposed by a residual network (audio stream) which consists of $N_a$ temporal convolution blocks, outputting audio feature vectors. Then the audio feature vectors and the video feature vectors are fused in a fusion layer by simply concatenating over the channel dimension. The fused multi-modality vector is then fed into a one-layer EleAtt-GRU encoder followed by 2 fully connected layers with a Sigmoid as activation to produce a target enhancement mask (values range from 0 to 1). EleAtt-GRU is demonstrated more effective than other RNN variants in spatio-temporal tasks and its detail is introduced in section \[Multi-modality speech recognition\]. The enhanced magnitude is produced by multiplying the original magnitude spectrogram with the target enhancement mask element-wise. Architecture details of the audio enhancement sub-network are given in Supplementary Material.
Watch again to understand precisely {#Multi-modality speech recognition}
-----------------------------------
[**Multi-modality speech recognition with the second visual awareness.**]{} Visual information can help enhance audio modality by separating target audio signal from noisy background. After audio enhancement by visual awareness, the multi-modality speech recognition (MSR) is implemented by combining enhanced audio and the revisited visual representation to benefit the performance of speech recognition further.
We use encoder-to-decoder (enc2dec) mechanism in the MSR sub-network. Instead of using transformer [@vaswani2017attention], which demonstrates decent performance on lip reading [@afouras2018deep] and MSR [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018], our network is basically built on a RNN variant model named gated recurrent unit with element-wise-attention (EleAtt-GRU) [@zhang2019eleatt]. Although transformer is a powerful model emerging in machine translation [@vaswani2017attention] and lip reading [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018; @afouras2018deep], it builds character relationships within limited length, less effective with long sequences than RNN. EleAtt-GRU can alleviate this situation, because it is equipped with an element-wise-attention gate (EleAttG) that empowers an RNN neuron to have the attentive capacity. EleAttG is designed to modulate the input adaptively by assigning different importance levels, i.e., attention, to each element or dimension of the input. Illustration of EleAttG for a GRU block is shown in Supplementary Material. In a GRU block/layer, all neurons share the same EleAttG, which reduces the cost of computation and number of parameters.
Architecture of the AE-MSR network is shown in Figure \[fig:architecture\], a sequence-to-sequence MSR network is built based on EleAtt-GRU. The encoder is a two-layer EleAtt-GRU for both modalities. The enhanced audio magnitude is fed into an encoder layer between two 1D-ResNet blocks with stride 2 that down-sample the temporal dimension by 4 to match the temporal dimension of video features ($T$). The 1D-ResNet layer are followed by another encoder layer, outputting the audio modality encoder context. The video features extracted by C3D-P3D network are fed into the video encoder to output video encoder context. In the decoder stage, video context and audio context are decoded separately by independent decoder layer. Generated context vectors of both modalities are concatenated over the channel dimensions and propagated to another decoder layer to produce character probabilities. The number of unit of EleAtt-GRU in both encoder and decoder is 128. The decoder outputs character probabilities which are directly matched to the ground truth labels and trained with a cross-entropy loss and the whole output sequence is trained with sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) loss [@sutskever2014sequence].
Training
========
Datasets
--------
The proposed network is trained and evaluated on LRW [@chung2016lip] and LRS3-TED [@afouras2018lrs3] datasets. LRW is a very large-scale lip reading dataset in the wild from British television broadcasts, including news and talk shows. LRW consists of up to 1000 utterances of 500 different words, spoken by more than 1000 speakers. We use LRW dataset to pre-train the P3D spatio-temporal front-end based on a word-level classification network of lip reading.
LRS3-TED is the largest available dataset in the field of lip reading (visual speech recognition). It consists of face tracks from over 400 hours of TED and TEDx videos, and organized into three sets: pre-train, train-val and test. We train the audio enhancement (AE) sub-network and the multi-modality speech recognition (MSR) sub-network on the LRS3-TED dataset.
Evaluation metric
-----------------
For the word-level lip reading experiment, the train, validation and test sets are provided with the LRW dataset. We report word accuracy for classification in 500 word classes of LRW. For sentence-level recognition experiments, we report the Word Error Rate (WER). WER is defined as $WER = (S+D+I)/N$, where $S$ is the number of substitution, $D$ is the number of deletions, $I$ is the number of insertions to get from the reference to the hypothesis, and $N$ is the number of words in the reference [@chung2017lip].
Training strategy {#training_strategy}
-----------------
[**Visual front-end.**]{} The visual front-end of C3D-P3D is pre-trained on a word-level classification network of lip reading with LRW dataset for 500 word classes and we adopt a two-step training strategy. In the first step, image frames are fed into a 3D convolution, which is followed by a 50-layer P3D, and the back-end is based on one dense layer. In the second step, to improve the effectiveness of the model we replace the dense layer with two layers of Bi-LSTM, followed by a linear and a SoftMax layer. We use cross entropy loss to train the word classification tasks. With the visual front-end frozen, we extract and save video features, as well as magnitude spectrograms for both original audio and the mix-noise one.
[**Noisy samples.**]{} In order to train our model so that it can be resistant to background noise or speakers, we follow the noise mix method of [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018], the babble noise with SNR from -10 dB to 10 dB is added to audio stream with probability p$_n$ = 0.25 and the babble noise samples are synthesized by mixing the signals of 30 different audio samples from LRS3-TED dataset.
[**AE and MSR sub-networks.**]{} The AE sub-network is firstly trained on multi-modality of mixed noises with temporal convolution block of TCN and 1D ResNet separately. The AE sub-network is trained by minimizing the *L*$_1$ loss between the predicted magnitude spectrogram and the ground truth. Simultaneously, the multi-modality speech recognition (MSR) sub-network is trained with video features and clean magnitude spectrogram as inputs. The MSR sub-network is also trained when only single modality (audio or visual) is available. For MSR sub-network, we use a sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) loss [@cho2014learning; @sutskever2014sequence].
[**AE-MSR.**]{} We freeze the AE sub-network and train the AE-MSR network. To demonstrate the benefit of our model, we reproduce and evaluate the state-of-the-art multi-modality speech recognition model provided by [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018] at different noise levels. The training begins with one-word samples, and then the length of the training sequence gradually grows. This is a cumulative method that not only improves the convergence rate on the training set, but also reduces overfitting significantly. Output size of decoder is set to 41, accounting for the 26 characters in the alphabet, the 10 digits, and tokens for \[PAD\], \[EOS\], \[BOS\] and \[SPACE\]. We also use teacher forcing method [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018], in which the ground truth of the previous decoding step serves as input to the decoder.
[**Methods**]{} [**Word accuracy**]{}
--------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
Chung and Zisserman [@chung2017lip] 76.2%
Stafylakis and Tzimiropoulos [@stafylakis2017combining] 83.0%
Petridis and Stafylakis [@petridis2018end] 82.0%
[**Ours**]{} 84.8%
: Word accuracy of different word-level classification networks on the LRW dataset.[]{data-label="table_classify"}
\
[**Implementation details.**]{} The implementation of the network is based on the TensorFlow library [@Abadi2016TensorFlow] and trained on a single Tesla P100 GPU with 16GB memory. We use the ADAM optimiser to train the network with dropout and label smoothing. An initial learning rate is set to 10$^{-4}$, and decreased by a factor of 2 every time if the training error did not improve, the final learning rate is 5$\times10^{-6}$. Training of the entire network takes approximately 15 days, including the training of the audio enhancement sub-network on both of the two temporal convolution blocks and the MSR sub-network separately and the subsequent joint training.
Experimental results
====================
P3D-based visual front-end and EleAtt-GRU-based enc2dec {#5.1}
-------------------------------------------------------
[**P3D-based visual front-end.**]{} We perform lip reading experiments on both word-level and sentence-level. In section \[training\_strategy\], we introduce a word-level lip reading network on the LRW dataset to classify 500 word classes to train the visual front-end of C3D-P3D. Result of this word-level lip reading network is shown in Table \[table\_classify\], where we report word accuracy as evaluation metric and our result surpasses the state-of-the-art [@stafylakis2017combining] on the LRW dataset. It demonstrates that visual front-end network of C3D-P3D is more advantageous in extracting video feature representations than the C3D-2D-ResNet one used by [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018].
[**EleAtt-GRU-based enc2dec.**]{} Results in both of Column V and A in Table \[avsr-wer\] demonstrate that EleAtt-GRU-based enc2dec is more beneficial in speech recognition than the Transformer-based enc2dec. As shown in Table \[avsr-wer\] Column V, our multi-modality speech recognition (EG-seq2seq) network (illustrated in Figure \[fig:architecture\_MSR\]) with only visual modality reduces word error rate (WER) by 2.1% compared to the previous state-of-the-art (TM-seq2seq) [@Triantafyllos-avsr2018] WER of 59.9% on the LRS3 dataset without using language model in decoder. Furthermore, we also evaluate the EleAtt-GRU-based enc2dec model in ASR at different noise levels. As shown in Table \[avsr-wer\] Column A, EG-seq2seq exceeds the state-of-the-art (TM-seq2seq) model on ASR at all noise levels (-10 dB to 10 dB) without extra language model. Table \[avsr-wer\] Column A also shows that neither EG-seq2seq or TM-seq2seq works any more with only audio modality at -10 dB SNR.\
Results in the columns under AV in Table \[ae-avsr-wer\] demonstrate the speech recognition accuracy improvement after adding the visual awareness once at the MSR stage, especially in noisy environments. Even when the audio is clean, visual modality can still play a helping role, for example the WER is reduced from 7.2% for audio modality only to 6.8% for multi-modality. EG-seq2seq outperforms the state-of-the-art (TM-seq2seq) model on MSR at different noise levels. It again demonstrates the superiority of EleAtt-GRU-based enc2dec in speech recognition. However, we notice that under very noisy conditions, audio modality can negatively impact the MSR because of its highly polluted input, when comparing lip reading (V in Table \[avsr-wer\]) with MSR (AV in Table \[ae-avsr-wer\]) at -10 dB SNR.
Audio enhancement (AE) with the first visual awareness {#experiment_wlc}
------------------------------------------------------
In order to demonstrate the enhancement effectiveness of our AE models so that it can benefit not only our speech recognition models but also other speech recognition models. Compared with MSR in the Section \[5.1\], here we apply visual awareness at audio enhancement stage, instead of at MSR. We compare and analyze the results of following networks at different noise levels:
- [**1DRN-TM-seq2seq:**]{} an AE-MSR network, where the audio enhancement (AE) sub-network (1DRN-AE) uses 1D ResNet as temporal convolution unit and outputs enhanced audio modality. The MSR sub-network of this network is TM-seq2seq.
- [**TCN-TM-seq2seq:**]{} an AE-MSR network, where the AE sub-network (TCN-AE) uses the temporal convolutional network (TCN) as temporal convolution unit. The MSR sub-network is TM-seq2seq.
- [**1DRN-EG-seq2seq:**]{} an AE-MSR network, where the AE sub-network is 1DRN-AE and the MSR sub-network is EG-seq2seq.
- [**TCN-EG-seq2seq:**]{} an AE-MSR network, where the AE sub-network is TCN-AE and the MSR sub-network is EG-seq2seq.
[**Audio source**]{}
---------------------- -------- ------ ------ ------
SNR dB -5 0 5
(l)[2-5]{} Noisy 97.1 65.4 49.1
1DRN-AE 66.5 51.0 35.6
TCN-AE 59.5 46.3 33.1
: Energy errors between original noise-free audio magnitudes and enhanced magnitudes produced by different audio enhancement models.[]{data-label="mahgnitude_subtraction"}
\
In this section, all the models above use only audio modality at MSR stage. As shown in columns under VA in Table \[ae-avsr-wer\], our AE networks can benefit other speech recognition models, for example at SNR of -5 dB, the WER is reduced from 87.9% of TM-seq2seq to 50.2% of 1DRN-TM-seq2seq and 49.5% of TCN-TM-seq2seq. The enhancement gain is also clearly illustrated in Figure \[WER\]. Moreover, by comparing the result of columns under AV and VA in Table \[ae-avsr-wer\], with the same number of visual awareness, our audio enhancement approach shows more benefit in speech recognition than the multi-modality with single visual awareness in noisy environments.
Magnitudes produced by the two AE models are shown in Supplementary Material. We also introduce an energy error function to measure the effect of audio enhancement models as follow: $$\Delta M = \frac{\: \parallel M - {M_{o}}\parallel _{2}}{\parallel M_{o} \parallel _{2}}
\label{E1}$$ where $M$ is the magnitudes of noisy audio or enhanced audio, $M_{o}$ is the original audio without mixing noises, $\Delta M$ is the deviation results between $M$ and $M_{o}$. We chose 10,000 noise-free samples that are added to babble noises with SNR of -5 dB, 0 dB and 5 dB separately to compare the enhancement performance between 1DRN-AE and TCN-AE networks. We average the $\Delta M$ results among samples at each SNR-level. Results in Table \[mahgnitude\_subtraction\] show the beneficial performance of TCN-AE.
In Supplementary Material, we list some of the many examples where the single modality (video or audio alone) fails to predict the correct sentences, but these sentences are correctly deciphered by applying both modalities. It also shows that, in some noisy environment the multi-modality also fails to produce the right sentence, however the enhanced audio modality predict successfully. Experimental results of speech recognition in Table \[Multi-modality speech recognition\] also demonstrate that TCN-EG-seq2seq is more advantageous than 1DRN-EG-seq2seq in audio modality enhancement due to the TCN temporal convolution unit, which has a longer-term memory and larger receptive field by combining causal convolution and dilated convolution that more beneficial in temporal tasks.
![Word error rate (WER) on different methods. [**A:**]{} the audio modality speech recognition , [**AV:**]{} MSR. Each method in this diagram equivalent to the one with same name in Table \[avsr-wer\].[]{data-label="WER"}](figs/wer_line.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Multi-modality speech recognition with the second visual awareness
------------------------------------------------------------------
After audio enhancement with the first visual awareness, we implement multi-modality speech recognition with the second visual awareness. By comparing the results in columns under VA and VAV in Table \[ae-avsr-wer\], MSR with double visual awareness leads to a further improvement compared to any single visual awareness method (AV, VA and V). For example, the WER of 1DRN-EG-seq2seq is reduced from 36.6% to 28.5% when combining the visual awareness again for speech recognition after audio enhancement, and the TCN-EG-seq2seq model reduces the WER even more. It demonstrates the performance gain because of the second visual awareness in MSR. Our AE-MSR network shows significant advantage in terms of performance after combining visual awareness twice, once for audio enhancement and the other for MSR. In Supplementary Material we list some examples that the multi-modality model ([**AV**]{}) and the AE model ([**VA**]{}) fail to predict the correct sentences, but the AE-MSR model deciphers the words successfully in some noisy environments.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we introduce a two-stage speech recognition model named double visual awareness multi-modality speech recognition (AE-MSR) network, which consists of the audio enhancement (AE) sub-network and the multi-modality speech recognition (MSR) sub-network. By extensive experiments, we demonstrate the necessity and effectiveness of double visual awareness for MSR, and our method leads to a significant performance gain on MSR especially in noisy environments. Further, our models in this paper outperform the state-of-the-art ones on the LRS3-TED and the LRW datasets by a significant margin.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Illumination estimation is often used in mixed reality to re-render a scene from another point of view, to change the color/texture of an object, or to insert a virtual object consistently lit into a real video or photograph. Specifically, the estimation of a point light source is required for the shadows cast by the inserted object to be consistent with the real scene. We tackle the problem of illumination retrieval given an RGBD image of the scene as an inverse problem: we aim to find the illumination that minimizes the photometric error between the rendered image and the observation. In particular we propose a novel differentiable renderer based on the Blinn-Phong model with cast shadows. We compare our differentiable renderer to state-of-the-art methods and demonstrate its robustness to an incorrect reflectance estimation.'
author:
- |
Grégoire Nieto\
Technicolor\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Salma Jiddi\
Technicolor\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Philippe Robert\
Technicolor\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Robust Point Light Source Estimation Using Differentiable Rendering
---
------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
(a) (b)
------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
[**Inverse rendering**]{} often refers to estimating missing parameters of a scene, given a rendered image. Among geometry and material, illumination is a crucial aspect in the production of an image. Knowing such element could be used to re-render the scene from another point of view, to change the color/texture of an object, or to insert a virtual object consistently lit into a real video or photograph (figure \[fig:teaser\] (b)). From a mixed reality perspective, a use case would be to capture the scene from a fixed viewpoint with an RGBD sensor and forward the data to a server that would estimate the light source at interactive frame rate. Then the virtual object would be rendered with consistent shadows and shading on an Augmented Reality (AR) device such as a tablet or a glass-type Head-Mounted Display (HMD). For the shadows cast by the virtual object to be consistent with the real lighting, the estimation of non-distant punctual light sources is needed, as opposed to the estimation of environment maps or directional (infinitely distant) light sources.
We tackle the problem of illumination retrieval given an RGBD image of the scene as an [**inverse problem**]{}: “the approach tries to reverse-engineer the physical process that produced an image of the world” [@loper_opendr:_2014]. Instead of directly finding a candidate for light sources, we assume that the illumination is known and we maximize the likelihood to get the observed 2D image. It requires rendering — how illumination interacts with the material and the geometry to produce an image — to be completely differentiable. Then we are able to propagate the photometric error between the reconstructed image and the observation back to the lighting parameters. That is why we say our method uses [**differentiable rendering**]{}. Given the Jacobian matrix of the rendered image with respect to the lighting parameters, the chain rule enables us to iteratively adjust the lighting parameters that eventually converge to an estimate. In the machine learning literature, such algorithm is called [**gradient back-propagation**]{} (here the term “gradient” defines the derivative of the loss with respect to the lighting parameters).
In the domain of illumination retrieval, we can address some criticisms to state-of-the-art methods. Indeed, most of them do not make use of cast shadows when estimating the illumination [@jacobs2006classification; @nishino_determining_2001; @hara_light_2005; @jiddi_reflectance_2016; @Jiddi18a; @lopez-moreno_multiple_2013; @karsch_rendering_2011; @boom2013point; @neverova_lighting_2012], and when they do [@jiddi_illumination_2017] they rarely take diffuse and specular reflections into account. Moreover these algorithms often rely on explicit shadow detection. Methods that use a complex reflection model that handles specularities often compute shadows with non-differentiable shadow mapping, to perform light source matching or a discrete form of optimization. On the other hand we propose to apply our differentiable renderer to [**continuous**]{} optimization, which means the search space of light source positions is not constrained to discrete values. We solve the optimization problem by inverse rendering with the [**Blinn-Phong model**]{}, [**including shadow casting**]{}, so that both specularities and cast shadows are implicitly used without any explicit diffuse/specular separation nor shadow detection. We show that appending a shadow term increases the robustness of the estimation in the case of an imperfect reflectance estimation (figure \[fig:teaser\] (a)), which is the common practical case.
Our differentiable renderer can also be applied to improve the training of neural networks. Recent progress in machine learning enables the estimation of illumination from a single image via a simple neural network. Such network performs better when it is trained in a self-supervised manner. It means the same training example — the observed image — is used as input and ground truth at the same time. It is passed to the network to train that turns it into an estimate of the illumination, then an image is reconstructed knowing the geometry and the materials. The photometric error between the input image and the reconstructed image is back-propagated to adjust the weights of the neural network. To the best of our knowledge we are the first to propose an implementation of a [**renderer with differentiable cast shadows**]{} that could process simultaneously batches of images and be integrated into an [**unsupervised deep learning architecture**]{}.
To sum up, our contributions are listed as follow:
- a completely differentiable rendering pipeline that produces Blinn-Phong [@phong_illumination_1975-1; @blinn_models_1977] shading with cast shadows;
- a novel point light source estimation based on optimization that cleverly makes use of the presence of shadows to compensate for an imprecise reflectance estimation;
- an efficient batch implementation designed to train unsupervised deep learning architectures [@georgoulis_reflectance_2018; @wang_joint_2017; @janner_self-supervised_2017; @rematas_deep_2016; @georgoulis_delight-net:_2016].
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
A classification of illumination estimation methods is proposed by Jacobs and Loscos [@jacobs2006classification]. Existing approaches are numerous, thus in this section we especially focus on methods that cope with cast shadows or specularities. Nishino [@nishino_determining_2001], Hara [@hara_light_2005] and Jiddi [@jiddi_reflectance_2016; @Jiddi18a] aim to recover the illumination from specular profiles, but assume that at least one specular peak is visible. Lopez-Moreno [@lopez-moreno_multiple_2013] estimate multiple point light sources: albedo and highlights are first removed from the object; then its silhouette is used to infer the light source position in screen-space; finally its interior is used to estimate the position in world space. However convexity near the silhouette is assumed for normal computation.
#### Light source candidates
A way to cope with cast shadows is to model illumination as a set of candidates, either point sources [@jiddi_illumination_2017] or directional sources [@sato_illumination_1999]. Sato [@sato_illumination_1999] propose to estimate the illumination distribution by an adaptive sampling of the directional sources. They implicitly make use of shadows by incorporating a shadow term in their Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF), computed from the geometry and the potential directional light candidates. In [@jiddi_illumination_2017], Jiddi approximate a set of point light sources equally distributed around the scene, and select the candidates whose cast shadows correlate with a binary mask of shadows preliminary detected in the image. Our method differs from [@jiddi_illumination_2017] and [@sato_illumination_1999] in that we perform a continuous optimization, and we do not approximate a set of candidates. Hence there is no need to compute a set of shadow maps prior to the optimization: a shadow map is rendered at each iteration given the current illumination estimate.
#### Optimization-based methods
The closest work to ours is Neverova ’s [@neverova_lighting_2012]: it is an optimization-based method with Phong rendering to estimate a point light source from RGBD images. It is inspired by the work of Karsch [@karsch_rendering_2011] that only deals with diffuse objects and a very coarse geometry. Boom [@boom2013point] also deal with Lambertian surfaces, although their optimization scheme is close to ours. Alike [@neverova_lighting_2012], Mashita [@mashita_parallel_2013-1] use a Phong model but focus on the effect of using multiple views. All these methods [@neverova_lighting_2012; @mashita_parallel_2013-1; @boom2013point; @karsch_rendering_2011] do not take cast shadows into account. Neverova ’s work [@neverova_lighting_2012] also relies on the separation between specular and diffuse components whereas our method implicitly includes both components in the optimization via the rendering equation, without explicit separation. Moreover we do not explicitly segment images or extract any surface properties like in [@karaoglu_point_2017]. Our only model is the rendering model and we do not treat differently some parts of the image whether they are glossy, matte, highlighted, curved, etc.
#### Supervised learning
From a machine learning perspective, state-of-the-art techniques aim to estimate illumination (either indoor [@gardner_learning_2017-1] or outdoor [@hold-geoffroy_deep_2017]) by learning the weights of a neural network. To train such network, a supervised strategy is often adopted: the loss function is the error between some ground truth illumination and the illumination computed by the network fed with an example image. Rematas [@rematas_deep_2016] learn to estimate an intermediate representation that mixes illumination and a single material, called a “reflectance map”. In [@georgoulis_reflectance_2018] this architecture is combined with a CNN that decomposes the reflectance map into an environment map and a single material. In [@wang_joint_2017] a parametric model of illumination and material is fitted to a reflectance map, via a light transport operator that is approximated by two neural networks preliminary trained on synthetic data. Mandl [@mandl_learning_2017-1] try to estimate the illumination only, by training a CNN for every camera pose sampled around an object used as a light probe.
#### Unsupervised learning
Recent work in neural networks has demonstrated the superiority of unsupervised strategies, for face reconstruction for example [@tewari_mofa:_2017; @tewari_self-supervised_2017; @sengupta_sfsnet:_2017]. At each iteration a differentiable renderer reconstructs an image from the current illumination estimation and compares it to the input example image. Janner [@janner_self-supervised_2017] propose to train a renderer that consists of an encoder/decoder to produce a diffuse shading given an illumination estimation and a normal map. However, even with relevant training data, such architecture is unable to correctly mimic the shadow formation process. A differentiable renderer that performs shadow casting is yet required to produce a prediction that is as close as possible to what we can expect from indoor scenes. We believe our differentiable rendering module could highly benefit the deep learning community for all kind of inverse rendering applications.
Our Approach {#sec:approach}
============
Background
----------
We model illumination as a punctual light source, parametrized by its 3D location ${\bf L}_i $ and a scalar intensity ${\bf I}_{L,i}$. Note that the method is not constrained by the use of a single light source, as long as all lights $i$ are punctual, in order to cope with realistic shadow casting. ${\bf I({\bf x})}$ is the intensity of the rendered image at point ${\bf x}$; to simplify we note this intensity ${\bf I}$. We choose to represent the geometry of the scene by ${\bf G} = ({\bf X}, {\bf N}, {\bf C})$, with ${\bf X}$ being a 3D point cloud, ${\bf N}$ the normals, and ${\bf C}$ the camera pose. Representing the geometry by an oriented point cloud is purely arbitrary. In practice, other data representations can be adopted: depth maps can easily be converted into a point cloud and if our implementation does not handle rasterization yet, it is only a matter of technical convenience. ${\bf G}$ also contains the camera pose, whose parameters can be estimated by any means, but that is not in the scope of the present work. Images are represented by vectors of size the number of pixels; all channels, if plural, are treated independently. The multiplication marked as a dot $.$ denotes the element-wise multiplication. The dot product or scalar product is denoted by the multiplication with the transposed vector.
![Main vectors used in the Blinn-Phong model[]{data-label="fig:phong"}](images/phong.pdf){width="0.90\columnwidth"}
${\bf I}_a$ ambient term
----------------- ------------------------------
${\bf I}_d$ diffuse term
${\bf I}_s$ specular term
${\bf L}_a$ ambient illumination
${\bf L}_i$ position of the light $i$
${\bf I}_{L,i}$ intensity of the light $i$
${\bf S}_i$ shadow term of the light $i$
${\bf X}$ 3D point on the surface
${\bf x}$ 2D point on the screen
${\bf C}$ camera center
${\bf N}$ normal to the surface
${\bf H}$ halfway vector
${\bf k}_d$ diffuse reflectance
${\bf k}_s$ specular reflectance
$\alpha$ shininess
: List of terms used by the Blinn-Phong reflection model.[]{data-label="table:phong"}
The Blinn-Phong model claims that the image intensity at point ${\bf x}$ (figure \[fig:phong\]) is the sum of three terms ${\bf I} = {\bf I}_a + {\bf I}_d + {\bf I}_s$. All terms are listed in table \[table:phong\]. The ambient term is the multiplication of the ambient illumination — due to an infinite number of inter-reflections — with the diffuse reflectance: ${\bf I}_a = {\bf k}_d.{\bf L}_a$. Both specular and diffuse terms depend on the shadow term ${\bf S}_i$, that equals 1 when the light $i$ illuminates the point ${\bf X}$, and 0 otherwise. The diffuse term ${\bf I}_d$ describes the illumination of a Lambertian surface, a surface whose BRDF is isotropic. For a 3D point ${\bf X}$ on the surface to render that is directly lit by the light source, — for which the shadow term ${\bf S}_i$ equals one — it is proportional to the scalar product of the normal ${\bf N}$ with the light source vector ${\bf L}_i - {\bf X}$: ${\bf I}_d = {\bf k}_d.\sum_i {\bf S}_i.({\bf L}_i - {\bf X})^t{\bf N}.{\bf I}_{L,i}$. The specular term ${\bf I}_s$ is a factor of the scalar product between the normal ${\bf N}$ and the halfway vector ${\bf H}$ between the viewer $({\bf C} - {\bf X})$ and the light source vector $({\bf L}_i - {\bf X})$ (see figure \[fig:phong\]): ${\bf I}_s = {\bf k}_s.\sum_i {\bf S}_i.({\bf H}^t{\bf N})^\alpha.{\bf I}_{L,i}$. Finally the intensity of the image can be written as follow: $$\label{eq:phong}
{\bf I} = {\bf k}_d.{\bf L}_a + \sum_i {\bf S}_i.{\bf I}_{L,i}.\left({\bf k}_d.({\bf L}_i - {\bf X})^t{\bf N} + {\bf k}_s.({\bf H}^t{\bf N})^\alpha\right).$$
Light Source Estimation
-----------------------
Our approach to estimate a light source via optimization (see figure \[fig:model\] for an overview) takes an observed image ${\bf I^*}$ as input. We assume the geometry of the scene ${\bf G} = ({\bf X}, {\bf N}, {\bf C})$ and the materials ${\bf M} = ({\bf k}_d, {\bf k}_s, \alpha)$ to be known, so that our Blinn-Phong model (\[eq:phong\]) is only parametrized by the illumination ${\bf L}$. As mentioned before, we opt for an inverse approach, that takes advantage of our differentiable rendering pipeline. Rendering is combining ${\bf G}$, ${\bf M}$, and ${\bf L}$ to produce a 2D image ${\bf I}$. Given the imperfection of the chosen rendering model and the geometry and illumination estimates, the produced image ${\bf I}({\bf G}, {\bf M}, {\bf L})$ is different from the observed data ${\bf I^*}$. A good estimation of ${\bf L}$ must minimize the photometric error ${\bf E}$, the $L^2$-norm of the difference between ${\bf I}$ and ${\bf I^*}$: $$\label{eq:energy1}
{\bf \hat{L}} = \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\bf L} {\bf E} = \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\bf L} \| {\bf I}({\bf G}, {\bf M}, {\bf L}) - {\bf I^*} \|^2.$$ To minimize such energy (\[eq:energy1\]), an iterative scheme is adopted, for example with a gradient descent algorithm. The light source is first initialized somewhere. Then at each iteration, an image is rendered given the current light source estimation, with shadows and specularities potentially. The rendered image is compared to the observed image and the error is back-propagated to adjust the illumination parameters. The derivative of the energy ${\bf E}$ with respect to the illumination parameters is $\partial {\bf E}/ \partial {\bf L} = ({\bf I} - {\bf I^*})^t \partial {\bf I}/\partial {\bf L}$. It requires the computation of the Jacobian matrix $\partial {\bf I}/\partial {\bf L}$, which is detailed in the next section.
![Overview of our light source estimation procedure. []{data-label="fig:model"}](images/model.pdf){width="0.90\columnwidth"}
Differentiable Rendering
------------------------
In this section we detail the derivation of the rendered image (\[eq:phong\]) with respect to the illumination parameters. These parameters are gathered all together in a single parameter vector ${\bf L} = ({\bf L}_i, {\bf I}_{L,i})_i$. To find the Jacobian matrix $\partial {\bf I}/\partial {\bf L}$, we choose to represent the image formation model as an acyclic graph, as it is commonly done in the neural network literature. An acyclic graph is a tree-like graph with no loop. Nodes are intermediate variables, linked by edges that represent transformations. The leaves of the graph are the input variables, that can be the data (geometry) or the model parameters (illumination); all paths converge to the root, which is the output (rendered image). A path from a leaf to the root is a composition of transformations, whose derivative is given by the chain rule. If we guarantee that each node produces a differentiable transformation, the chain rule assures that the derivative of the root with respect to the leaves exists. In other words we have to make sure there is in our graph at least one way from ${\bf L}$ to ${\bf E}$ that propagates the gradients.
![Graph node and differentiability.[]{data-label="fig:nodeGraph"}](images/nodeGraph.pdf){width="0.90\columnwidth"}
The figure \[fig:nodeGraph\] illustrates the use of the chain rule to compute the derivative or to “back-propagate the gradient” as commonly said. Input data consists of variables $a$ and $b$, closer to the leaves (the illumination parameters ${\bf L}$) and output data is $c$, closer to the root (the rendered image ${\bf I}$). The node achieves the function $f$ so that $c = f(a,b)$. Assuming that we know the derivative $\partial {\bf I}/\partial c$ of the image w.r.t. the lower part of the node, we can compute the derivatives $\partial {\bf I}/\partial a$ and $\partial {\bf I}/\partial b$ w.r.t. the upper part of the node if and only if $f$ is differentiable and the partial derivatives $\partial f/\partial a$ and $\partial f/\partial b$ are known. Recursively, ${\bf I}$ is differentiable w.r.t. ${\bf L}$ if and only if each node is differentiable and we can compute the derivatives of their outputs w.r.t. their inputs. In practice, automatic differentiation is used to compute the derivatives of each node.
Differentiable Cast Shadows {#sec:differentiable}
---------------------------
Differentiating cast shadows ${\bf S}$ is far from trivial. The most common method for shadow synthesis from a point light is shadow mapping. To test if a point is shadowed, a Z-buffer (the shadow map) is rendered from the light source point of view; then the stored depth $z$ is compared to the distance $d$ from the point to the light source, to evaluate the presence of an occluder. Due to the binary nature of the occlusion test, shadow mapping is not differentiable. To make if differentiable we would have to replace the test by an activation such as $(d, z)\rightarrow\arctan(a.|z - d + b|)$, $b$ being the bias to remove shadow acne and $a$ controlling the slope of the activation function. The steeper the slope, the harder the shadow. The trade-off is the following: slope must be steep enough for the shadow not to be too smooth, but hard shadows will lead to degenerated gradients. Unfortunately we were unable to reach such threshold.
As a solution to make shadows differentiable, we explored different illumination models. Gruber [@gruber_real-time_2012; @gruber_efficient_2014; @gruber_image-space_2015] propose to encode illumination and a radiance transfer (RT) function (containing visibility) in a basis spherical harmonic (SH). Pixel brightness is then a scalar product between illumination and this RT function so shadows produced by SH are differentiable w.r.t. the light source parameters (9 parameters for 3-band SH). However as highlighted by Okabe [@okabe_spherical_2004], SH tend to recover only low-frequency components, thus is not suited to model point light sources and hard shadows due to their localized nature in the angular domain. Instead they propose a basis of Haar wavelets to model all-frequency illumination. Nevertheless, like SH, Haar wavelets only model distant lighting (illumination is reduced to 2D directions). To cope with non-distant light sources and induced lighting parallax (the shadow cast by an object depends on its position), we keep modeling illumination with 3D point light sources.
To solve the problem of shadow differentiability for non-distant light sources, we perform shadow mapping and we approximate the Jacobian matrix $\partial {\bf S}/\partial {\bf L}$ with finite differences. For instance, six shadow maps are rendered around the current light source position estimation to numerically approximate the Jacobian matrix $\partial {\bf S}/\partial {\bf L}$, that is integrated to the chained derivation as: $$\frac{\partial {\bf I}}{\partial {\bf L}} = \frac{\partial {\bf I}}{\partial {\bf I}_d}\frac{\partial {\bf I}_d}{\partial {\bf L}} + \frac{\partial {\bf I}}{\partial {\bf I}_s}\frac{\partial {\bf I}_s}{\partial {\bf L}} + ({\bf I}_d + {\bf I}_s).\frac{\partial {\bf S}}{\partial {\bf L}}.$$ Other derivatives are fast-forward: according to (\[eq:phong\]) they are found by deriving simple differentiable operations like the dot product or the element-wise multiplication. The whole graph is implemented with the automatic differentiation library Pytorch [@pytorch]. The energy (\[eq:energy1\]) is minimized via a gradient descent algorithm.
Experiments and Results {#sec:experiments}
=======================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Example of a robust estimation. Our estimation for an ideal reflectance is outperformed by [@neverova_lighting_2012; @boom2013point], but outperforms them in the case of a noisy reflectance (a) Initialization. (b) Final estimation. (c) Final estimation with noisy reflectance. (d) Observed (target) image.[]{data-label="fig:synth"}](images/synth/synth_ours_no_noise_start.png "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![Example of a robust estimation. Our estimation for an ideal reflectance is outperformed by [@neverova_lighting_2012; @boom2013point], but outperforms them in the case of a noisy reflectance (a) Initialization. (b) Final estimation. (c) Final estimation with noisy reflectance. (d) Observed (target) image.[]{data-label="fig:synth"}](images/synth/synth_ours_no_noise_output.png "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
(a) (b)
![Example of a robust estimation. Our estimation for an ideal reflectance is outperformed by [@neverova_lighting_2012; @boom2013point], but outperforms them in the case of a noisy reflectance (a) Initialization. (b) Final estimation. (c) Final estimation with noisy reflectance. (d) Observed (target) image.[]{data-label="fig:synth"}](images/synth/synth_ours_noise_output.png "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![Example of a robust estimation. Our estimation for an ideal reflectance is outperformed by [@neverova_lighting_2012; @boom2013point], but outperforms them in the case of a noisy reflectance (a) Initialization. (b) Final estimation. (c) Final estimation with noisy reflectance. (d) Observed (target) image.[]{data-label="fig:synth"}](images/synth/synth_ours_noise_target.png "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
(c) (d)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To demonstrate the robustness of the method to noisy reflectance estimation, we test it on a synthetic dataset. The dataset is composed of input images that have been rendered with Unity [@unity], from 3D models of real indoor scenes that where acquired with an RGBD camera. Images are rendered with ideal material parameters: ${\bf k}_d = {\bf k}_s = 1.0$, $\alpha = 10$ and ${\bf I}_a = 0.5$. In total, 9 scenes have been synthesized, with 6 different light source positions each, distributed around the scene to cover very different lighting conditions. For each scene, we aim to estimate the position of a single point light source. Note that we could estimate the color of the light likewise. For the sake of simplicity all images are grayscale and the intensity of the light source in our renderer is set to its true value ${\bf I}_{L} = 0.5$.
For each scene and light source position we compare our approach to state-of-the-art methods [@boom2013point; @neverova_lighting_2012]. We only focus on their light source estimation, and do not use their intrinsic image decomposition algorithm: we give their models the same material values ${\bf k}_d$, ${\bf k}_s$ and $\alpha$ as ours. The same optimization scheme is used for all methods, for the comparison to be fair: gradient descent for all, with a rate of 0.02 and a stopping condition when the relative energy change falls below $10^{-4}$. Boom ’s energy [@boom2013point] only contains a diffuse term and an ambient term, Neverova [@neverova_lighting_2012] append a specular term; we take exactly the same weights as in their paper. To be fair, the same geometry (a depth map and a normal map) is taken for all methods. In addition, we test all three models with different material parameters, to demonstrate their robustness to imperfect reflectance estimations ${\bf k}_d$ and ${\bf k}_s$. At first we try ideal reflectances (figure \[fig:synth\] (b)) — same values that were used to generate the scenes — then we try adding some fractal noise (FBM) to the reflectances in the rendering models (figure \[fig:synth\] (c)). $m$ denotes the magnitude of the added noise. In the case $m = 0$, no noise is added but the reflectance values are set to 0.5 instead of their true value 1.0. The shininess $\alpha$ is never altered. Figure \[fig:synth\_res\] shows some convergence results for various types of “estimated” reflectances.
[|l|l|c|c|c|]{} & [@boom2013point] & [@neverova_lighting_2012] & Ours\
& Average error & 0.0944 & [**0.0720**]{} & 0.0928\
no noise & Median error & 0.0792 & [**0.0552**]{} & 0.1136\
& Success rate (%) & 20.37 & [**57.41**]{} & 22.22\
& Average error & 0.2600 & 0.2379 & [**0.2100**]{}\
$m = 0.0$ & Median error & 0.2468 & 0.2266 & [**0.2111**]{}\
& Success rate (%) & 5.56 & 14.81 & [**79.63**]{}\
& Average error & 0.2433 & 0.2281 & [**0.1940**]{}\
$m = 0.1$ & Median error & 0.2429 & 0.2275 & [**0.2040**]{}\
& Success rate (%) & 3.70 & 11.11 & [**85.19**]{}\
& Average error & 0.2245 & 0.2164 & [**0.1782**]{}\
$m = 0.2$ & Median error & 0.2362 & 0.2284 & [**0.1911**]{}\
& Success rate (%) & 5.56 & 7.41 & [**87.04**]{}\
& Average error & 0.2015 & 0.1964 & [**0.1678**]{}\
$m = 0.3$ & Median error & 0.2121 & 0.2089 & [**0.1863**]{}\
& Success rate (%) & 11.11 & 12.96 & [**75.93**]{}\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![(a) Final estimation. (b) Target image. Given the limited and noisy depth information, our method cannot produce perfect shadows (red rectangles), and yet accurately estimates illumination.[]{data-label="fig:fail"}](images/synth/synth_fail_output.png "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![(a) Final estimation. (b) Target image. Given the limited and noisy depth information, our method cannot produce perfect shadows (red rectangles), and yet accurately estimates illumination.[]{data-label="fig:fail"}](images/synth/synth_fail_target.png "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
(a) (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table \[tab:results\] shows the numerical results: the average and median error on the estimation of the light source position and the success rate over the 54 experiments. Convergence is achieved in a minute in average. Our method does not distinguish in the scenario of an ideal material estimation, but systematically achieves better light source estimation in the cases of incorrect reflectance estimation. The figure \[fig:synth\] shows an example of a case where our method outperforms [@neverova_lighting_2012; @boom2013point] in the case of a noisy reflectance. We think incorrect shadows are disadvantageous in the case where an image rendered with a simple Phong model already perfectly fits the observed data. Since to be fair the same geometry information is used for all methods, the same depth map (converted to point cloud) is also used to compute the shadow maps. The resulting shadows (red rectangles in figure \[fig:fail\]) are either incomplete (only the visible depth information is used) or aliased (coarse point-based rendering is performed), which does not serve our method. However we strongly believe that the use of a full mesh would solve the problem and improve our results in the case of an ideal reflectance estimation. In other cases, the use of even imperfect shadows has been proved to be very effective.
A last set of experiments on real data was conducted to demonstrate the capability of our algorithm to find real light source positions. We used the same scenes as before but with real images as input. The figure \[fig:real\] shows the results on three of these scenes. To estimate the ambient lighting ${\bf I}_a$ and the diffuse reflectance ${\bf k}_d$, we captured each scene under what we call a pseudo-ambient illumination, that we believe minimizes the effect of the illumination and highlights the texture only. The specular reflectance ${\bf k}_s$ is set to 0. The insertion of virtual objects correctly lit by the estimated light source provides a visual clue of the correctness of the estimation.
{width="90.00000%"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="0.58\columnwidth"} {width="0.58\columnwidth"} {width="0.58\columnwidth"}
{width="0.58\columnwidth"} {width="0.58\columnwidth"} {width="0.58\columnwidth"}
{width="0.58\columnwidth"} {width="0.58\columnwidth"} {width="0.58\columnwidth"}
{width="0.58\columnwidth"} {width="0.58\columnwidth"} {width="0.58\columnwidth"}
{width="0.58\columnwidth"} {width="0.58\columnwidth"} {width="0.58\columnwidth"}
scene 4 scene 5 scene 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We presented a method to solve the problem of illumination retrieval as a continuous optimization. We perform this optimization via a completely differentiable renderer based on the Blinn-Phong model with cast shadows. We compared our differentiable renderer to state-of-the-art methods and showed it clearly outperforms them in the case of non-ideal reflectance, which is the common practical scenario. We proved that adding a differentiable shadow caster increases the robustness of the estimation. Applied on real scenes, this illumination estimation method provides a plausible light source estimate for the insertion of virtual objects to be consistent with the rest of the scene. In particular, the rendered shadows are coherent with the shadows cast by real objects.
As a future work we intend to include our differentiable renderer in an unsupervised deep learning architecture. We believe it can highly improve the training of a CNN that estimates the illumination of a scene.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The objectivity of quantum measurement is treated as an emergent phenomenon with $N$ observers who can agree to the same result of measurement, and meanwhile, they can identify their records with each other. In this many-observer world (MOW), an objective quantum measurement is dealt with as a multipartite [\[]{}$(N+1)$-body[\]]{} quantum correlation among the measured system and $N$ observers when its bipartite reductions are the same classical correlations. With this conceptual clarification, we find that, an objective quantum measurement is implemented if and only if the MOW is initially factorized in a pure state and then the total system can evolve into a generalized GHZ state with respect to the orthogonal basis preferred by each observer. Especially, such objective quantum measurement is recast in ideal classical correlation when the observer world is macroscopic for $N\rightarrow\infty$.'
author:
- 'Sheng-Wen Li'
- 'C. Y. Cai'
- 'X. F. Liu'
- 'C. P. Sun'
bibliography:
- 'Refs.bib'
title: 'Objectivity of Quantum Measurement in Many-Observer World '
---
Introduction
============
In physics, the objectivity is used to describe the observation (or measurement) without personal bias; in principle all observers should agree to the same observation about the output from an experiment or a theoretical model. In the Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics interpretation (QMI), however, the objectivity of measurement seems not to be guaranteed since a measurement by an observer could causes an dramatical change of quantum state [@joos_decoherence_2003]. This is because Copenhagen interpretation treats the measuring apparatus (or observer) as a purely classical term, and thus leads to the wave-function collapse (WFC).
Many physicists [@gell-mann_quantum_1990; @gell-mann_classical_1993; @weinberg_lectures_2012; @weinberg_quantum_2014], however, felt weird that the apparatus (or observer) is composed of indispensable ingredients in quantum prescription, but it does not abide by quantum mechanics. Therefore, the “built-in” interpretations are proposed without postulating the pure classicality of measuring apparatus joyed by the WFC, e.g., decoherence approaches [@zeh_interpretation_1970; @zurek_pointer_1981; @joos_emergence_1985; @zurek_decoherence_2003; @joos_decoherence_2003], consistent history [@griffiths_consistent_1984; @griffiths_consistent_2003], and the many worlds interpretations (MWI) [@everett_relative_1957; @dewitt_many-worlds_1973]. To go much beyond these approach, quantum mechanics even was interpreted as an effective theory coming from some underlaying theory, e.g., Bohm’s hidden variable approach [@bohm_suggested_1952; @bohm_suggested_1952-1], ’t Hooft’s deterministic and dissipative theory [@t_hooft_quantummechanical_1996; @t_hooft_quantum_1999; @sun_algebraic_2001; @liu_consequences_2001], and Adler’s trace dynamics theory [@adler_quantum_2004; @adler_generalized_1994].
In this paper, we develop a “built-in” approach for quantum measurements with many ($N$) observers that only obeys the Schödinger equation without entailing any postulation like WFC. In the many-observer world (MOW), the measurement in quantum mechanics is treated as a dynamic process to generate the same bipartite classical correlations, which can be reduced form the $(N+1)$-body correlation of the entirety formed by the measured system plus MOW. In this sense our approach does not seems much different from the quantum Darwinism approach based on the decoherence theory, in which the each independent fractions of environment can behave as an observer [@zeh_interpretation_1970; @zurek_pointer_1981; @joos_emergence_1985; @zurek_decoherence_2003; @joos_decoherence_2003], but in our approach, the objectivity of quantum measurement is rigorously clarified when we further require that the consequences of measurement by an observer can be witnessed by the others, and then different observers measuring the same object can agree to the same result.
With this rigorous clarification in basic concept, we find that if and only if the initial state of the MOW is pure state and the coupling between the system and the MOW is of non-demolition, an unitary evolution of the entirety (formed by the system plus $N$ observers) can reach a generalized GHZ state. Then, in the macroscopic limit with $N\rightarrow\infty$, its bipartite reductions become the same classical correlation with respect to the preferred basis so that an objective quantum measurement results from a dynamic process without referring the postulate of wave function collapse (WFC). This finding uncovers two facts: 1. Our approach mathematically describes the simultaneous emergence of objectivity and classicality, which is robust for the sequential measurements by different observers; it is the macroscopic characters of observers as well as the MOW that guarantee the two basis vectors of MOW correlated to different states of the system are orthogonal with each other; only when $N\rightarrow\infty$, an ideal measurement can be accomplished instantaneously; 2. Our approach are essentially “built-in” since it can not refer anything out of our quantum entirety. Here, the classical-quantum boundary distinguishing system and observers rests with the macroscopicality of MOW if it is regarded as coarse-graining of the infinitely many observers.
Quantum measurements with two or more observers
===============================================
In order to present our objective approach to measurement in quantum mechanics we revisit the QMI based on decoherence. Here, an quantum measurement or observation is completed by two steps: (S1) The non-demolition coupling of the system $S$ to the apparatus (observer) $D$ unitarily leads to a pre-measurement, a quantum entanglement between $S$ and $D$ with respect to a given basis $\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,\dots,l\}$ for the Hilbert space of $S$, and the coupling prefers the specific observable $\hat{A}$ of $S$ to be measured, where $\hat{A}|s\rangle=a_{s}|s\rangle$; (S2) The environment $E$ surrounding $S$ selects the preferred basis $|s\rangle$ so that the pre-measurement becomes a quantum measurement, which is precisely defined as a classical correlation emerging from the quantum entanglement for pre-measurement.
Let $|d\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$ be the initial states of $D$ and $E$ respectively. In measuring the system $S$ initially prepared in a superposition, the state of total system (universe ) $S+D+E$ will evolves into a partially entangled state $$|\psi\rangle=(\sum c_{s}|s\rangle\otimes|d_{s}\rangle)\otimes|e\rangle,$$ from the initial product state $|\Psi(0)=|\psi_{S}(0)\rangle\otimes|d\rangle\otimes|E\rangle$. Here, $|d_{s}\rangle=U_{s}(D)|d\rangle$ is a states of $D$ correlated to each system state $|s\rangle$ and $U_{s}(D)$ is the $S$-state dependent evolution matrix. In S2, the environment will become entangled with the system so that the total system reaches a GHZ type state $$|\Psi\rangle=\sum c_{s}|s\rangle\otimes|d_{s}\rangle\otimes|e_{s}\rangle,\label{eq:Psi_t}$$ where the environment $|e_{s}\rangle=U_{S}(E)|e\rangle$ are orthogonal with each other, i.e., $\langle e_{s}|e_{s'}\rangle=\delta_{s,s'}$. By tracing over the variable of $E$, the correlation between $S$ and $D$ occurs with the representation of the reduced density matrix $\rho_{SD}=\mathrm{Tr}_{E}|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|$, that is, $$\rho_{SD}=\sum|c_{s}|^{2}|s,d_{s}\rangle\langle s,d_{s}|,\label{eq:s-d}$$ where $|s,d_{s}\rangle=|s\rangle\otimes|d_{s}\rangle.$ The above separable state implements a quantum measurement with the help of environment $E$. Usually, we do not need to require the states $\{|d_{s}\rangle|s=1,2,\dots\}$ being orthogonal with each other. One could distinguish the systems states $\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,\dots,l\}$ so long as $\langle d_{s'}|d_{s}\rangle\neq1$, i.e, the observer’s corresponding states are not identical. Of course, an ideal quantum measurement requires the observer’s final states to be orthogonal, guaranteeing the objectivity of obtained results (we will prove this point in the following).
It is noticed from Eq.(\[eq:Psi\_t\]) that when $\{|d_{s}\rangle|s=1,2,\dots\}$ as $\{|e_{s}\rangle|s=1,2,\dots\}$ well as are orthogonal with each other, we can not mathematically distinguishes between the observers and environment since it displays a permutation symmetry for $|d_{s}\rangle$ and $|e_{s}\rangle$ exchange with each other. Thus the current decoherence approach does not clearly claim what is the boundaries among observer and the environment. With this consideration, we can replace the environment with an extra observer $D'$. Actually, Zurek has stressed many times that the environment in the decoherence approach has been recognized as a witness of the measurement, which essentially plays the role of another measuring device or observer; an large environment with redundancy of degrees of freedom can be divided into several portions, which could be regarded as observers.
With the above considerations we can define the quantum measurement with two or more observers where the total system is made up of a system $S$ and two observers $D$ and $D'$. Let $|d_{s}\rangle$ $(|d_{s}'\rangle)$ for $s=1,2,...,l(l'$) forms a basis of *$D$* ($D'$) space of the observer $1(2)$. Then a two observer-quantum measurement is implement by a tripartite decomposition $$|\Psi\rangle=\sum c_{s}|s\rangle\otimes|d_{s}\rangle\otimes|d_{s}'\rangle,$$ Due to the observer-1 measuring the system, there also exists a correlation between $S$ and $D'$ described with the reduced density matrix $\rho_{SD'}=\mathrm{Tr}_{D}|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|$, or $$\rho_{SD'}=\sum|c_{s}|^{2}|s,d_{s}'\rangle\langle s,d_{s}'|.\label{eq:s-d'}$$ if $D's$ states $\{|d_{s}\rangle|s=1,2,\dots\}$ are orthogonal with each other. If the basis vectors $|s\rangle$ of $S$ are orthogonal with each other, the two observers can compare their obtained results through a classical communication defined by the reduced density matrix $$\rho_{DD'}=\mathrm{Tr}_{S}|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|=\sum|c_{s}|^{2}|d_{s},d_{s}'\rangle\langle d_{s},d_{s}'|.\label{eq:d-d'}$$
We remark that: (1) in the above operation, taking trace implies that the Born rule has been used to do some average or coarse-graining; (2) the above arguments and the the following discussions can be extended to the situations with more than two observers, and the $N$-observer approach for quantum measurement will reveals the essential relations of the objectivity to the emergence of the classicality within the quantum world in the macroscopic limit [@sun_quantum_1993]; (3) We can use the tripartite correlations (\[eq:s-d\]), (\[eq:s-d’\]) and (\[eq:d-d’\]) to define an objective quantum measurement, and thus the non-orthogonal vectors can not be distinguished objectively. In fact, if $\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,..l\}$ were not orthogonal with each other, then there would not be perfect classical correlation like Eq.(\[eq:d-d’\]), namely, the reduced density matrix $$\tilde{\rho}_{DD'}=\rho_{DD'}+\sum_{s\neq s'}c_{s}c_{s'}^{*}|d_{s},\,d_{s'}'\rangle\langle d_{s},\,d_{s'}'|\langle s|s'\rangle$$ contains a coherent term $\tilde{\rho}_{DD'}-\rho_{DD'}$, which will blur the perfect correlation of two observers to do the mutual consulting about their observations. Thereafter we schematically illustrate a quantum entanglement (or a imperfect classical correlation) in Fig.1(a) where the correspondence of the states $|d_{s}\rangle$ to $|s\rangle$ with a circle of blurred lines. After the decoherence induced by environment or another observer, the emergent classical correlation is denoted by a circle of solid line in Fig.1(b).
{width="40.00000%"}
Objectivity of quantum measurement
==================================
Without loss of generality, we consider the objectivity in a “two-observer” measurement and the initial state is represented by a density matrices $\rho$ ($\rho$ may be mixed). We first define what is an objective quantum measurement for the case with two observers; the “many-observer” generalization is straightforward.
Let ${\cal H}_{S}$, ${\cal H}_{D}$ and ${\cal H}_{D'}$ be the Hilbert space of the system $S$ and two observers $D$ and $D'$ respectively. For a given basis vectors $\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,\dots,l\}$ of ${\cal H}_{S}$ to be measured, if the state $\rho$ of the three body entirety satisfies
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Tr}_{D'}\rho & =\sum_{s=1}^{l}|c_{s}|^{2}|s,\,d_{s}\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s}|,\label{eq:Tr-1}\\
\mathrm{Tr}_{D}\rho & =\sum_{s=1}^{l}|c_{s}|^{2}|s,\,d_{s}'\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s}'|,\label{eq:Tr-2}\\
\mathrm{Tr}_{S}\rho & =\sum_{s=1}^{l}|c_{s}|^{2}|d_{s},\,d_{s}'\rangle\langle d_{s},\,d_{s}'|,\label{eq:Tr-3}\end{aligned}$$
namely, the classical correlation of $S-D$, $S-D$’ and $D-D'$ given by the bipartite reductions of $\rho$ are the same with respect to the preferred basis $\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,\dots,l\}$, then we say the two observers can together accomplish an objective measurement or the measurement by different observers possesses an objectivity.
Intuitively, the first two lines of the above three equations show that two observers can see the same results of observation, while the correlation between $D$ and $D'$ in the third line acquires a mutual consultation for their observations. Schematically, we illustrate the quantum objectivity in the Fig.\[fig-3body\]: the overlapped areas represent the quantum entanglements pair by pair among $S$, $D$ and $D'$. In areas of $S\cap D$, $S\cap D'$ and $D\cap D'$, there exist three bipartite correlations. These diagrammatically shown results mean that in the areas $S\cap D\cap D'$, where these correlations can become perfectly classical (we will prove as follows), the two observers can see the same results and also able to compare them with each other.
In the above definition of quantum objectivity, we do not priori request that states $\{|d_{s}\rangle|s=1,2,\dots\}$, $\{|d'_{s}\rangle|s=1,2,\dots\}$ as well as $\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,\dots\}$ are orthogonal with each other. We will prove that their orthogonality can be implied by an additional requirement: by preparing the observers initially in proper states, the state of the total system will evolve into a pure state in the form of tripartite Schmidt decomposition with respect to the orthogonal states $|d_{s}\rangle$, $|d'_{s}\rangle$ and $|s\rangle$ for $s=1,2,\dots$, which gives perfect classical correlation of two parties among $s$, $D$ and $D'$ formally defined by Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\]). In this situations, the objective quantum measurement is so ideal that the maximum information can be extracted.
![Correlation of three body $S,\,D,\,D'$. The overlapped areas represents their correlation.[]{data-label="fig-3body"}](fig-SDD){width="25.00000%"}
To make the form of $\rho$ concrete as well as the interaction of $S$ with $D$ and $D$’, we will prove the following propositions.
*Proposition 1*: Satisfying Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\]), the density operator $\rho$ generally reads
$$\rho=\sum_{sr}p_{sr}|s,\,d_{s},d'_{s}\rangle\langle r,\,d_{r},d'_{r}|,\label{eq:a_39-1}$$
where $p_{ss}$$=|c_{s}|^{2}$, i.e., $$\rho=\sum|c_{s}|^{2}|s,\,d_{s},d'_{s}\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s},d'_{s}|$$ $$+\sum_{s\neq r}p_{sr}|s,\,d_{s},d'_{s}\rangle\langle r,\,d_{r},d'_{r}|,$$ For $s\neq r$, there is no any special constraints on $p_{sr}$, and they can take arbitrary complex numbers, as long as $\rho$ is positive semi-definite.
The proof of *Proposition 1* is given in the appendix A, and now we only demonstrate its implications with an example : $$\begin{gathered}
\rho=|\alpha|^{2}|0,0,0\rangle\langle0,0,0|+|\beta|^{2}|1,1,1\rangle\langle1,1,1|\\
+\xi|0,0,0\rangle\langle1,1,1|+\xi^{*}|1,1,1\rangle\langle0,0,0|\label{eq:a_39-1-1}\end{gathered}$$ Obviously, it satisfies Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\]). When $\xi=\alpha\beta^{*}$, $\rho=|\Psi\rangle\left\langle \Psi\right|$ is just the GHZ state with $|\Psi\rangle=\alpha|0,0,0\rangle+\beta|1,1,1\rangle$ and it thus implement an objective quantum measurement satisfying $\mathrm{Tr}_{x}\rho=|\alpha|^{2}|0,0\rangle\langle0,0|+|\beta|^{2}|1,1\rangle\langle1,1|$ for $x=S,D,D'$. We notice that, in this example, because $|1\rangle$ and $|0\rangle$ are orthogonal with each other, the measurement is so ideal that the pointer states can be well distinguished. However, *Proposition 1* is not specific for orthogonal states of $D$ and $D'$, but the orthogonal basis of $|d{}_{s}\rangle$ and $|d{}_{s'}\rangle$ can guarantee the perfect objectivity of the measurement as we will show as follows.
*Proposition 2*: We assume that the tripartite state Eq.(\[eq:a\_39-1\]) comes from the following unitary evolution $$\rho=U\rho(0)U^{\dagger}\equiv U[\rho_{S}(0)\otimes\rho_{DD'}(0)]U^{\dagger},$$ namely, the final state $\rho$ is the result of the dynamic evolution driven by the interaction of $S$ to $D$ and $D'$, then the objectivity of quantum measurement implies:
1\) The initial state of observer $\rho_{DD'}(0):=\rho_{D}(0)\otimes\rho_{D'}(0)$ is a pure state,
2\) $\{|s\rangle\}$, $\{|d_{s}\rangle\}$ and $\{|d_{s}'\rangle\}$ are respectively orthogonal basis sets.
*Proof*: Since Eq.(\[eq:a\_39-1\]) should apply for any initial state, we choose $\rho_{s}(0)=|s_{0}\rangle\langle s_{0}|$. In this case, we have $l=1$ and $\rho$ in Eq.(\[eq:a\_39-1\]) should only contain one term, i.e., $$\rho=|s_{0},\,d_{s_{0}},\,d_{s_{0}}'\rangle\langle s_{0},\,d_{s_{0}},\,d_{s_{0}}'|.$$ Thus, $\rho$ is a pure state and so is $\rho(0)=U^{\dagger}\rho U$. Since $\rho(0)=\rho_{s}(0)\otimes\rho_{D}(0)\otimes\rho_{D'}(0)$, its purity also implies that $\rho_{D}(0)$ and $\rho_{D'}(0)$ must be pure states.
Next we choose a pure state $\rho_{s}(0)=|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|$ as the initial state of $S$. The state of the total system $\rho$ after premeasurement, $$\rho=U|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|\otimes\rho_{DD'}(0)U^{\dagger},$$ is also pure since we have proved that $\rho_{DD'}(0)$ is a pure state. Thus $\rho$ can be rewritten as $\rho=|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|$. For a general pure state $|\Psi\rangle=\sum_{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3}}\alpha_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3}}|s_{1},d_{s_{2},}d_{s_{3}}'\rangle$ (here $\{|s_{1}\rangle\},\{|d_{s_{2}}\rangle\},\{|d_{s_{3}}'\rangle\}$ do not have to be orthogonal sets), we have $$\rho=\sum C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}|s_{1},d_{s_{2}},d_{s_{3}}\rangle\langle r_{1},d_{r_{2}},d_{r_{3}}|,$$ where $C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}=\alpha_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3}}\alpha_{r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}^{*}$. Comparing with the form of Eq.(\[eq:a\_39-1\]), we have $C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}\neq0$ only when $s_{1}=s_{2}=s_{3}$ and $r_{1}=r_{2}=r_{3}$. To satisfy this condition, the pure state $|\Psi\rangle$ must have the form of $$|\Psi\rangle=\sum_{s}c_{s}|s,d_{s},d_{s}^{\prime}\rangle.$$
Tracing over the degree of freedom of the first observer, we have $$\mathrm{Tr}_{D}|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|=\sum_{sr}c_{s}c_{r}^{*}\langle d_{r}|d_{s}\rangle|s,d_{s}^{\prime}\rangle\langle r,d_{r}^{\prime}|.$$ Comparing it with Eq.(\[eq:Tr-2\]), we obtain $$\langle d_{r}|d_{s}\rangle=\delta_{sr},$$ namely, the basis $\{|d_{s}\rangle\}$ is orthogonal. With the same reason, $\{|d_{s}'\rangle\}$ is also orthogonal. The above argument can also be used to proved that $\{|s\rangle\}$ is orthogonal.$\qquad\blacksquare$
According to *Proposition 2* proved above, to realize an objective quantum measurement we can prior request the total system is initially prepared in a pure state. Then we can explicitly determine the form of this pure state and its corresponding coupling to carry out the dynamics of the objective quantum measurement. The result can be claimed as follows.
*Proposition 3*: If and only if the pure state of the total system after a measurement is an tripartite Schmidt decomposition
$$|\Psi\rangle=\sum c_{s}|s\rangle\otimes|d_{s}\rangle\otimes|d_{s}'\rangle,\label{eq:GHZ-prop}$$
with respect to the given preferred basis $\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,\dots,l\}$ of ${\cal H}_{S}$, then it can implement an objective quantum measurement satisfying Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\]) with $\{|d_{s}\rangle|s=1,2,\dots\}$ and $\{|d'_{s}\rangle|s=1,2,\dots\}$ orthogonal with each other.
The sufficiency of the above proposition is obvious. We calculate the reduced density matrices of Eq.(\[eq:GHZ-prop\]) directly, and they do have the form of Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\]). The proof of the necessity is given in the appendix B . We remark that the above *Proposition 1* can be regarded as the generalization of *Proposition 3* into the case with the initial state being mixed where the tripartite Schmidt decomposition is replaced by the density matrix.
It follows from the above *Proposition 3* that the tripartite Schmidt decomposition of the final state is necessary and sufficient to realize an objective quantum measurement. To generate such GHZ type state from a product state with respect to the preferred basis $\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,\dots,l\}$, defined by the system Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{S}$: $\hat{H}_{S}|s\rangle=E_{s}|s\rangle$, the coupling Hamiltonian $\hat{{\cal H}}=\hat{H}_{S}+\hat{H}_{SD}+\hat{H}_{SD'}$ should be of the non-demolition type. Here, the coupling parts $\hat{H}_{SD}$ and $\hat{H}_{SD'}$ commute with each other, and $[\hat{H}_{S},\,\hat{H}_{SD}]=0,\,[\hat{H}_{S},\,\hat{H}_{SD'}]=0$,. Thus $\hat{H}_{SD}$ , $\hat{H}_{SD'}$and $\hat{H}_{S}$ have the common eigen-vectors $\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,\dots,l\}$, i.e., $$\hat{H}_{SD}|s\rangle=h_{s}(D)|s\rangle,\qquad\hat{H}_{SD'}|s\rangle=h_{s}(D')|s\rangle$$ which defined the basis vectors of $D$ and $D$’ $$\begin{aligned}
|d_{s}\rangle & =\exp[-ih_{s}(D)\,t]|d\rangle,\\
|d_{s}'\rangle & =\exp[-ih_{s}(D')\,t]|d'\rangle,\end{aligned}$$
Actually, it is shown from the above proposition and its deduction that Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\]) define a quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement, that preserve the physical integrity as well as the objectivity: If one measures the system with respect to the very preferred basis $|s\rangle$, the measurement does not change the probabilities of the system in $|s\rangle$, while only changes the off-diagonal terms of the reduced density matrix; the subsequent measurement will acquire the same probability distribution. Furthermore, to stress how the Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\]) explicitly reveals the objectivity of the quantum measurement, we consider a special case that the observer $D'$ cannot distinguish two system states $|s=1\rangle$ and $|s=2\rangle$. That means the observer has the same response for measuring the different states. Namely, the unitary transformation $U(D')$ for measuring cannot split the observer’s state according to the superpositions of $|s'=1\rangle$ and $|s'=2\rangle$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
U(D)|s'=1\rangle\otimes & |d'\rangle=|1,d'_{1}\rangle\\
U(D)|s'=2\rangle\otimes & |d'\rangle=|2,d'_{1}\rangle\end{aligned}$$ It leads to the tripartite Schmidt decomposition $$|\Psi\rangle=(c_{1}|1,\,d_{1}\rangle+c_{2}|2,\,d_{2}\rangle)\otimes|d_{1}'\rangle+\sum_{s=3}^{l}c_{s}|s,\,d_{s},\,d_{s}'\rangle.$$ which gives the reduced density matrix of $S$ with $D$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{SD} & =|c_{1}|^{2}|1,\,d_{1}\rangle\langle1,\,d_{1}|+|c_{2}|^{2}|2,\,d_{2}\rangle\langle2,\,d_{2}|\\
& +c_{1}c_{2}^{*}|1,\,d_{1}\rangle\langle2,\,d_{2}|+\sum_{s=3}^{l}|c_{s}|^{2}|s,\,d_{s}\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s}|\end{aligned}$$ This implies that without the witness ( distinguishing states 1 and 2 ) of $D'$, it is impossible to realize a perfect classical correlation between $S$ and $D$.
Our proposed objectivity of quantum measurement is actually equivalent to the unobservability of the world splitting in MWI. In DeWitt’s model [@dewitt_many-worlds_1973] of MWI , the measurement with two observers can be described by a final state $$|\Psi\rangle=\sum_{s}c_{s}|s\rangle|A_{1}-s\rangle\otimes|A_{2}-s,\,B-gA_{1}\rangle$$ where $|s\rangle$ can refer to a high spin state in the generalized Stern-Gerlach experiment, which moves the pointer state of the observer-1 from $|A_{1}\rangle$ to $|A_{1}-s\rangle$. The second observer has two parts of memory, and first part $A_{2}$ records the high spin by moving from $|A_{2}\rangle$ to $|A_{2}-s\rangle$ while the second part B measures the first observer by moving from $|B\rangle$ to $|B-gA_{1}\rangle$. We can imagine $|A_{1}\rangle$ and $|B\rangle$ are the spatial wave packets center in $A$ and $B$ respectively (see Fig.\[fig-split\]). According to DeWitt , who used the “many-worlds” to vividly rename Hugh Everett’s “relative state formulation”, when wave packets $|A_{1}-s\rangle$ ( $|A_{2}-s\rangle$ ) are so narrow that $\langle A_{j}-s'|A_{j}-s\rangle\approx\delta_{ss'}$ for $j=1,2$ , the pointer state $|A_{j}-s\rangle$ can distinguish different spins so that the observer ($j=D,D'$) in the $s$-branch $|s\rangle|A_{1}-s\rangle\otimes|A_{2}-s,\,B-gA\rangle$ can not see $|s'\rangle|A_{1}-s'\rangle\otimes|A_{2}-s',\,B-gA_{1}\rangle$ for $s\neq s'$.
![The measurement of the particle spin. The spatial wave packet is utilized as the apparatus. The spin degree of freedom is entangled with the spatial wave packet, and the “world” is splitted into many branches.[]{data-label="fig-split"}](fig-split){width="35.00000%"}
In our approach of objective quantum measurement, when the width of the wave packets is very small, the vectors represented by narrow wave packets will be orthogonal with each other. In this sense, we can obtain the classical correlations, such as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(s,A_{1},A_{2}) & =\sum_{s}|c_{s}|^{2}|s,A_{1}-s,A_{2}-s\rangle\langle s,A_{1}-s,A_{2}-s|\\
\rho(s,A_{i}) & =\sum_{s}|c_{s}|^{2}|s,A_{i}-s\rangle\langle s,A_{i}-s|,\qquad(i=1,2)\end{aligned}$$ These classical correlation clearly defines an objective quantum measurement of high spin. It is worthy to point out that the above arguments of objective measurement could not refer to the MWI, but we can gain the same conclusion as that in MWI.
Information transfer, locality recovery and orthogonality
==========================================================
We can examine the significance of the above propositions from the point of view from information theory.
We first notice that *Proposition 1* is not specific for orthogonal states, and the non-orthogonal $|d{}_{s}\rangle$ and $|d{}_{s'}\rangle$ can not perfectly guarantee the objectivity of the measurement. Actually, the quantum measurement can be understood as a procedure to extract information from the measured system by observer, and an ideal measurement can maximize the the extracted information. Here, for a reduced state $$\rho_{s}=\mathrm{Tr}_{DD'}(\rho)=\sum_{s=1}^{l}|c_{s}|^{2}|s\rangle\langle s|$$ of system, the information entropy of the measurement $$H(\rho_{s}|S)=-\sum\langle s|\rho_{s}|s\rangle\ln\langle s|\rho_{s}|s\rangle=-\sum|c_{s}|^{2}\ln|c_{s}|^{2}$$ is defined [@everett_relative_1957; @dewitt_many-worlds_1973] with respect to a given orthogonal basis $S=\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,\dots N\}$. When we treat the measurement as a special unitary evolution $\rho(t)=U(t)\rho(0)U^{\dagger}(t)$. Then, the measurement must decrease information entropy, i.e., $H(\rho_{s}(t)|S)\leq H(\rho_{s}(0)|S)$. The information transferred can be qualified by the mutual information, e.g., $$I_{S:D}=H(\rho_{s})+H(\rho_{d})-H(\rho_{sd})$$ where $H(\rho)=-\mathrm{Tr}(\rho\ln\rho)$. For the density matrix to guarantee the quantum objectivity we have $$I(SD;t)=H(\rho_{d})$$ for $\rho_{d}=\sum|c_{s}|^{2}|d_{s}\rangle\langle d_{s}|$ . According to Hugh Everett and others, the maximum quantum information can transfer from the system to the observers when $$I(SD;t)=H(\rho_{s}(0)|S)$$
Now we show that the quantum information transferred from the system to the observers is maximized only when $|d{}_{s}\rangle$($|d{}_{s'}\rangle$) are orthogonal; Furthermore, only when the initial state of the total system is a factorization $$\rho(0)=\sum_{s,r}c_{s}c_{r}^{*}|s\rangle\langle r|\otimes\rho_{D}\otimes\rho_{D'}$$ then $p_{sr}$$=$ $c_{s}$$c_{r}^{*}$, i.e., the final state of the total system is a pure state – a tripartite Schmidt decomposition $$|\Psi\rangle=\sum c_{s}|s\rangle\otimes|d_{s}\rangle\otimes|d_{s}'\rangle,\label{eq:GHZ-prop-1}$$ Actually, for information transferring, we first calculate $$I(SD;t)=-\mathrm{Tr}_{D}\rho_{d}\ln\rho_{d}=\sum_{d}\left\langle d|\rho_{d}\ln\rho_{d}|d\right\rangle$$ $$=\sum_{s}|c_{s}|^{2}\sum_{d}\langle d|d_{s}\rangle\langle d_{s}|\ln\rho_{d}|d\rangle=\sum_{s}|c_{s}|^{2}\langle d_{s}|\ln\rho_{d}|d_{s}\rangle$$ that is $\langle d_{s}|\ln\rho_{d}|d_{s}\rangle=|c_{s}|^{2}$.
This point can be proved with the help of the following theorem [@nielsen_quantum_2000]: for any density matrix $\rho=\sum p_{i}\rho_{i}$, we have $$H(\rho)\le\sum_{i}p_{i}\ln p_{i}+\sum_{i}p_{i}H(\rho_{i}),$$ where the equality holds if and only if the support of $\rho_{i}$are orthogonal to each other.
Since $\{|s\rangle\}$ is an orthogonal basis, we have $H(\rho_{s})=H(\rho_{sd})=\sum|c_{s}|^{2}\ln|c_{s}|^{2}$, and thus the mutual information is $I_{S:D}=H(\rho_{s})+H(\rho_{d})-H(\rho_{sd})=H(\rho_{d})$. For $\rho_{d}=\sum|c_{s}|^{2}|d_{s}\rangle\langle d_{s}|$, it follows from the above theorem that $$\begin{aligned}
H(\rho_{d}) & \le\sum_{s}|c_{s}|^{2}\ln|c_{s}|^{2}+\sum_{s}|c_{s}|^{2}H(|d_{s}\rangle\langle d_{s}|)\\
& =\sum_{s}|c_{s}|^{2}\ln|c_{s}|^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where the equality holds if and only if $|d_{s}\rangle$ are orthogonal to each other. Therefore, the mutual information $I_{S:D}$ achieves its maximum only when $\{|d_{s}\rangle\}$ is an orthogonal set.
Next we needs to re-examine whether or not there still exist some curious quantum properties predicted according to wave function collapse or its based protocols in quantum information. The new starting point is our objective definition of quantum measurement. For example, can an objective quantum measurement lead to the indistinguishability of the non-orthogonal states? If we want to “distinguish” two non-orthogonal states $|s_{1}\rangle$ and $|s_{2}\rangle$. Now we refine the performance to “distinguish” $|s_{1}\rangle$ and $|s_{2}\rangle$ as an objective quantum measurement to determine $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$. Generally, suppose that the state we need to “distinguish” is $|\varphi\rangle=\sum c_{s}|s\rangle$, where $\{|s\rangle\}$ forms a basis (need not be orthogonal) of $S$, and the initial state of the two observers together is $|T\rangle=$$|d,d'\rangle$. Thus, the initial state of the total system reads $$|\Psi(0)\rangle=\sum_{s}c_{s}|s\rangle\otimes|T\rangle.$$ The total system is isolated, and its time evolution obeys quantum mechanics, thus the measurement process can be described by an unitary evolution: $$|\Psi\rangle=U|\Psi(0)\rangle=\sum_{s}c_{s}|\phi_{s}\rangle,$$ where $|\phi_{s}\rangle=U|s\rangle\otimes|T\rangle$. We hope $|\Psi\rangle$ can satisfy the three requirements of objectivity by Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\]). It follows from $\mathrm{Tr}_{D'}|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|=\sum_{s=1}^{l}|c_{s}|^{2}|s,\,d_{s}\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s}|,$ that $$\rho_{s}=\mathrm{Tr}_{DD'}|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|=\sum_{s=1}^{l}|c_{s}|^{2}|s\rangle\langle s|\label{prove_2_12-2}$$
According to the Born rule, the reduced state of $S$ after the measurement reads as $\rho_{s}=\mathrm{tr}_{D}|\Psi'\rangle\langle\Psi'|$, i.e., $$\rho_{s}=\sum_{ss'}c_{s}c_{s'}^{*}\mathrm{Tr}_{D}|\phi_{s}\rangle\langle\phi_{s'}|.\label{prove_2_12}$$ If only the coefficients of $c_{s}c_{s'}^{*}$ with $s\not=s'$ in Eq.(\[prove\_2\_12\]) vanish, that is, $$\mathrm{Tr}_{DD'}|\phi_{s}\rangle\langle\phi_{s'}|=\delta_{ss'}A_{s}.\label{prov_2_13}$$ we can reach the form $$\rho_{s}=\sum_{ss'}|c_{s}|^{2}\mathrm{Tr}_{DD'}|\phi_{s}\rangle\langle\phi_{s}|.\label{prove_2_12-1}$$
However, we will point out that if $|s\rangle$ and $|s'\rangle$ are non-orthogonal to each other, the above requirement Eq.(\[prov\_2\_13\]) could not be satisfied. In fact, if we suppose Eq.(\[prov\_2\_13\]) holds, we have $$\langle\phi_{s'}|\phi_{s}\rangle=\mathrm{Tr}_{S}\mathrm{Tr}_{DD'}|\phi_{s}\rangle\langle\phi_{s'}|=\mathrm{Tr}_{S}(\delta_{ss'}A_{s})=0,$$ since $\delta_{ss'}=0$ for $s\not=s'$. On the other hand, as a unitary evolution conserves the inner product, we have $$\langle\phi_{s'}|\phi_{s}\rangle=\langle s'|\otimes\langle D|\cdot|s\rangle\otimes|D\rangle=\langle s'|s\rangle\not=0,\label{prov_2_15}$$ which leads to a conflict and thus proves our claim. Furthermore, Eq.(\[prov\_2\_15\]) tells us that the inner product, $\langle\phi_{s'}|\phi_{s}\rangle$, does not depend on the measuring apparatus, or observers, or environments. Thus, we also exclude the possibility that $\langle\phi_{s'}|\phi_{s}\rangle$ may tend to zero under the thermodynamic limit.
Finally,we point out that the above definition of quantum measurement refined with objectivity is actually the celebration of the significance implied by DeWitt’s model as well as the argument about quantum non-locality given in Ref.[@tipler_quantum_2014]. In Ref.[@tipler_quantum_2014], Frank Tipler associated measurement of two local spins in a Bell state $|B\rangle=(|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle-|\downarrow\uparrow\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ with two remote local unitary transformations $U_{x}$ and $U_{y}$ at two positions $x$ and $y$ that are space-like separated, so that $[U_{x},\,U_{y}]=0$. Let $|D(x)\rangle$ and $|D(y)\rangle$ be the local state of the observers at $x$ and $y$. Then we first perform the local measurement $U_{x}$ and then carry out $U_{y}$. This performance gives $$\begin{aligned}
U_{x}U_{y}|B\rangle\otimes|D(x),\,D(y)\rangle & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big(|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle\otimes|D_{\uparrow}(x),\,D_{\downarrow}(y)\rangle\\
& -|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle\otimes|D_{\uparrow}(x),\,D_{\downarrow}(y)\rangle\big)\end{aligned}$$ The performance of measurement about spins in reversed order can also result the same result, that is, $U_{x}U_{y}|B,\,D(x),\,D(y)\rangle=U_{y}U_{x}|B,\,D(x),\,D(y)\rangle$. This means that the effects of two measurements are not correlated causally and there does not exist causality of two measurements. According to Tipler, there needs the third observer who can carry out the third measurement $U(x,y)$ to compare the two local observations, and tell them whether or not they measured the spin in the same direction. Here, as we stressed, it is just this measurement that induces the classical correlations of the local spin states and local observers without any long range correlation-quantum non-locality. Let $$\begin{aligned}
U(x,y)|D_{\uparrow/\downarrow}(x)\rangle\otimes|D\rangle & =|D_{\uparrow/\downarrow}(x)\rangle\otimes|D(\uparrow/\downarrow)\rangle\\
U(x,y)|D_{\uparrow/\downarrow}(y)\rangle\otimes|D\rangle & =|D_{\uparrow/\downarrow}(y)\rangle\otimes|D(\uparrow/\downarrow)\rangle\end{aligned}$$ where $|D\rangle$ is the initial state of the third observer and $|D_{\uparrow/\downarrow}\rangle$ are its state correlated to $|D_{\uparrow/\downarrow}(\alpha)\rangle\,(\alpha=x,y)$. Then it follows from $|\Psi\rangle=U(x,y)\,U(x)\,U(y)|B\rangle\otimes|D(x),\,D(y)\rangle\otimes|D(x,y)\rangle$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho & =\mathrm{Tr}_{3}[|\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|]=\frac{1}{2}\big[|\uparrow D_{\uparrow}(x);\downarrow D_{\downarrow}(y)\rangle\langle\uparrow D_{\uparrow}(x);\downarrow D_{\downarrow}(y)|\\
& +|\downarrow D_{\downarrow}(x);\uparrow D_{\uparrow}(y)\rangle\langle\downarrow D_{\downarrow}(x);\uparrow D_{\uparrow}(y)|\big]\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $|\uparrow D_{\uparrow};\downarrow D_{\downarrow}\rangle=|\uparrow\downarrow\rangle\otimes|D_{\uparrow}(x),\,D_{\downarrow}(y)\rangle$ *et al*, and $\mathrm{Tr}_{3}[\dots]$ means taking trace over the third observer. Obviously, due to the third observer witnessing the two local measurements at $x$ and $y$ and then results in a classical correlation, where the occurrence of the local classical correlation $|D_{\uparrow}(x)\rangle$ and $|\uparrow_{x}\rangle$ is obviously independent of the measurement made by the observer at $y$, and vice versa.
Classicality from macroscopicity: central spin model
====================================================
In the above arguments we use the two observer measurement as an illustration. We have shown that only if $|d_{s}\rangle$ and $|d'_{s}\rangle$ for different $s$ are orthogonal with each other, the quantum measurement is objective. Now we will prove that if they are not orthogonal with each other, we can still implements the objective quantum measurement by using $N$ non-ideal observers in the macroscopic limit that $N\rightarrow\infty$. This means that the classicality of quantum measurement emerges from the macroscopicity of the observer if we coarse-grain the collection of these $N$ observers as two macroscopic observers. We have perceived that Copenhagen QMI was challenged by asking where is the classical-quantum boundary, e.g., the Schrödinger’s cat paradox. The following argument will answer this question in a natural way and explain what is the substantial difference between a quantum system to be measured and its observer, both of which still abode to the basic of quantum mechanics.
We need not to require a strict objectivity that $N$ observers $D^{(1)},\,D^{(2)},\dots,\,D^{(N)}$ obtain the same result when they simultaneously measure the system to form entanglement $$|\Psi\rangle=\sum_{s}c_{s}|s\rangle\otimes\prod_{j=1}^{N}|d_{s}^{(j)}\rangle,\label{eq:d^(n)}$$ where the single particle states $|d_{s}^{(j)}\rangle\,(s=1,2,\dots,l_{j})$ are orthogonal with each other. Now we only consider the generic case that $|\langle d_{s}^{(j)}|d_{s'}^{(j)}\rangle|<1$. For very large $N$, we can make a coarse-graining for the set of observers $D=\{D^{(1)},\,D^{(2)},\dots,\,D^{(N)}\}$ into two macroscopic sets, $D=\{D^{(1)},\,D^{(2)},\dots,\,D^{(n)}\}$ and $D'=\{D^{(n+1)},\,D^{(2)},\dots,\,D^{(N)}\}$. If $n$ is also macroscopically large, the $N+1$-particle state (\[eq:d\^(n)\]) can resort to the Schmidt decomposition (\[eq:GHZ-prop\]) by writing down $$|d_{s}\rangle=\prod_{j=1}^{n}\otimes|d_{s}^{(j)}\rangle,\qquad|d_{s}\rangle=\prod_{j=n+1}^{N}\otimes|d_{s}^{'(j)}\rangle$$ Then it is easy to show that, in most cases $$\begin{aligned}
\langle d_{s}|d_{k}\rangle & =\prod_{j=1}^{n}\langle d_{s}^{(j)}|d_{k}^{(j)}\rangle\rightarrow0\nonumber \\
\langle d_{s}'|d_{k}'\rangle & =\prod_{j=n+1}^{N}\langle d_{s}^{(j)}|d_{k}^{(j)}\rangle\rightarrow0\label{eq:inner-prod}\end{aligned}$$ in the macroscopic limit both $n\rightarrow\infty$ and $N\rightarrow\infty$. Therefore, with coarse-graining, we reduce the quantum measurement with $N$ observers, into the two-observer measurement. It is worthy to emphasize the objectivity of $N$-observer measurement is guaranteed by the macroscopicity of the two “effective” observers $D$ and $D'$ from coarse-graining, which results in Eq.(\[eq:inner-prod\]), and in turn gives a perfect tripartite classical correlation. In this sense, we can safely say the objectivity emerges in a quantum word because its observers possess the macroscopicity in large $N$ limit, namely, the observers consists of macroscopically many blocks, each of which behaves as an observer, and need not to entangle with the system perfectly. In short, the difference between the system and observer lies on the macroscopicity of the observers.
In the following, we use a central spin model to demonstrate the objectivity in quantum measurement [@zurek_pointer_1981; @sun_quantum_1993; @quan_decay_2006]. We show that the condition of objectivity is more feasible to be satisfied when the measuring devices consist macroscopically many degrees of freedom.
The quantum system to be measured is a central spin which has two states $|\mathsf{e}\rangle$ and $|\mathsf{g}\rangle$. The central spin is surrounded by another $N$ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particles, and the Hamiltonian of the total system reads $$\hat{{\cal H}}=E|\mathsf{e}\rangle\langle\mathsf{e}|+\sum_{i=1}^{N}(\omega_{i}\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{z}+g_{i}\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{x})+|\mathsf{e}\rangle\langle\mathsf{e}|\sum_{i=1}^{N}\eta_{i}\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{z},$$ where $\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{z}=|\uparrow\rangle_{i}\langle\uparrow|-|\downarrow\rangle_{i}\langle\downarrow|$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{z}=|\uparrow\rangle_{i}\langle\downarrow|+|\downarrow\rangle_{i}\langle\uparrow|$ are the Pauli matrices for the $i$-th spin.
![Central spin model. The spin environment is divided into two parts as two macroscopic devices $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$. In the splitted two worlds after measurement, even if the states of each single spin are not orthogonal $\langle\uparrow|[R_{i}^{(\mathsf{g})}(t)]^{\dagger}\cdot R_{i}^{(\mathsf{e})}(t)|\uparrow\rangle\protect\neq0$, the two states of $D_{1(2)}$ are still nearly orthogonal, i.e., $\langle D^{(\mathsf{g})}(t)|D^{(\mathsf{e})}(t)\rangle\simeq0$ [\[]{}see Eq.(\[eq:Losecho\])[\]]{}, which guarantees the objectivity of the macroscopic measurements by $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$.[]{data-label="fig-centralspin"}](fig-spin){width="48.00000%"}
The $N$ spins in the “environment” are separated into two groups denoted as $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ (see Fig.\[fig-centralspin\]), which contains $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ spins respectively (In the above discussions, we have$N_{1}+N_{2}=N$). We have their Hamiltonians as, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_{D1} & =\sum_{i=1}^{N_{1}}(\omega_{1,i}\hat{\sigma}_{1,i}^{z}+g_{1,i}\hat{\sigma}_{1,i}^{x}),\\
\hat{H}_{D2} & =\sum_{j=1}^{N_{2}}(\omega_{2,j}\hat{\sigma}_{2,j}^{z}+g_{2,j}\hat{\sigma}_{2,j}^{x}).\end{aligned}$$ We regard $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ as two macroscopic apparatus, each of which contains many even infinite degrees of freedom. An objective measurement requires that each two parts of $S$, $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ must be classically correlated, as we have discussed above. We will see that this is easily guaranteed by the macroscopicity of the two apparatus $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$.
We assume that the initial state of the total system is $$|\Psi(0)\rangle=\big(c_{\mathsf{g}}|\mathsf{g}\rangle+c_{\mathsf{e}}|\mathsf{e}\rangle\big)\otimes|D_{1}\rangle\otimes|D_{2}\rangle,$$ where $|D_{1,2}\rangle$ are the initial state of the apparatus, and $$|D_{1}\rangle=\bigotimes_{i=1}^{N_{1}}|\uparrow\rangle,\quad|D_{2}\rangle=\bigotimes_{j=1}^{N_{2}}|\uparrow\rangle.$$ The total system evolves according to $U(t)=\exp[-i\hat{{\cal H}}t]$, and reaches $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi(t)\rangle= & c_{\mathsf{g}}|\mathsf{g}\rangle\otimes|D_{1}^{(\mathsf{g})}(t)\rangle\otimes|D_{2}^{(\mathsf{g})}(t)\rangle\nonumber \\
& +c_{\mathsf{e}}e^{-iEt}|\mathsf{e}\rangle\otimes|D_{1}^{(\mathsf{e})}(t)\rangle\otimes|D_{2}^{(\mathsf{e})}(t)\rangle,\label{eq:Psi-spin}\end{aligned}$$ where $|D_{1,2}^{(\mathsf{e},\mathsf{g})}(t)\rangle$ are the corresponding states of the two macroscopic apparatus, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
|D_{1}^{(\alpha)}(t)\rangle & =\bigotimes_{i=1}^{N_{1}}R_{1,i}^{(\alpha)}(t)|\uparrow\rangle,\nonumber \\
|D_{2}^{(\alpha)}(t)\rangle & =\bigotimes_{j=1}^{N_{2}}R_{2,j}^{(\alpha)}(t)|\uparrow\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ for $\alpha=\mathsf{g},\,\mathsf{e}$, and $R_{n,i}^{(\alpha)}(t)=\exp[-iH_{n,i}^{(\alpha)}t]$ is a rotating operator for the $i$-th spin of $D_{n}$ generated from the single effective Hamiltonians $$\begin{aligned}
H_{d,i}^{(\mathsf{g})} & =\omega_{n,i}\hat{\sigma}_{n,i}^{z}+g_{n,i}\hat{\sigma}_{n,i}^{x},\nonumber \\
H_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{e})} & =(\omega_{n,i}+\eta_{n,i})\hat{\sigma}_{n,i}^{z}+g_{n,i}\hat{\sigma}_{n,i}^{x}.\end{aligned}$$
By the requirement for the objectivity of measurement, the tripartite state Eq.(\[eq:Psi-spin\]) must have a GHZ form Eq.(\[eq:GHZ-prop\]) to guarantee that each pair of $S$, $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ are classically correlated [\[]{}see Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\])[\]]{}. This requirement is satisfied if and only if the Loschmidt echo $E_{L}^{(n)}:=\left|\langle D_{n}^{(\mathsf{g})}(t)|D_{n}^{(\mathsf{e})}(t)\rangle\right|=0$ for $n=1,\,2$ [@quan_decay_2006]. In the above example, it has a factorized form,
$$\begin{aligned}
E_{L}^{(n)}:= & \left|\langle D_{n}^{(\mathsf{g})}(t)|D_{n}^{(\mathsf{e})}(t)\rangle\right|=\prod_{i=1}^{N_{n}}\left|\langle\uparrow|[R_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{g})}(t)]^{\dagger}\cdot R_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{e})}(t)|\uparrow\rangle\right|\nonumber \\
= & \prod_{i=1}^{N_{n}}(1-\sin^{2}\mu_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{e})}t\cdot\sin^{2}\phi_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{e})})(1-\sin^{2}\mu_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{g})}t\cdot\sin^{2}\phi_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{g})}),\label{eq:Losecho}\end{aligned}$$
where we denote $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\mu_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{e})} & =[(\omega_{n,i}+\eta_{n,i})^{2}+g_{n,i}^{2}]^{\frac{1}{2}},\quad & \sin\phi_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{e})}=\frac{g_{n,i}}{\mu_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{e})}},\nonumber \\
\mu_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{g})} & =[\omega_{n,i}^{2}+g_{n,i}^{2}]^{\frac{1}{2}}, & \sin\phi_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{g})}=\frac{g_{n,i}}{\mu_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{g})}}.\end{aligned}$$
In the above product Eq.(\[eq:Losecho\]), each term is no greater that $1$. Therefore, in the thermodynamic limit $N_{1,2}\rightarrow\infty$, i.e., both $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ consist infinite spins the Loschmidt echo automatically decrease to zero within a quite short time (see Fig.\[fig-decoherence\]). When $F\simeq0$, each two of the tripartite system $S$, $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$, become classically correlated as we mentioned before [\[]{}see Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\])[\]]{}. At this moment, we can say that the measurement results obtained by $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ are objective, because they can check their results with each other and reach an agreement.
It should be noticed that in the above example, even if the states of each single spin are not orthogonal $\langle\uparrow|[R_{i}^{(\mathsf{g})}(t)]^{\dagger}\cdot R_{i}^{(\mathsf{e})}(t)|\uparrow\rangle\neq0$, the two states of $D_{1(2)}$ are still nearly orthogonal, i.e., $\langle D_{n}^{(\mathsf{g})}(t)|D_{n}^{(\mathsf{e})}(t)\rangle\simeq0$ [\[]{}see Eq.(\[eq:Losecho\])[\]]{}, and this orthogonality naturally becomes exact in the thermodynamic limit $N_{1,2}\rightarrow\infty$. That means, the objectivity of the measurement is guaranteed by the macroscopicity of the measuring devices $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$.
![The decay of the Loschmidt echo $E_{L}$ with time $t$ [\[]{}see Eq.(\[eq:Losecho\])[\]]{}. We set $\mu_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{g})}=1$ as the energy unit. Other parameters are $\mu_{n,i}^{(\mathsf{e})}=1.2$, $g_{n,i}=0.2$. When the particle number $N$ becomes large, The Loschmidt echo $E_{L}$ quickly decays to zero, and only revivals at certain time, which becomes negligible when $N\rightarrow\infty$. []{data-label="fig-decoherence"}](fig-deco){width="45.00000%"}
Conclusion and remarks
=======================
In this paper, we shows that, when two (or more) observers classically correlated to the same preferred basis of the system, the quantum measurement is thought to be objective. For a two(or many)-observer quantum measurement, two observers are also required to compare their observations with each other. This comparison is implemented by some communication, which is also exactly described as the inter-observer classical correlations. By refining quantum measurement by stressing objectivity, the quantum puzzles, such as the EPR paradox, *et al*, no longer emerge as the very nature of quantum mechanics. We have presented three mathematical propositions to support our conclusion. Here, the quantum locality is restored by modeling two/many observers according to quantum mechanics without any classical ingredient needed.
The emergence of classicality in quantum measurement is closely related to the defined objectivity we require for refining quantum measurement. The classical reality also is clearly described by the triple correlation in avoiding the abstract concepts of information theory. It is selected by the environment from the quantum world to survive as an objective existence. In our approach we only single out the measured system from the quantum world, and all others including observers and environments are placed coequally. Undoubtably, these findings shows that some of quantum puzzles only due to the vague definition of measurement in quantum mechanics, which was obviously blurred by some purely imaginary issues, such as the wave function collapse. In this sense our approach is just accommodated by MWI where each world branch exists democratically, and thus each object in this branch also exists equally.
These arguments in favor of the hypothesis that the observers and environments are macroscopic. We have illustrated this observation with the central spin model. Here, we can also envision the $N$-observer world is grouped as one (or several) macroscopic observer(s), each of which also contains macroscopically many individuals and possess effectively orthogonal basis. This idea well accommodates to the quantum Darwinism interpretation (QDI) of quantum mechanics by Zurek et al [@zurek_decoherence_2003; @ollivier_objective_2004]. Here, the environment with redundant memory can behaves an witness to acquire the pointer states without disturbing the classical reality of these states. One can regard our macroscopic observer as the redundant environment in QDI, and only certain stable states can be measured repeatedly. Those states with more quantum coherence are obviously unstable in this environment. In this means, the QDI actually gives a preliminary supporting evidence for our approach.
Acknowledgement – This work is supported by the National 973-program (Grants No. 2014CB921403 and No.2012CB922104) the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No.11421063 and No.11447609). We thank S. M. Fei (Capital Normal University) and D. L. Zhou (Institute of Physics, CAS) for helpful discussions. CPS also acknowledges Prof. Jürgen Jost for his kindly invitation to visit Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences where the manuscript finally was accomplished.
Requirement of objectivity
==========================
*Proposition*: If the two-body reduced density operators of the universe (composed by $S$, $D$ and $D'$) satisfies
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Tr}_{D'}\rho & =\sum_{s=1}^{l}|c_{s}|^{2}|s,\,d_{s}\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s}|,\label{eq:a_36}\\
\mathrm{Tr}_{D}\rho & =\sum_{s=1}^{l}|c_{s}|^{2}|s,\,d_{s}'\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s}'|,\label{eq:a_37}\\
\mathrm{Tr}_{S}\rho & =\sum_{s=1}^{l}|c_{s}|^{2}|d_{s},\,d_{s}'\rangle\langle d_{s},\,d_{s}'|,\label{eq:a_38}\end{aligned}$$
where $\{|s\rangle\}$, $\{|d_{s}\rangle\}$ and $\{|d_{s}'\rangle\}$ are linearly independent vector sets (not necessarily orthogonal) for $\mathcal{H}_{S}$, $\mathcal{H}_{D}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{D'}$ respectively. Then the density operator of the universe $\rho$ must have the from of $$\rho=\sum_{s,r}p_{sr}|s,\,d_{s},\,d_{s}'\rangle\langle r,\,d_{r},\,d_{r}'|.\label{eq:a_39}$$
To prove this proposition, we first introduce the following lemma:
*Lemma*: If $A$ is a positive $n\times n$ matrix and $B$ is a nonnegative $n\times n$ matrix, and $\mathrm{Tr}AB=0$, then $B=0$.
*Proof*: For $B\geqslant0$, we choose $B$ diagnosable in a given orthogonal base $\{|n\rangle\}$, i.e., $$B|n\rangle=\lambda_{n}|n\rangle.$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \mathrm{Tr}AB=\sum_{n}\langle n|AB|n\rangle\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{n}\lambda_{n}\langle n|A|n\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Since $B\geqslant0$ implies $\lambda_{n}\geqslant0$ and $A>0$ implies $\langle n|A|n\rangle>0$, we only have $\lambda_{n}=0$ so that $B=0$. $\blacksquare$
Now we come back to prove the proposition. Let vector sets $\{|s\rangle\}$, $\{|d_{s}\rangle\}$ and $\{|d_{s}'\rangle\}$ be the basis for $\mathcal{H}_{S}$, $\mathcal{H}_{D}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{D'}$ respectively. Then$\rho$ can be generally written as $$\rho=\sum C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}|s_{1},\,d_{s_{2}},\,d_{s_{3}}^{\prime}\rangle\langle r_{1},\,d_{r_{2}},\,d_{r_{3}}'|,$$ and the reduced state of the $SD$ subsystem is $$\mathrm{Tr}_{D'}\rho=\sum C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}\langle d_{r_{3}}'|d_{s_{3}}^{\prime}\rangle|s_{1},\,d_{s_{2}}\rangle\langle r_{1},\,d_{r_{2}}|.$$ Compare this equation with Eq.(\[eq:a\_36\]), we have $$\sum_{s_{3}r_{3}}C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}\langle d_{r_{3}}'|d_{s_{3}}^{\prime}\rangle=\delta_{s_{1}r_{1}}\delta_{s_{2}r_{2}}\delta_{s_{1}s_{2}}\alpha_{s_{1}}$$ and $\alpha_{j}=|c_{j}|^{2}$ for $l>j$; and $\alpha_{j}=0$ when $j>l$. Thus, hereafter we can restrict our analysis to the generic case $1\le s_{1},s_{2},s_{3}\le l$.
We define the $l\times l$ square matrices $\mathbf{C}(s_{1}s_{2};r_{1}r_{2})$ by $$[\mathbf{C}(s_{1}s_{2};r_{1}r_{2})]_{s_{3},r_{3}}=C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}},$$ and another $l\times l$ matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is defined by $\mathbf{A}_{s_{3}r_{3}}=\langle d_{r_{3}}'|d_{s_{3}}^{\prime}\rangle$. Notice that $\mathbf{A}$ is positive. For $\forall\,|\psi\rangle=\sum\lambda_{s}|d_{s}'\rangle$, we have $0\le\langle\psi|\psi\rangle=\sum_{s,r}\lambda_{r}^{*}\cdot\mathbf{A}_{rs}\cdot\lambda_{s}$, and thus the above equations gives $$\mathrm{Tr}[\mathbf{C}(s_{1}s_{2};r_{1}r_{2})\mathbf{A}]=\delta_{s_{1}r_{1}}\delta_{s_{2}r_{2}}\delta_{s_{1}s_{2}}\alpha_{s_{1}}\mathbf{1}.$$
For $s_{1}=r_{1}$ and $s_{2}=r_{2}$, the matrix $\mathbf{C}(s_{1}s_{2};s_{1}s_{2})$ is non-negative since it is a principal sub-matrix of the non-negative matrix $C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}$. Thus, when $s_{1}\not=s_{2}$, we have $\mathrm{Tr}[\mathbf{C}(s_{1}s_{2};s_{1}s_{2})\mathbf{A}]=0$, which implies $\mathbf{C}(s_{1}s_{2};s_{1}s_{2})=\mathbf{0}$ according to the lemma. Therefore, the diagonal elements $C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},s_{1}s_{2}s_{3}}\neq0$ only when $s_{1}=s_{2}$. With the same reason, by considering Eqs.(\[eq:a\_37\], \[eq:a\_38\]) we can prove that $C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},s_{1}s_{2}s_{3}}\not=0$ only when $s_{1}=s_{2}=s_{3}$.
For non-diagonal elements $C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}$, the necessary condition for non-vanishing $C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}$ is $s_{1}=s_{2}=s_{3}$ and $r_{1}=r_{2}=r_{3}$. Otherwise, for example, if $s_{1}=s_{2}=s_{3}$ is not satisfied, since it follows from the above discussion that $C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},s_{1}s_{2}s_{3}}=0$, the determinant of the following sub-matrix would be non-positive $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},s_{1}s_{2}s_{3}} & C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}\\
C_{r_{1}r_{2}r_{3},s_{1}s_{2}s_{3}} & C_{r_{1}r_{2}r_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}
\end{array}\right),$$ but it should be non-negative because it is a principal sub-matrix of $[C_{s_{1}s_{2}s_{3},r_{1}r_{2}r_{3}}]$. Therefore, if we denote $C_{sss,rrr}$ as $p_{sr}$, we will get the required form as in Eq.(\[eq:a\_39\]). $\blacksquare$
We notice that, for a mixed state $\rho$, the orthogonality of $\{|s\rangle\},\,\{|d_{s}\rangle\},\,\{|d_{s}'\rangle\}$ are not guaranteed automatically. For example, for a tripartite state $$\rho=\sum_{s}p_{s}|s,\,d_{s},\,d_{s}'\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s},\,d_{s}'|,$$ we can verify $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Tr}_{D'}\rho & =\sum_{s}p_{s}|s,\,d_{s}\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s}|\cdot\sum_{n}\langle\overline{d}_{n}'|d_{s}'\rangle\langle d_{s}'|\overline{d}_{n}'\rangle\\
& =\sum_{s}p_{s}|s,\,d_{s}\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s}|\cdot\sum_{n}\langle d_{s}'|\overline{d}_{n}'\rangle\langle\overline{d}_{n}'|d_{s}'\rangle\\
& =\sum_{s}p_{s}|s,\,d_{s}\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s}|,\\
\mathrm{Tr}_{D}\rho & =\sum_{s}p_{s}|s,\,d_{s}'\rangle\langle s,\,d_{s}'|,\\
\mathrm{Tr}_{S}\rho & =\sum_{s}p_{s}|d_{s},\,d_{s}'\rangle\langle d_{s},\,d_{s}'|.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we do not require that $\{|s\rangle\},\,\{|d_{s}\rangle\},\,\{|d_{s}'\rangle\}$ must be orthogonal.
Tripartite Schmidt decomposition
================================
In this appendix we give the proof of *Proposition 3* in details. We consider its necessity: only if the total system in measurement evolves into a special pure state that is the tripartite Schmidt decomposition with respect to the given preferred basis $\{|s\rangle|s=1,2,\dots,l\}$ of ${\cal H}_{S}$, then an quantum measurement is objective defined by Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\]) . To this end we consider a bipartite pure state $|\psi_{AB}\rangle$. If we have known $\rho_{A}=\mathrm{Tr}_{B}(|\psi_{AB}\rangle\left\langle \psi_{AB}\right|)=\sum_{i}|c_{i}|^{2}|A_{i}\rangle\langle A_{i}|$ (here $\{|A_{i}\rangle\}$ does not have to be orthonormal), then $|\psi_{AB}\rangle$ must have the form $$|\psi_{AB}\rangle=\sum_{i}c_{i}e^{i\theta_{i}}\,|A_{i}\rangle\otimes|B_{i}\rangle\label{eq:Schmidt-AB}$$ where $\{|B_{i}\rangle\}$ is an orthonormal set, and $\theta_{i}$ can be chosen arbitrarily. This is because the bipartite state $|\psi_{AB}\rangle$ always can be written as $$|\psi_{AB}\rangle=\sum_{ij}\tilde{\alpha}_{ij}\,|A_{i}\rangle\otimes|\tilde{B}_{j}\rangle=\sum_{i}\alpha_{i}\,|A_{i}\rangle\otimes|B_{i}\rangle$$ where $\{|\tilde{B}_{i}\rangle\}$ is an orthonormal basis, and $$|B_{i}\rangle=\frac{\sum_{j}\tilde{\alpha}_{ij}|\tilde{B}_{j}\rangle}{\sum_{j}|\tilde{\alpha}_{ij}|^{2}},\quad|\alpha_{i}|^{2}=\sum_{j}|\tilde{\alpha}_{ij}|^{2}.$$ Thus the reduced density matrix of system $A$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\rho}_{A}= & \sum_{i}|\alpha_{i}|^{2}|A_{i}\rangle\langle A_{i}|\nonumber \\
& +\sum_{i\neq j}\alpha_{i}\alpha_{j}^{*}\langle B_{j}|B_{i}\rangle\,|A_{i}\rangle\langle A_{j}|+\mathbf{h.c.}\end{aligned}$$ Since we have known $\rho_{A}=\sum_{i}|c_{i}|^{2}|A_{i}\rangle\langle A_{i}|$, we must have $\alpha_{i}=c_{i}e^{i\theta_{i}}$ and $\langle B_{j}|B_{i}\rangle=0$ . Therefore $|\psi_{AB}\rangle$ has the form of Eq.(\[eq:Schmidt-AB\]). Notice that here $\{|A_{i}\rangle\}$ does not have to be orthonormal, while $\{|B_{i}\rangle\}$ is orthogonal.
Now we prove the necessity of the above proposition, namely, if the bipartite correlations in $|\Psi_{SDD'}\rangle$ satisfy the classical correspondence Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\]-\[eq:Tr-3\]), then $|\Psi_{SDD'}\rangle$ must be a tripartite Schmidt form, and $\{|s\rangle\},\,\{|d_{s}\rangle\},\,\{|d_{s}'\rangle\}$ must be orthogonal basis.
*Proof*: We first treat $S$ and $D$ as a whole, thus $|\Psi_{SDD'}\rangle$ can be regarded as a bipartite state $S+D+D'$. From the above discussion and Eq.(\[eq:Tr-1\]), $|\Psi_{SDD'}\rangle$ must have the following tripartite Schmidt form $$|\Psi_{SDD'}\rangle=\sum_{s}c_{s}|s,\,d_{s}\rangle\otimes|\tilde{d}_{s}'\rangle,\label{eq:SDD'-1}$$ where $\{|\tilde{d}_{s}'\rangle\}$ is an orthogonal basis, and we have absorbed the arbitrary phase in $|\tilde{d}_{s}'\rangle$.
Now we will prove $\{|s\rangle\},\,\{|d_{s}\rangle\},\,\{|d_{s}'\rangle\}$ must be orthogonal sets. With the same reason, Eq.(\[eq:Tr-2\]) guarantees that $|\Psi_{SDD'}\rangle$ also has the form $$|\Psi_{SDD'}\rangle=\sum_{s}c_{s}|s\rangle\otimes|\tilde{d}_{s}\rangle\otimes|d_{s}'\rangle,\label{eq:SDD'-2}$$ where $\{|\tilde{d}_{s}'\rangle\}$ is an orthogonal basis.
The above Eqs.(\[eq:SDD’-1\], \[eq:SDD’-2\]) should be equal, thus we must have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{s} & c_{s}|s,\,d_{s},\,\tilde{d}_{s}'\rangle=\sum_{s}c_{s}|s,\,\tilde{d}_{s},\,d_{s}'\rangle\\
& =\sum_{s,r,t}c_{s}\langle d_{r}|\tilde{d}_{s}\rangle\langle\tilde{d}_{t}'|d_{s}'\rangle\cdot|s,\,d_{r},\,\tilde{d}_{t}'\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which requires $\langle d_{r}|\tilde{d}_{s}\rangle\langle\tilde{d}_{t}'|d_{s}'\rangle=\delta_{rs}\delta_{ts}$. Since $\left|\langle d_{r}|\tilde{d}_{s}\rangle\right|\le1,\,\left|\langle\tilde{d}_{t}'|d_{s}'\rangle\right|\le1$, we must have $\langle d_{r}|\tilde{d}_{s}\rangle=\langle\tilde{d}_{t}'|d_{s}'\rangle=1$ when we set $r=s=t$, that is, $|d_{s}\rangle=|\tilde{d}_{s}\rangle,\,|d_{s}'\rangle=|\tilde{d}_{s}'\rangle$. Therefore, $\{|d_{s}\rangle\},\,\{|d_{s}'\rangle\}$ must be orthogonal sets. With the same reason, combining Eqs.(\[eq:Tr-1\], \[eq:Tr-3\]) we can also prove that $\{|s\rangle\}$ must be an orthogonal set.$\qquad\blacksquare$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan'
title: |
Massive Computation for Understanding\
Core-Collapse Supernova Explosions
---
[Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for Journals]{}
Introduction
============
Core-collapse supernova explosions come from stars more massive than $\sim$$8-10$ times the mass of the Sun. Ten core-collapse supernovae explode per second in the universe, automated astronomical surveys discover multiple per night, and one or two explode per century in the Milky Way. Core-collapse supernovae outshine entire galaxies in photons for weeks and output more power in neutrinos than the combined light output of all other stars in the universe, for tens of seconds. These explosions pollute the interstellar medium with the ashes of thermonuclear fusion. From these elements, planets form and life is made. Supernova shock waves stir the interstellar gas, trigger or shut off the formation of new stars, and eject hot gas from galaxies. At their centers, a strongly gravitating compact remnant, a neutron star or a black hole, is formed.
![Schematic of core collapse and its simplest outcomes. The image shows SN 1987A, which exploded in the Large Magellanic Cloud.[]{data-label="fig:collapse"}](f1.pdf){width="0.97\columnwidth"}
As the name alludes, the explosion is preceded by collapse of a stellar core. At the end of its life, a massive star has a core composed mostly of iron-group nuclei. The core is surrounded by an onion-skin structure of shells dominated by successively lighter elements. Nuclear fusion is still ongoing in the shells, but the iron core is inert. The electrons in the core are relativistic and degenerate. They provide the lion’s share of the pressure support stabilizing the core against gravitational collapse. In this, the iron core is very similar to a white dwarf star, the end product of low-mass stellar evolution. Once the iron core exceeds its maximum mass (the so-called effective Chandrasekhar mass of $\sim$$1.5-2$ solar masses \[$M_\odot$\]), gravitational instability sets in. Within a few tenths of a second, the inner core collapses from a central density of $\sim$$10^{10}\,\mathrm{g\,cm}^{-3}$ to a density comparable to that in an atomic nucleus ($\gtrsim 2.7\times
10^{14}\,\mathrm{g\,cm}^{-3}$). There, the repulsive part of the nuclear force causes a stiffening of the equation of state (EOS; the pressure–density relationship). The inner core first overshoots nuclear density, then rebounds (“bounces”) into the still collapsing outer core. The inner core then stabilizes and forms the inner regions of the newborn protoneutron star. The [hydrodynamic]{} supernova shock is created at the interface of inner and outer core. First, the shock moves outward dynamically. It then quickly loses energy by work done breaking up infalling iron-group nuclei into neutrons, protons, and alpha particles. The copious emission of neutrinos from the hot ($T \sim 10 \,\mathrm{MeV} \simeq
10^{11}\,\mathrm{K}$) gas further reduces energy and pressure behind the shock. The shock stalls and turns into an accretion shock: the ram pressure of accretion of the star’s outer core balances the pressure behind the shock.
The *supernova mechanism* must revive the stalled shock to drive a successful core-collapse supernova explosion. Depending on the structure of the progenitor star, this must occur within one to a few seconds of core bounce. Otherwise, continuing accretion pushes the protoneutron star over its maximum mass ($\sim$$2-3\,M_\odot$), which results in the formation of a black hole and no supernova explosion.
If the shock is successfully revived, it must travel through the outer core and the stellar envelope before it breaks out of the star and creates the spectacular explosive display observed by astronomers on Earth. This may take more than a day for a red supergiant star (e.g., like Betelgeuse, a $\sim$$20\,M_\odot$ star in the constellation Orion) or just tens of seconds for a star that has been stripped of its extended hydrogen-rich envelope by a strong stellar wind or mass exchange with a companion star in a binary system.
The photons observed by astronomers are emitted extremely far from the central regions. They carry information on the overall energetics, the explosion geometry, and on the products of explosive nuclear burning that is triggered by the passing shock wave. They can, however, only provide weak constraints on the inner workings of the supernova. Direct observational information on the supernova mechanism can be gained only from neutrinos and gravitational waves that are emitted directly in the supernova core. Detailed computational models are required for gaining theoretical insight and for making predictions that can be contrasted with future neutrino and gravitational-wave observations from the next core-collapse supernova in the Milky Way.
Supernova Energetics and Mechanisms
===================================
Core-collapse supernovae are “gravity bombs.” The energy reservoir from which any explosion mechanism must draw is the gravitational energy released in the collapse of the iron core to a neutron star: $\sim$$3\times10^{53}\,\mathrm{erg}$ ($3\times 10^{46}\,\mathrm{J}$), a mass-energy equivalent of $\sim$$0.15M_\odot c^2$. A fraction of this tremendous energy is stored initially as heat (and rotational kinetic energy) in the protoneutron star and the rest comes from its subsequent contraction. Astronomical observations, on the other hand, show the typical core-collapse supernova explosion energy to be in the range $10^{50}-10^{51}\,\mathrm{erg}$. *Hypernova* explosions may have up to $10^{52}\,\mathrm{erg}$, but they make up $\lesssim$1% of all core-collapse supernovae. A small subset of hypernovae are associated with gamma-ray bursts.
Where is all the gravitational energy going that does not contribute to the explosion energy? The answer is: Neutrinos. Antineutrinos and neutrinos of all flavors carry away $\gtrsim 99\%$ ($\gtrsim 90\%$ in the hypernova case) of the available energy over $\mathcal{O}(10)\,\mathrm{s}$ as the protoneutron star cools and contracts. This was first theorized and then later observationally confirmed with the detection of neutrinos from SN 1987A, the most recent core-collapse supernova in the Milky Way vicinity.
![Volume rendering of the specific entropy in the core of a neutrino-driven core-collapse supernova at the onset of explosion. Based on the 3D general-relativistic simulations of [@ott:13a] and rendered by Steve Drasco (Cal Poly San Luis Obispo). Specific entropy is a preferred quantity for visualization, since in the core of a supernova, it typically ranges from $\sim$1 to $\sim$20 units of Boltzmann’s constant $k_\mathrm{B}$ per baryon. Shown is the large-scale asymmetric shock front and a layer of hot expanding plumes behind it. The physical scale is roughly $600 \times
400\,\mathrm{km}$.[]{data-label="fig:full3d"}](f2.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Since neutrinos dominate the energy transport through the supernova, they might quite naturally have something to do with the explosion mechanism. The *neutrino mechanism*, in its current form, was proposed by Bethe & Wilson [@bethewilson:85]. In this mechanism, a fraction ($\sim$$5\%$) of the outgoing electron neutrinos and antineutrinos is absorbed in a layer between protoneutron star and the stalled shock. In the simplest picture, this neutrino *heating* increases the thermal pressure behind the stalled shock. Consequently, the dynamical pressure balance at the accretion shock is violated and a runaway explosion is launched.
The neutrino mechanism fails in spherical symmetry (1D, e.g., [@janka:12a]), but is very promising in multiple dimensions (axisymmetry \[2D\], 3D). This is due largely to multi-D hydrodynamic instabilities that break spherical symmetry (see Figure \[fig:full3d\] for an example), increase the neutrino mechanism’s efficiency, and facilitate explosion. I will discuss this in more detail later in this article. The neutrino mechanism is presently favored as the mechanism driving most core-collapse supernova explosions (see [@janka:12a] for a recent review).
![Volume rendering of the specific entropy in the core of a magnetorotational core-collapse supernova. Bluish colors indicate low entropy, red colors high entropy, and green and yellow intermediate entropy. The vertical is the axis of rotation and shown is a region of $\sim$$1600 \times 800\,\mathrm{km}$. The ultra-strong toroidal magnetic field surrounding the the protoneutron star pushes hot plasma out along the rotation axis. The distorted, double-lobe structure is due to an MHD kink instability akin those seen in Tokamak fusion experiments. Used with permission from Mösta *et al.* 2014 [@moesta:14b].[]{data-label="fig:mhd2014"}](f3.png){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Despite its overall promise, the neutrino mechanism is very inefficient. Only $\lesssim 5\%$ of the outgoing total electron neutrino and antineutrino luminosity is deposited behind the stalled shock at any moment and much of this deposition is lost again as heated gas flows down, leaves the heating region, and settles onto the protoneutron. The neutrino mechanism may (barely) be able to power ordinary core-collapse supernovae, but it cannot deliver hypernova explosion energies or account for gamma-ray bursts.
An alternative mechanism that may be part of the explanation for such extreme events is the *magnetorotational mechanism*, first suggested by Bisnovatyi-Kogan [@bisno:70] and LeBlanc & Wilson [@leblanc:70]. In its modern form, a very rapidly spinning core collapses to a protoneutron star with a spin period of only $\sim$$1\,\mathrm{millisecond}$. Its core is expected to be spinning uniformly, but its outer regions will be extremely differentially rotating. These are ideal conditions for the *magnetorotational instability* (MRI,[@balbus:91]) to operate, amplify any seed magnetic field, and drive magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence. If a dynamo process is present, an ultra-strong large-scale (globally ordered) magnetic field is built up. This makes the protoneutron star a *protomagnetar*. Provided this occurs, magnetic pressure gradients and hoop stresses could lead to outflows along the axis of rotation. The MRI’s fastest growing mode has a small wavelength and is extremely difficult to resolve numerically.
Because of this, all simulations of the magnetorotational mechanism to date have simply made the assumption that a combination of MRI and dynamo is operating. They then ad-hoc imposed a strong large-scale field as an initial condition. In 2D simulations, collimated jets develop along the axis of rotation. In 3D, the jets are unstable and a more complicated explosion geometry develops [@moesta:14b], as shown in Figure \[fig:mhd2014\]. Nevertheless, even in 3D, an energetic explosion could potentially be powered.
The magnetorotational mechanism requires one special property of the progenitor star: rapid core rotation. Presently, stellar evolution theory suggests that the cores of most massive stars should be slowly spinning. However, there may be exceptions of rapidly spinning cores at just about the right occurrence rate to explain hypernovae and long gamma-ray bursts.
Besides the neutrino mechanism and the magnetorotational mechanism, a number of other explosion mechanisms have been proposed. I direct the interested reader to the more extensive review by [@janka:12a].
A Multi-Scale, Multi-Physics, Multi-Dimensional Computational Challenge
=======================================================================
The core-collapse supernova problem is highly complex, inherently non-linear, and involves many branches of (astro)physics. Only limited progress can be made with analytic or perturbative methods. Computational simulation is a powerful means for gaining theoretical insight and for making predictions that could be tested with astronomical observations of neutrinos, gravitational waves, and electromagnetic radiation.
Core-collapse supernova simulations are time evolution simulations – starting from initial conditions, the matter, radiation, and gravitational fields are evolved in time. In the case of time-explicit evolution, the numerical timestep is limited by causality, controlled by the speed of sound in Newtonian simulations, and the speed of light in general-relativistic simulations. Because of this, an increase in the spatial resolution by a factor of two corresponds to a decrease in the time step by a factor of two. Hence, in a 3D simulation, the computational cost scales with the fourth power of resolution.
Multi Scale
-----------
Taking the red supergiant in Figure \[fig:collapse\] as an example, a complete core-collapse supernova simulation that follows the shock to the stellar surface, would have to cover dynamics on a physical scale from $\sim$$10^9\,\mathrm{km}$ (stellar radius) down to $\sim$$0.1\,\mathrm{km}$ (the typical scale over which structure and thermodynamics of the protoneutron star change). These ten orders of magnitude in spatial scale are daunting. In practice, reviving the shock and tracking its propagation to the surface can be treated as (almost) independent problems. If our interest is on the shock revival mechanism, we need to include the inner $\sim$$10,000\,\mathrm{km}$ of the star. Since information about core collapse is communicated to overlying layers with the speed of sound, stellar material at greater radii will not “know” that core collapse has occurred before it is hit by the revived expanding shock.
Even with only five decades in spatial scale, some form of grid refinement or adaptivity is called for: a 3D finite-difference grid with an extent of $10,000\,\mathrm{km}$ symmetric about the origin with uniform $0.1\,\mathrm{km}$ cell size would require 57 PB of RAM to store a single double precision variable. Many tens to hundreds of 3D variables are required. Such high uniform resolution is not only currently impossible but also unnecessary. Most of the resolution is needed near the protoneutron star and in the region behind the stalled shock. The near-free-fall collapse of the outer core can be simulated with much lower resolution.
Because of the broad range of physics involved (see below) and the limited available compute power, early core-collapse supernova simulations were spherically symmetric (1D). 1D simulations often employ a Lagrangian, comoving mass coordinate discretization. This grid can be set up to provide just the right resolution where and when needed or can be dynamically re-zoned (an adaptive mesh refinement \[AMR\] technique). Other 1D codes discretize in the Eulerian frame and use a fixed grid whose cells are radially stretched using geometric progression.
In 2D simulations, Eulerian, geometrically-spaced fixed spherical grids are the norm, but some codes use cylindrical coordinates and AMR. Spherical grids, already in 2D, suffer from a coordinate singularity at the axis that can lead to numerical artifacts. In 3D, they become even more difficult to handle and their focusing grid lines impose a severe timestep constraint near the origin. Some 3D codes still use a spherical grid, while many others employ Cartesian AMR grids. Recent innovative approaches use so-called multi-block grids with multiple curvilinear touching or overlapping logically Cartesian “cubed-sphere” grids (e.g., [@wongwathanarat:10]).
Multi Physics
-------------
Core-collapse supernovae are very rich in physics. All fundamental forces are involved and essential to the core collapse phenomenon. These forces are probed under conditions that are impossible (or exceedingly difficult) to create in earthbound laboratories.
Gravity drives the collapse and provides the energy reservoir. It is so strong near the protoneutron star that general relativity becomes important and its Newtonian description does not suffice. The electromagnetic force describes the interaction of the dense, hot magnetized, perfectly conducting plasma and the photons that provide thermal pressure and make the supernova light. The weak force governs the interactions of neutrinos and the strong (nuclear) force is essential in the nuclear EOS and nuclear reactions.
All this physics occurs at the microscopic, per particle level. Fortunately, the continuum assumption holds, allowing us to describe core-collapse supernovae on a macroscopic scale by a coupled set of systems of non-linear partial differential equations (PDEs):
![Map projections of the momentum-space neutrino radiation field (for $\nu_e$ at an energy of 16.3MeV) going outward radially (from top to bottom) on the equator of a supernova core. Generated using the simulation results of [@ott:08]. Inside the protoneutron star ($R \lesssim 30\,\mathrm{km}$) neutrinos and matter are in equilibrium and the radiation field is isotropic. It becomes more and more forward peaked as the neutrinos decouple and become free streaming. Handling the transition from slow diffusion to free streaming correctly requires angle-dependent radiation transport, which is a 6+1 D problem and computationally extremely challenging.[]{data-label="fig:momspace"}](f4.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
- **(Magneto)hydrodynamics** (MHD). The stellar plasma is in local thermodynamic equilibrium, essentially perfectly conducting, and essentially inviscid (though neutrinos may provide some shear viscosity in the protoneutron star). The ideal, inviscid MHD approximation is appropriate under these conditions. The MHD equations are hyperbolic and can be written in flux-conservative form with source terms that do not include derivatives of the MHD variables. They are typically solved with standard time-explicit high-resolution shock capturing methods that exploit the characteristic structure of the equations (e.g., [@toro:99]). Special attention must be paid to preserving the divergence-free property of the magnetic field. The MHD equations require an EOS as a closure (see below).
Unless ultra-strong ($B\gtrsim 10^{15}\,\mathrm{G}$), magnetic fields have little effect on the supernova dynamics and thus are frequently neglected. Since strong gravity and velocities up to a few tenths of the speed of light are involved, the MHD equations are best solved in a general-relativistic formulation. General-relativistic MHD is computationally particularly expensive, because the conserved variables are not the primitive variables (density, internal energy / temperature, velocity, chemical composition). The latter are needed for the EOS and enter flux terms. After each update, they must be recovered from the conserved variables via multi-dimensional root finding.
- **Gravity**. Deviations in the strength of the gravitational acceleration between Newtonian and general-relativistic gravity are small in the precollapse core, but become of order $10-20\%$ in the protoneutron star phase. In the case of black hole formation, Newtonian physics breaks down completely. General relativistic gravity is included at varying levels in simulations. Some neglect it completely and solve the linear elliptic Newtonian Poisson equation to compute the gravitational potential. This is done using direct multigrid methods or integral multipole expansion methods. Some codes modify the monopole term in the latter approach to approximate general relativistic effects.
Including full general relativity is more challenging, in particular in 2D and 3D, since there general relativity has radiative degrees of freedom (gravitational waves). An entire subfield of gravitational physics, *numerical relativity*, spent nearly five decades looking for ways to solve Einstein’s equations on computers (see [@baumgarte:10book] for a comprehensive introduction). In general relativity, changes in the gravitational field propagate at the speed of light. Hence, time evolution equations must be solved. This is done by splitting 4D spacetime into 3D spatial slices that are evolved in the time direction. In the simplest way of writing the equations (the so-called Arnowitt-Deser-Misner \[ADM\] formulation), they form a system of 12 partial differential evolution equations, 4 gauge variables that must be specified (and evolved in time or recalculated on each slice), and 4 elliptic *constraint* equations without time derivatives. The ADM formulation has poor numerical stability properties. These lead to violations of the constraint equations and numerical instabilities that make long-term evolution impossible.
It took until the 2000s for numerical relativity to find formulations of Einstein’s equations and gauge choices that together lead to stable long-term evolutions. In some cases, well-posedness and strong or symmetric hyperbolicity can be proven. The equations are typically evolved time-explicitly with straightforward high-order (fourth and higher) finite difference schemes or with multi-domain pseudospectral methods.
Since numerical relativity only recently became applicable to astrophysical simulations, very few core-collapse supernova codes are fully general relativistic at this point [@kuroda:16; @ott:13a]. The fully general-relativistic approach is much more memory and FLOP intensive than solving the Newtonian Poisson equation. Its advantage in large-scale computations, however, is the hyperbolic nature of the equations, which does not require global matrix inversions or summations and thus is advantageous for the parallel scaling of the algorithm.
- **Neutrino Transport and Neutrino-Matter Interactions.** Neutrinos move at the speed of light (the very small neutrino masses are neglected) and can travel macroscopic distances between interactions. Therefore, they must be treated as non-equilibrium radiation. Radiation transport is closely related to kinetic theory’s Boltzmann equation. It describes the phase-space evolution of the neutrino distribution function or, in radiation transport terminology, their specific intensity. This is a 6+1 D problem: 3 spatial dimensions, neutrino energy, and two momentum space propagation angles in addition to time. The angles describe the directions from which neutrinos are coming and where they are going at a given spatial coordinate. In addition, the transport equation must be solved separately for multiple neutrino species: electron neutrinos, electron antineutrinos, and heavy-lepton ($\mu$, $\tau$) neutrinos and antineutrinos.
Figure \[fig:momspace\] shows map projections of the momentum space angular neutrino distribution at different radii in a supernova core. In the dense protoneutron star, neutrinos are trapped and in equilibrium with matter. Their radiation field is isotropic. They gradually diffuse out and decouple from matter at the *neutrinosphere* (the neutrino equivalent of the photosphere). This decoupling is gradual and marked by the transition of the angular distribution into the forward (radial) direction. In the outer decoupling region, neutrino heating is expected to occur and the heating rates are sensitive to the angular distribution of the radiation field (cf. [@ott:08]). Eventually, at radii of a few hundred kilometers, the neutrinos have fully decoupled and are free streaming. Neutrino interactions with matter (and thus the decoupling process) are very sensitive to neutrino energy, since weak-interaction cross-sections scale with the square of the neutrino energy. This is why neutrino transport needs to be *multi-group*, with typically a minimum of $10-20$ energy groups covering supernova neutrino energies of $1 -
\mathcal{O}(100)\,\mathrm{MeV}$. Typical mean energies of electron neutrinos are around $10-30\,\mathrm{MeV}$. Energy exchanges between matter and radiation occur via the collision terms in the Boltzmann equation. These are stiff sources/sinks that must be handled time-implicitly with (local) backward-Euler methods. The neutrino energy bins are coupled through (1) frame-dependent energy shifts since the material neutrinos interact with is moving, (2) gravitational redshift, and (3) energy transfer in scatterings off of electrons and nucleons. Neutrino-matter interaction rates are usually precomputed and stored in dense multi-D tables within which simulations interpolate.
Full 6+1 D general-relativistic Boltzmann neutrino-radiation hydrodynamics is exceedingly challenging and has so far not been possible to included in core-collapse supernova simulations. 3+1 D (1D in space, 2D in momentum space) (e.g., [@liebendoerfer:05]), 5+1 D (2D in space, 3D in momentum space) simulations [@ott:08] and static 6D simulations [@sumiyoshi:15] have been carried out.
Most (spatially) multi-D simulations treat neutrino transport in some dimensionally-reduced approximation. The most common is an expansion of the radiation field into angular moments. The $n$-th moment of this expansion requires information about the $(n+1)$-th moment (and in some cases also about the $(n+2)$-th moment). This necessitates a closure relation for the moment at which the expansion is truncated. Multi-group flux-limited diffusion evolves the $0$-th moment (the radiation energy density). The flux limiter is the closure that interpolates between diffusion and free streaming. The disadvantages of this method are its very diffusive nature that washes out spatial variations of the radiation field, its sensitivity to the choice of flux limiter, and the need for time-implicit integration (involving global matrix inversion) due to the stability properties of the parabolic diffusion equation. Two-moment transport is the next better approximation. It solves equations for the radiation energy density and momentum (i.e. the radiative flux) and requires a closure that describes the radiation pressure tensor (also known as the Eddington tensor). This closure can be analytic and based on the local values of energy density and flux (the M1 approximation). Alternatively, some codes compute a global closure based on the solution of a simplified, time-independent Boltzmann equation. The major advantage of the two-moment approximation is that its advection terms are hyperbolic and can be handled with standard time-explicit finite-volume methods of computational hydrodynamics and only the local collision terms need time-implicit updates.
There are now implementations of multi-group two-moment neutrino radiation-hydrodynamics in multiple 2D/3D core-collapse supernova simulation codes (e.g., [@oconnor:15b; @kuroda:16; @roberts:16b]). This method may be sufficiently close to the full Boltzmann solution (in particular if a global closure is used) and appears to be the way toward massively-parallel long-term 3D core-collapse supernova simulations.
- **Neutrino Oscillations.** Neutrinos have mass and can oscillate between flavors. The oscillations occur in vacuum, but can also be mediated by neutrino-electron scattering (the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein \[MSW\] effect) and neutrino-neutrino scattering. Neutrino oscillations depend on neutrino mixing parameters and on the neutrino mass eigenstates (the magnitudes of the mass differences are known, but not their signs). Observation of neutrinos from the next galactic core-collapse supernova could help constrain the neutrino mass hierarchy (see the recent review by [@mirizzi:16]).
MSW oscillations occur in the stellar envelope. They are important for the neutrino signal observed in detectors on Earth, but they cannot influence the explosion itself. The self-induced (via neutrino-neutrino scattering) oscillations, however, occur at the extreme neutrino densities near the core. They offer a rich phenomenology that includes collective oscillation behavior of neutrinos (see the review in [@mirizzi:16]). The jury is still out on their potential influence on the explosion mechanism.
Collective neutrino oscillation calculations (essentially solving coupled Schrödinger-like equations) are computationally intensive [@mirizzi:16]. They are currently performed independently of core-collapse supernova simulations and do not take into account feedback on the stellar plasma. Fully understanding collective oscillations and their impact on the supernova mechanism will quite likely require that neutrino oscillations, transport, and neutrino-matter interactions are solved for together in a quantum-kinetic approach [@vlasenko:14a].
- **Equation of State and Nuclear Reactions.** The EOS is essential for the (M)HD part of the problem and for updating the matter thermodynamics after neutrino-matter interactions. Baryons (proton, neutrons, alpha particles, heavy nuclei), electrons, positrons, and photons contribute to the EOS. Neutrino momentum transfer contributes an effective pressure that is taken into account separately since neutrinos are not everywhere in local thermodynamic equilibrium with the stellar plasma. In different parts of the star, different EOS physics applies.
At low densities and temperatures below $\sim$$0.5\,\mathrm{MeV}$ ($\sim$$5\times 10^9\,\mathrm{K}$), nuclear reactions are too slow to reach nuclear statistical equilibrium. In this regime, the mass fractions of the various heavy nuclei (isotopes, in the following) must be tracked explicitly. As the core collapses, the gas heats up and nuclear burning must be tracked with a nuclear reaction network, a stiff system of ODEs. Solving the reaction network requires the inversion of sparse matrices at each grid point. Depending on the number of isotopes tracked (ranging, typically from $\mathcal{O}(10)$ to $\mathcal{O}(100)$), nuclear burning can be a significant contributor to the overall computational cost of a simulation. The EOS in the burning regime is simple, since all isotopes can essentially be treated as non-interacting ideal Boltzmann gases. Often, corrections for Coulomb interactions are included. Photons and electrons/positrons can be treated everywhere as ideal Bose and Fermi gases, respectively. Since electrons will be partially or completely degenerate, computing the electron/positron EOS involves the FLOP-intensive solution of Fermi integrals. Because of this, their EOS is often included in tabulated form.
At temperatures above $\sim$$0.5\,\mathrm{MeV}$, nuclear statistical equilibrium holds. This greatly simplifies things, since now the electron fraction $Y_e$ (number of electrons per baryon; because of macroscopic charge neutrality, $Y_e$ is equal to $Y_p$, the number fraction of protons) is the only compositional variable. The mass fractions of all other baryonic species can be obtained by solving Saha-like equations for compositional equilibrium. At densities below $\sim$$10^{10} -
10^{11}\,\mathrm{g\,cm}^{-3}$ the baryons can still be treated as ideal Boltzmann gases (but including Coulomb corrections).
The nuclear force becomes relevant at densities near and above $10^{10} - 10^{11}\,\mathrm{g\,cm}^{-3}$. It is an effective quantum many-body interaction of the strong force and its detailed properties are presently not known. Under supernova conditions, matter will be in NSE in the nuclear regime and the EOS is a function of density, temperature, and $Y_e$. Starting from a nuclear force model, an EOS can be obtained in multiple ways (see the [@steiner:13b] for an overview discussion), including direct Hartree-Fock many-body calculations, mean field models, or phenomenological models (e.g., the liquid-drop model). Typically, the minimum of the Helmholtz free energy is sought and all thermodynamic variables are obtained from derivatives of the free energy. In most cases, EOS calculations are too time consuming to be performed during a simulation. As in the case of the electron/positron EOS, large ($\gtrsim$200MB; must be stored by each `MPI` process), densely spaced nuclear EOS tables are precomputed and simulations efficiently interpolate in $(\log \rho,
\log T, Y_e)$ to obtain thermodynamic and compositional information.
![Multi-physics modules of core-collapse supernova simulation codes. The simulation framework provides parallelization, I/O, execution scheduling, AMR, and memory management.[]{data-label="fig:components"}](f5.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Effects of Multidimensionality
------------------------------
Stars are, at zeroth order, gas spheres. It is thus natural to start with assuming spherical symmetry in simulations – in particular given the very limited compute power available to the pioneers of supernova simulations. After decades of work, it appears now clear that detailed spherically symmetric simulations robustly fail at producing explosions for stars that are observed to explode in nature. Spherical symmetry itself may be the culprit, since symmetry is clearly broken in core-collapse supernovae:
(*i*) Observations show that neutron stars receive “birth kicks” giving them typical velocities of $\mathcal{O}(100)\,\mathrm{km\,s}^{-1}$ with respect to the center of mass of their progenitors. The most likely and straightforward explanation for these kicks are highly asymmetric explosions leading to neutron star recoil owing to momentum conservation.
(*ii*) Deep observations of supernova remnants show that the innermost supernova ejecta exhibit low-mode asphericity similar to the geometry of the shock front shown in Figure \[fig:full3d\].
(*iii*) Analytic considerations and also 1D core-collapse simulations show that the protoneutron star and the region behind the stalled shock where neutrino heating takes place are both unstable to buoyant convection, which always leads to the breaking of spherical symmetry.
(*iv*) Rotation and magnetic fields naturally break spherical symmetry. Observations of young pulsars show that some neutron stars must be born with rotation periods of order $10\,\mathrm{milliseconds}$. Magnetars may be born with even shorter spin periods if their magnetic field is derived from rapid differential rotation.
(*v*) Multi-D simulations of the violent nuclear burning in the shells overlying the iron core show that large-scale deviations from sphericity develop that couple into the precollapse iron core via the excitation of non-radial pulsations [@couch:15b]. These create perturbations from which convection will grow after core bounce.
Given the above, multi-D simulations are essential for studying the dynamics of the supernova engine.
The rapid increase of compute power since the early 1990s has facilitated increasingly detailed 2D radiation-hydrodynamics simulations over the past two and a half decades. 3D simulations with simplified neutrino treatments have been carried out since the early 2000s. The first 3D neutrino radiation-hydrodynamics simulations have become possible only in the past few years, thanks to the compute power of large petascale systems like US NSF/NCSA Blue Waters, US DOE/ORNL Titan or the Japanese K computer.
Core-Collapse Supernova Simulation Codes
========================================
Many 1D codes exist, some are no longer in use, and one is open source and free to download (<http://GR1Dcode.org>). There are $\sim$$10$ (depending on how one counts) multi-D core-collapse supernova simulation codes in the community. Many, in particular the 3D codes, follow the design encapsulated by Figure \[fig:components\]. They employ a simulation framework (e.g., `FLASH`, <http://flash.uchicago.edu/site/flashcode/> or `Cactus` <http://cactuscode.org>) that handles domain decomposition, message passing, memory management, AMR, coupling of different physics components, execution scheduling, and I/O.
Given the tremendous memory requirement and FLOP-consumption of the core-collapse supernova problem, these codes are massively parallel and employ both node-local `OpenMP` and inter-node `MPI` parallelization. All current codes follow a data-parallel paradigm with monolithic sequential scheduling. This limits scaling, can create load imbalances with AMR, and makes the use of GPU/MIC accelerators challenging, since communication latencies between accelerator and CPU block execution in the current paradigm.
The Caltech `Zelmani` [@ott:13a] core collapse simulation package is an example of a 3D core-collapse supernova code. It is based on the open-source `Cactus` framework, uses 3D AMR Cartesian and multi-block grids, and employs many components provided by the open-source `Einstein Toolkit` (<http://einsteintoolkit.org>). `Zelmani` has fully general-relativistic gravity and implements general-relativistic MHD. Neutrinos are included either via a rather crude energy-averaged leakage scheme that approximates the overall energetics of neutrino emission and absorption or via a general-relativistic two-moment M1 radiation-transport solver that has recently been deployed on first simulations [@roberts:16b].
In full radiation-hydrodynamics simulations of the core-collapse supernova problem with 8 levels of AMR, `Zelmani` exhibits good strong scaling with hybrid-`OpenMP/MPI` to $16,000$ cores on NSF/NCSA Blue Waters. At larger core counts, load imbalances due to AMR prolongation and synchronization operations begin to dominate the execution time.
![Schematic view of turbulence: kinetic energy is injected into the flow at large scales and cascades through the inertial range via non-linear interactions of turbulent eddies to small scales (high wavenumbers in the spectral domain) where it dissipates into heat. The scaling of the turbulent kinetic energy with wavenumber in the inertial range is $\propto k^{-5/3}$ for Kolmogorov turbulence. This scaling is also found in very high-resolution simulations of neutrino-driven convection [@radice:16a].[]{data-label="fig:turbschematic"}](f6.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
{width="1.75\columnwidth"}
Multi-D Dynamics and Turbulence
===============================
Even before the first detailed 2D simulations of neutrino-driven core-collapse supernovae became possible in the mid 1990s, it was clear that buoyant convection in the protoneutron star and in the neutrino-heated region just behind the stalled shock breaks spherical symmetry. Neutrino-driven convection is due to a negative radial gradient in the specific entropy, making the plasma at smaller radii “lighter” than overlying plasma. This is a simple consequence of neutrino heating being strongest at the base of the heating region. Rayleigh-Taylor-like plumes develop from small perturbations and grow to non-linear convection. This convection is extremely turbulent, since the physical viscosity in the heating region is vanishingly small. Neutrino-driven turbulence is anisotropic on large scales (due to buoyancy), mildly compressible (the flow reaches Mach numbers of $\sim$$0.5$), and only quasi-stationary, because eventually an explosion develops. Nevertheless, it turns out that Kolmogorov’s description for isotropic, stationary, incompressible turbulence works surprisingly well for neutrino-driven turbulence (see Figure \[fig:turbschematic\] for a schematic description of Kolmogorov turbulence and [@radice:16a]).
There is something special about neutrino-driven convection in core-collapse supernovae: unlike convection in globally hydrostatic stars, neutrino-driven convection occurs on top of a downflow of outer core material that has accreted through the stalled shock and is headed for the protoneutron star. The consequence of this is that there is a competition between (*i*) the time it takes for a small perturbation to grow to macroscopic scale to become buoyant and (*ii*) the time it takes for it to leave the region that is convectively unstable (the heating region) as it is dragged with the background flow toward the protoneutron star. This means that there are three parameters governing the appearance of neutrino-driven convection: the strength of neutrino heating, the initial size of perturbations entering through the shock, and the downflow rate through the heating region. Because of this, neutrino-driven convection is not a given and simulations find that it does not develop in some stars.
Even in the absence of neutrino-driven convection, there is another instability that breaks spherical symmetry in the supernova core: the standing accretion shock instability (SASI, [@janka:12a]). SASI was first discovered in simulations that did not include neutrino heating. It works via a feedback cycle: small perturbations enter through the shock, flow down to the protoneutron star and get reflected as sound waves that in turn perturb the shock. The SASI is a low-mode instability that is most manifest in an up-down sloshing ($\ell = 1$ in terms of spherical harmonics) along the symmetry axis in 2D and in a spiral mode ($m = 1$) in 3D. Once it has reached non-linear amplitudes, the SASI creates secondary shocks (entropy perturbations) and shear flow from which turbulence develops. SASI appears to dominate in situations in which neutrino-driven convection is weak or absent: in conditions where neutrino heating is weak, the perturbations entering the shock are small, or the downflow rate through the heating region is high.
Independent of how spherical symmetry is broken in the heating region, all simulations agree that 2D/3D is much more favorable for explosion than 1D. Some 2D and 3D simulations yield explosions for stars where 1D simulations fail (see, e.g., [@lentz:15]). Why is that?
There are two reasons. The first reason has been known for long and is seemingly trivial: the added degrees of freedom, lateral motion in 2D, and lateral and azimuthal motion in 3D, have the consequence that a gas element that enters through the shock front spends more time in the heating region before flowing down to settle onto the protoneutron star. Since it spends more time in the heating region, it can absorb more neutrino energy, increasing the overall efficiency of the neutrino mechanism.
The second reason has to do with turbulence and has become apparent only in the past few years. Turbulence is often analyzed employing *Reynolds decomposition*, a method that separates background flow from turbulent fluctuations. Using this method, one can show that turbulent fluctuations lead to an effective dynamical ram pressure (*Reynolds stress*) that contributes to the overall momentum balance between behind and in front of the stalled shock. The turbulent pressure is available only in 2D/3D simulations and it has been demonstrated (see, e.g., [@couch:15a]) that because of this pressure, 2D/3D core-collapse supernovae explode with less thermal pressure, and, consequently with less neutrino heating.
Now, the Reynolds stress is dominated by turbulent fluctuations at the largest physical scales: A simulation that has more kinetic energy in large-scale motions will explode more easily than a simulation that has less. This realization readily explains recent findings by multiple simulation groups: 2D simulations appear to explode more readily than 3D simulations [@couch:15a; @lentz:15]. This is likely a consequence of the different behaviors of turbulence in 2D and 3D. In 2D, turbulence transports kinetic energy to large scales (which is unphysical), artificially increasing the turbulent pressure contribution. In 3D, turbulence cascades energy to small scales (as it should and is known experimentally), so a 3D supernova will generally have less turbulent pressure support than a 2D supernova.
Another recent finding by multiple groups is that simulations with lower spatial resolution appear to explode more readily than simulations with higher resolution. There are two possible explanations for this and it is likely that they play hand-in-hand: (*1*) Low resolution creates a numerical bottleneck in the turbulent cascade, artificially trapping turbulent kinetic energy at large scales where it can contribute most to the explosion. (*2*) Low resolution also increases the size of numerical perturbations that enter through the shock and from which buoyant eddies form. The larger these seed perturbations are, the stronger is the turbulent convection and the larger is the Reynolds stress.
The qualitative and quantitative behavior of turbulent flow is very sensitive to numerical resolution. This can be appreciated by looking at Figure \[fig:turb\], which shows the same 3D simulation of neutrino-driven convection at 4 different resolutions, spanning a factor of 12 from the reference resolution that is presently used in many 3D simulations and which underresolves the turbulent flow. As resolution is increased, turbulent flow breaks down to progressively smaller features. What also occurs, but cannot be appreciated from a still figure, is that the intermittency of the flow increases as the turbulence is better resolved. This means that flow features are not persistent, but quickly appear and disappear through non-linear interactions of turbulent eddies. In this way, the turbulent cascade can be temporarily reversed (this is called *backscatter* in turbulence jargon), creating large-scale intermittent flow features similar to what is seen at low resolution. The role of intermittency in neutrino-driven turbulence and its effect on the explosion mechanism remain to be studied.
A key challenge for 3D core-collapse supernova simulations is to provide sufficient resolution so that kinetic energy cascades away from the largest scales at the right rate. Resolution studies suggests that this may require between twice to ten times the resolution of current 3D simulations [@radice:16a]. A ten-fold increase in resolution in 3D corresponds to a $10,000$ times increase in the computational cost. An alternative may be to devise an efficient *sub-grid* model that, if included, provides for the correct rate of energy transfer to small scales. Work in that direction is still in its infancy in the core-collapse supernova context.
Making Magnetars:\
Resolving the Magnetorotational Instability
===========================================
![Visualization of the toroidal magnetic field built up by an inverse cascade (large-scale dynamo) from small-scale magnetoturbulence in a magnetorotational core-collapse supernova. Shown is a $140 \times 70\,\mathrm{km}$ 3D *octant* region with periodic boundaries on the $x-z$ and $y-z$ faces. Regions of strongest positive and negative magnetic field are marked by light blue and yellowish colors. Dark blue and dark red colors mark regions of weaker negative and positive magnetic field. Based on the NSF/NCSA Blue Waters simulations of Mösta *et al.* 2015 [@moesta:15] and rendered by Robert R. Sisneros (NCSA) and Philipp Mösta (UC Berkeley).[]{data-label="fig:mhd"}](f8.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
The magnetorotational mechanism relies on the presence of an ultra-strong ($\sim$$10^{15}-10^{16}\,\mathrm{G}$) global, primarily toroidal, magnetic field around the protoneutron star. Such a strongly magnetized protoneutron star is called a *protomagnetar*.
It has been theorized that the magnetorotational instability (MRI, [@balbus:91]) could generate a strong local magnetic field that could be transformed into a global field by a dynamo process. While appealing, it was not at all clear that this is what happens. The physics is fundamentally global and 3D and global 3D MHD simulations with sufficient resolution to capture MRI-driven field growth were impossible to perform for core-collapse supernovae.
This changed with the advent of Blue Waters-class petascale supercomputers and is a testament to how increased compute power and capability systems like Blue Waters facilitate scientific discovery. In Mösta *et al.* 2015 [@moesta:15], our group at Caltech carried out full-physics 3D global general-relativistic MHD simulations of ten milliseconds of a rapidly spinning protoneutron star’s life, starting shortly after core bounce. We cut out a central octant (with appropriate boundary conditions) from another, lower-resolution 3D AMR simulation, and covered a 3D region of $140
\times 70 \times 70\,\mathrm{km}$ with uniform resolution. We performed four simulations to study the MHD dynamics at resolutions of $500\,\mathrm{m}$ ($\sim$2 points per MRI wavelength), $200\,\mathrm{m}$, $100\,\mathrm{m}$, and $50\,\mathrm{m}$ ($\sim$20 points per MRI wavelength). Since we employed uniform resolution and no AMR, the simulations showed excellent strong scaling. The $50\,\mathrm{m}$ simulation was run on $130,000$ Blue Waters cores. It consumed roughly $3\,\mathrm{million}$ Blue Waters node hours ($\sim$48million CPU hours).
Our simulations with $100\,\mathrm{m}$ and $50\,\mathrm{m}$ resolution resolve the MRI and show exponential growth of the magnetic field. This growth saturates at small scales within a few milliseconds and is consistent with what one anticipates on the basis of analytical estimates. The MRI drives MHD turbulence that is most prominent in the layer of greatest rotational shear, just outside of the protoneutron star core at radii of $20-30\,\mathrm{km}$. What we did not anticipate is that in the highest-resolution simulation (which resolves the turbulence best), an inverse turbulent cascade develops that transports magnetic field energy toward large scales. It acts as a large-scale dynamo that builds up global, primarily toroidal field, just in the way needed to power a magnetorotational explosion. Figure \[fig:mhd\] shows the final toroidal magnetic field component in our $50\,\mathrm{m}$ simulation after $10\,\mathrm{ms}$ of evolution time. Regions of strongest positive and negative magnetic field are marked by yellowish and light blue colors, respectively, and are just outside the protoneutron star core. At the time shown, the magnetic field on large scales has not yet reached its saturated state. We expect this to occur after $\sim$$50\,\mathrm{ms}$, which could not be simulated.
The results of Mösta *et al.* suggest that the conditions necessary for the magnetorotational mechanism are a generic outcome of the collapse of rapidly rotating cores. The MRI is a weak field instability and will grow to the needed saturation field strengths from any small seed magnetic field. The next step is to find a way to simulate for longer physical time and with a larger physical domain. This will be necessary in order to determine the long-term dynamical impact of the generated large-scale magnetic field. Such simulations will require algorithmic changes to improve parallel scaling, facilitate the efficient use of accelerators, and may require even larger and faster machines than Blue Waters.
Concluding Remarks
==================
Core-collapse supernova theorists have always been among the top group of users of supercomputers. The CDCs and IBMs of the 1960s and 1970s, the vector Crays of the 1970s to 1990s, the large parallel scalar architectures of the 2000s, and the current massively parallel SIMD machines all paved the path of progress for core-collapse supernova simulations.
Today’s 3D simulations are rapidly improving in their included macroscopic and microscopic physics. They are beginning to answer decades-old questions and are allowing us to formulate new questions. There is still much need for improvement, which will come at no small price in the post-Moore’s-law era of heterogeneous supercomputers.
One important issue that the community must address is the reproducibility of simulations and the verification of simulation codes. It still occurs more often than not that different codes starting from the same initial conditions and implementing nominally the same physics arrive at quantitatively and qualitatively different outcomes. In the mid-2000s an extensive comparison of 1D supernova codes took place that provided results that are still being used as benchmarks today [@liebendoerfer:05]. Efforts are now underway that will lead to the definition of multi-D benchmarks. In addition to code comparisons, the increasing availability of open-source simulation codes and routines for generating input physics (e.g., neutrino interactions) is furthering reproducibility. Importantly, these open-source codes now allow new researchers to enter the field without the need of spending many years on developing basic simulation technology that already exists.
Core collapse is, in essence, an initial value problem. Current simulations, even those in 3D, start from spherically symmetric precollapse conditions from 1D stellar evolution codes. However, stars rotate and convection in the layers surrounding the inert iron care is violently aspherical. These asphericities have an impact on the explosion mechanism. In order for 3D core-collapse supernova simulations to provide robust and reliable results, the initial conditions must be reliable and robust, and will likely require simulating the final phases of stellar evolution in 3D [@couch:15b], which is another multi-D, multi-scale, multi-physics problem.
Neutrino quantum-kinetics for including neutrino oscillations directly into simulations will be an important, but exceedingly algorithmically and computationally challenging addition to the simulation physics. Formalisms for doing so are under development and first implementations (in spatially 1D) simulations may be available in a few years.
A single current top-of-the-line 3D neutrino radiation-hydrodynamics simulation can be carried out to $\sim$$0.5-1\,\mathrm{second}$ after core bounce at a cost of several tens of millions of CPU hours; and it still underresolves the neutrino-driven turbulence. What is needed now, are many such simulations for studying sensitivity to initial conditions such as rotation and progenitor structure and input physics. These simulations should be at higher resolution and carried out for longer so that the longer-term development of the explosion (or collapse to a black hole) and, for example, neutron star birth kicks can be reliably simulated.
Many longer simulations at higher resolution will require much more compute power than is currently available. The good news is that the next generation of petascale systems and, certainly, exascale machines in the next decade will provide the necessary FLOPS. The bad news: the radical and disruptive architectural changes necessary on the route to exascale will require equally disruptive changes in supernova simulation codes. Already at petascale, the traditional data-parallel, linear/sequential execution model of all present supernova codes is the key limiting factor of code performance and scaling. A central issue is the need to communicate many boundary points between subdomains for commonly employed high-order finite difference and finite volume schemes. With increasing parallel process count, communication eventually dominates over computation in current supernova simulations.
Since latencies cannot be hidden, efficiently offloading data and tasks to accelerators in heterogeneous systems is difficult for current supernova codes. The upcoming generation of petascale machines such as DOE’s Summit and Sierra, fully embraces heterogeneity. For exascale machines, power consumption will be the driver of computing architecture. Current Blue Waters already draws $\sim$$10\,\mathrm{MW}$ of power and there is not much upwards flexibility for future machines. Unless there are unforeseen breakthroughs in semiconductor technology that provide increased single-core performance at orders of magnitude lower power footprint, exascale machines will likely be all-accelerator with hundreds of millions of slow, highly energy efficient cores.
Accessing the compute power of upcoming petascale and future exascale machines requires a radical departure from current code design and major code development efforts. Several supernova groups are exploring new algorithms, numerical methods, and parallelization paradigms. Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) finite elements (e.g., [@hesthaven:07]) have emerged as a promising discretization approach that guarantees high numerical order while minimizing the amount of subdomain boundary information that needs to be communicated between processes. In addition, switching to a new, more flexible parallelization will likely be necessary to prepare supernova codes (and other computational astrophysics codes solving similar equations) for exascale machines. A prime contender being considered by supernova groups is task-based parallelism, which allows for fine-grained dynamical load balancing and asynchronous execution and communication. Frameworks that can become task-based backbones of future supernova codes already exist, e.g., Charm++ (<http://charm.cs.illinois.edu/research/charm>), Legion (<http://legion.stanford.edu/overview/>), and Uintah (<http://uintah.utah.edu/>).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I acknowledge helpful conversations with and help from Adam Burrows, Sean Couch, Steve Drasco, Roland Haas, Kenta Kiuchi, Philipp Mösta, David Radice, Luke Roberts, Erik Schnetter, Ed Seidel, and Masaru Shibata. I thank the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at Kyoto University for hospitality while writing this article. This work is supported by NSF under award nos. CAREER PHY-1151197 and TCAN AST-1333520, and by the Sherman Fairchild Foundation. Computations were performed on NSF XSEDE under allocation TG-PHY100033 and on NSF/NCSA BlueWaters under NSF PRAC award no. ACI-1440083. Movies of simulation results can be found on <http://www.youtube.com/SXSCollaboration>.
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[l@\#1=l@\#1\#2]{}]{}
C. D. [Ott]{}, E. [Abdikamalov]{}, P. [M[ö]{}sta]{}, R. [Haas]{}, S. [Drasco]{}, E. P. [O’Connor]{}, C. [Reisswig]{}, C. A. [Meakin]{}, and E. [Schnetter]{}, “[General-relativistic Simulations of Three-dimensional Core-collapse Supernovae]{},” **, vol. 768, 115, May 2013.
H. A. [Bethe]{} and J. R. [Wilson]{}, “[Revival of a stalled supernova shock by neutrino heating]{},” **, vol. 295, 14, Aug. 1985.
H.-T. [Janka]{}, “[Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae]{},” *Ann. Rev. Nuc. Par. Sci.*, vol. 62, 407, Nov. 2012.
P. [M[ö]{}sta]{}, S. [Richers]{}, C. D. [Ott]{}, R. [Haas]{}, A. L. [Piro]{}, K. [Boydstun]{}, E. [Abdikamalov]{}, C. [Reisswig]{}, and E. [Schnetter]{}, “[Magnetorotational Core-Collapse Supernovae in Three Dimensions]{},” **, vol. 785, L29, Apr. 2014.
G. S. [Bisnovatyi-Kogan]{}, “[The Explosion of a Rotating Star As a Supernova Mechanism.]{}” *Astron. Zh.*, vol. 47, 813, Aug. 1970.
J. M. [LeBlanc]{} and J. R. [Wilson]{}, “[A Numerical Example of the Collapse of a Rotating Magnetized Star]{},” **, vol. 161, 541, Aug. 1970.
S. A. [Balbus]{} and J. F. [Hawley]{}, “[A powerful local shear instability in weakly magnetized disks. I—Linear analysis. II—Nonlinear evolution]{},” **, vol. 376, 214, Jul. 1991.
A. [Wongwathanarat]{}, H. [Janka]{}, and E. [M[ü]{}ller]{}, “[Hydrodynamical Neutron Star Kicks in Three Dimensions]{},” **, vol. 725, L106, Dec. 2010.
C. D. [Ott]{}, A. [Burrows]{}, L. [Dessart]{}, and E. [Livne]{}, “[Two-Dimensional Multiangle, Multigroup Neutrino Radiation-Hydrodynamic Simulations of Postbounce Supernova Cores]{},” **, vol. 685, 1069, 2008.
E. F. Toro, *[R]{}iemann [S]{}olvers and [N]{}umerical [M]{}ethods for [F]{}luid [D]{}ynamics*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emBerlin: Springer, 1999.
T. W. [Baumgarte]{} and S. L. [Shapiro]{}, *[Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein’s Equations on the Computer]{}*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
T. [Kuroda]{}, T. [Takiwaki]{}, and K. [Kotake]{}, “[A New Multi-energy Neutrino Radiation-Hydrodynamics Code in Full General Relativity and Its Application to the Gravitational Collapse of Massive Stars]{},” **, vol. 222, 20, Feb. 2016.
M. [Liebend[ö]{}rfer]{}, M. [Rampp]{}, H.-T. [Janka]{}, and A. [Mezzacappa]{}, “[Supernova Simulations with Boltzmann Neutrino Transport: A Comparison of Methods]{},” **, vol. 620, 840, Feb. 2005.
K. [Sumiyoshi]{}, T. [Takiwaki]{}, H. [Matsufuru]{}, and S. [Yamada]{}, “[Multi-dimensional Features of Neutrino Transfer in Core-collapse Supernovae]{},” **, vol. 216, 5, Jan. 2015.
E. [O’Connor]{} and S. M. [Couch]{}, “[Two Dimensional Core-Collapse Supernova Explosions Aided by General Relativity with Multidimensional Neutrino Transport]{},” *submitted to ; arXiv:1511.07443*, Nov. 2015.
L. F. [Roberts]{}, C. D. [Ott]{}, R. [Haas]{}, E. P. [O’Connor]{}, P. [Diener]{}, and E. [Schnetter]{}, “[General Relativistic Three-Dimensional Multi-Group Neutrino Radiation-Hydrodynamics Simulations of Core-Collapse Supernovae]{},” *To appear in ; arXiv:1604.07848*, Apr. 2016.
A. [Mirizzi]{}, I. [Tamborra]{}, H.-T. [Janka]{}, N. [Saviano]{}, K. [Scholberg]{}, R. [Bollig]{}, L. [H[ü]{}depohl]{}, and S. [Chakraborty]{}, “[Supernova neutrinos: production, oscillations and detection]{},” *Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie*, vol. 39, pp. 1–112, 2016.
A. [Vlasenko]{}, G. M. [Fuller]{}, and V. [Cirigliano]{}, “[Neutrino quantum kinetics]{},” **, vol. 89, no. 10, 105004, May 2014.
A. W. [Steiner]{}, M. [Hempel]{}, and T. [Fischer]{}, “[Core-collapse Supernova Equations of State Based on Neutron Star Observations]{},” **, vol. 774, 17, Sep. 2013.
S. M. [Couch]{}, E. [Chatzopoulos]{}, W. D. [Arnett]{}, and F. X. [Timmes]{}, “[The Three-dimensional Evolution to Core Collapse of a Massive Star]{},” **, vol. 808, L21, Jul. 2015.
D. [Radice]{}, C. D. [Ott]{}, E. [Abdikamalov]{}, S. M. [Couch]{}, R. [Haas]{}, and E. [Schnetter]{}, “[Neutrino-driven Convection in Core-collapse Supernovae: High-resolution Simulations]{},” **, vol. 820, 76, Mar. 2016.
E. J. [Lentz]{}, S. W. [Bruenn]{}, W. R. [Hix]{}, A. [Mezzacappa]{}, O. E. B. [Messer]{}, E. [Endeve]{}, J. M. [Blondin]{}, J. A. [Harris]{}, P. [Marronetti]{}, and K. N. [Yakunin]{}, “[Three-dimensional Core-collapse Supernova Simulated Using a 15 M$_{\odot}$ Progenitor]{},” **, vol. 807, L31, Jul. 2015.
S. M. [Couch]{} and C. D. [Ott]{}, “[The Role of Turbulence in Neutrino-driven Core-collapse Supernova Explosions]{},” **, vol. 799, 5, Jan. 2015.
P. [Mösta]{}, C. D. [Ott]{}, D. [Radice]{}, L. F. [Roberts]{}, R. [Haas]{}, and E. [Schnetter]{}, “[A Large-Scale Dynamo and Magnetoturbulence in Rapidly Rotating Core-Collapse Supernovae]{},” *Nature*, vol. 528, no. 7582, pp. 376–379, Dec. 2015.
J. S. Hesthaven and T. Warburton, *Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Methods: Algorithms, Analysis, and Applications*, 1st ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2007.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In order to popularize the so called Schwinger’s method we reconsider the Feynman propagator of two non-relativistic systems: a charged particle in a uniform magnetic field and a charged harmonic oscillator in a uniform magnetic field. Instead of solving the Heisenberg equations for the position and the canonical momentum operators, ${\bf R}$ and ${\bf P}$, we apply this method by solving the Heisenberg equations for the gauge invariant operators ${\bf R}$ and $\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\pi}$} = {\bf P}-e{\bf A}$, the latter being the mechanical momentum operator. In our procedure we avoid fixing the gauge from the beginning and the result thus obtained shows explicitly the gauge dependence of the Feynman propagator.'
author:
- 'A. Aragão'
- 'F. A. Barone'
- 'H. Boschi-Filho'
- 'C. Farina'
title: 'Non-Relativistic Propagators via Schwinger’s Method'
---
Introduction
============
In a recent paper published in this journal [@BaroneBoschiFarinaAJP2003], three methods were used to compute the Feynman propagators of a one-dimensional harmonic oscillator, with the purpose of allowing a student to compare the advantadges and disadvantadges of each method. The above mentioned methods were the following: the so called Schwinger’s method (SM), the algebraic method and the path integral one. Though extremely powerful and elegant, Schwinger’s method is by far the less popular among them. The main purpose of the present paper is to popularize Schwinger’s method providing the reader with two examples slightly more difficult than the harmonic oscillator case and whose solutions may serve as a preparation for attacking relativistic problems. In some sense, this paper is complementary to reference [@BaroneBoschiFarinaAJP2003].
The method we shall be concerned with was introduced by Schwinger in 1951 [@Schwinger1951] in a paper about QED entitled Gauge invariance and vacuum polarization". After introducing the proper time representation for computing effetive actions in QED, Schwinger was faced with a kind of non-relativistic propagator in one extra dimension. The way he solved this problem is what we mean by Schwinger’s method for computing quantum propagators. For relativistic Green functions of charged particles under external electromagnetic fields, the main steps of this method are summarized in Itzykson and Zuber’s textbook [@ItziksonZuberBook] (apart, of course, from Schwinger’s work [@Schwinger1951]). Since then, this method has been used mainly in relativistic quantum theory [@GitmanBook; @Dodonov75; @Dodonov76; @Lykken; @Ferrando:1994vt; @BFV96; @Gavrilov:1998hw; @McKeon:1998zx; @Chyi:1999fc; @Tsamis:2000ah; @Chaichian:2000eh; @Chung:2001mb; @BoschiFarinaVaidya1996].
However, as mentioned before, Schwinger’s method is also well suited for computing non-relativistic propagators, though it has rarely been used in this context. As far as we know, this method was used for the first time in non-relativistic quantum mechanics by Urrutia and Hernandez [@UrrutiaHernandez1984]. These authors used Schwinger’s action principle to obtain the Feynman propagator for a damped harmonic oscillator with a time-dependent frequency under a time-dependent external force. Up to our knowledge, since then only a few papers have been written with this method, namely: in 1986, Urrutia and Manterola [@UrrutiaManterola1986] used it in the problem of an anharmonic charged oscillator under a magnetic field; in the same year, Horing, Cui, and Fiorenza [@HoringCuiFiorenza1986] applied Schwinger’s method to obtain the Green function for crossed time-dependent electric and magnetic fields; the method was later applied in a rederivation of the Feynman propagator for a harmonic oscillator with a time-dependent frequency [@FarinaSegui1993]; a connection with the mid-point-rule for path integrals involving electromagnetic interactions was discussed in [@RabelloFarina1995]. Finally, pedagogical presentations of this method can be found in the recent publication [@BaroneBoschiFarinaAJP2003] as well as in Schwinger’s original lecture notes recently published [@SchwingerBookEnglert2001], which includes a discussion of the quantum action principle and a derivation of the method to calculate propagators with some examples.
It is worth mentioning that this same method was independently developed by M. Goldberger and M. GellMann in the autumn of 1951 in connection with an unpublished paper about density matrix in statistical mechanics [@Goldberger1951].
Our purpose in this paper is to provide the reader with two other examples of non-relativistic quantum propagators that can be computed in a straightforward way by Schwinger’s method, namely: the propagator for a charged particle in a uniform magnetic field and this same problem with an additional harmonic oscillator potential. Though these problems have already been treated in the context of the quantum action principle [@UrrutiaManterola1986], we decided to reconsider them for the following reasons: instead of solving the Heisenberg equations for the position and the canonical momentum operators, ${\bf R}$ and ${\bf P}$, as is done in [@UrrutiaManterola1986], we apply Schwinger’s method by solving the Heisenberg equations for the gauge invariant operators ${\bf R}$ and $\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\pi}$} = {\bf P}-e{\bf A}$, the latter being the mechanical momentum operator. This is precisely the procedure followed by Schwinger in his seminal paper of gauge invariance and vacuum polarization [@Schwinger1951]. This procedures has some nice properties. For instance, we are not obligued to choose a particular gauge at the beginning of calculations. As a consequence, we end up with an expression for the propagator written in an arbitrary gauge. As a bonus, the transformation law for the propagator under gauge transformations can be readly obtained.
In order to prepare the students to attack more complex problems, we solve the Heisenberg equations in matrix form, which is well suited for generalizations involving Green functions of relativistic charged particles under the influence of electromagnetic fields (constant $F_{\mu\nu}$, a plane wave field or even combinations of both). For pedagogical reasons, at the end of each calculation, we show how to extract the corresponding energy spectrum from the Feynman propagator. Although the way Schwniger’s method must be applied to non-relativistic problems has already been explained in the literature [@UrrutiaManterola1986; @SchwingerBookEnglert2001; @BaroneBoschiFarinaAJP2003], it is not of common knowledge so that we start this paper by summarizing its main steps. The paper is organized as follows: in the next section we review Schwinger’s method, in section \[SectionExamples\] we present our examples and section \[SectionFinalRemarks\] is left for the final remarks.
Main steps of Schwinger’s method
================================
For simplicity, consider a one-dimensional time-independent Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ and the corresponding non-relativistic Feynman propagator defined as $$\label{DefinicaoPropagador}
K(x,x^{\prime};\tau)=\theta(\tau) \langle x | \exp{ \Big[ {\frac{-i
\cal{H} \tau}{\hbar}} \Big]} | x^{\prime} \rangle,$$ where $\theta(\tau)$ is the Heaviside step function and $|x\rangle$, $|x^{\prime}\rangle$ are the eingenkets of the position operator $X$ (in the Schrödinger picture) with eingenvalues $x$ and $x^{\prime}$, respectively. The extension for 3D systems is straightforward and will be done in the next section. For $\tau>0$ we have, from equation (\[DefinicaoPropagador\]), that $$\label{Eq2}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}K(x,x^{\prime};\tau) =
\langle x |\mathcal{H} \exp{\Big[ {\frac{-i \mathcal{H} \tau}{\hbar}}\Big]} |
x^{\prime}\rangle.$$ Inserting the unity $\uma =\exp{[-(i/\hbar)\mathcal{H}\tau]}\exp{[(i/\hbar)\mathcal{H}\tau]}$ in the r.h.s. of the above expression and using the well known relation between operators in the Heisenberg and Schrödinger pictures, we get the equation for the Feynman propagator in the Heisenberg picture, $$i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}
K(x,x^{\prime};\tau)=\langle x,\tau |\mathcal{H} (X(0),P(0))| x^{\prime},0\rangle, \label{Eq3}$$ where $|x,\tau\rangle$ and $|x^{\prime},0\rangle$ are the eingenvectors of operators $X(\tau)$ and $X(0)$, respectively, with the corresponding eingenvalues $x$ and $x^{\prime}$: $X(\tau)|x,\tau\rangle=x|x,\tau\rangle$ and $X(0)|x^{\prime},0\rangle=x^{\prime}|x^{\prime},0\rangle$, with $K(x,x^{\prime};\tau)=\langle x,\tau|x^{\prime},0\rangle$. Besides, $X(\tau)$ and $P(\tau)$ satisfy the Heisenberg equations, $$i\hbar \frac{dX}{d\tau}(\tau)=[X(\tau),\mathcal{H}] \hspace{0.2cm} ;
\hspace{0.2cm} i\hbar \frac{dP}{d\tau}(\tau)=[P(\tau),\mathcal{H}].
\label{Eq4}$$ Schwinger’s method consists in the following steps:
(i)
: we solve the Heisenberg equations for $X(\tau)$ and $P(\tau)$, and write the solution for $P(0)$ only in terms of the operators $X(\tau)$ and $X(0)$;
(ii)
: then, we substitute the results obtained in [**(i)**]{} into the expression for $\mathcal{H} (X(0),P(0))$ in (\[Eq3\]) and using the commutator $[X(0),X(\tau)]$ we rewrite each term of $\mathcal{H}$ in a time ordered form with all operators $X(\tau)$ to the left and all operators $X(0)$ to the right;
(iii)
: with such an ordered hamiltonian, equation (\[Eq3\]) can be readly cast into the form $$\label{Eq5}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau} K(x,x^{\prime};\tau) =
F(x,x^{\prime};\tau)K(x,x^{\prime};\tau),$$ with $F(x,x^{\prime};\tau)$ being an ordinary function defined as $$\label{Eq6}
F(x,x^{\prime};\tau)=\frac{\langle x,\tau |\mathcal{H}_{ord}
(X(\tau),X(0))| x^{\prime},0\rangle}
{\langle x,\tau|x^{\prime},0\rangle}.$$ Integrating in $\tau$, the Feynman propagator takes the form $$\label{Eq7}
K(x,x^{\prime};\tau)=C(x,x^{\prime})
\exp\left\{\!\!-\frac{i}{\hbar}\!\! \int^{\tau}
\!\!\!\!\! F(x,x^{\prime};\tau^\prime)d\tau^{\prime}\!\right\} ,$$ where $C(x,x^{\prime})$ is an integration constant independent of $\tau$ and $\int^{\tau}$ means an indefinite integral;
(iv)
: last step is concerned with the evaluation of $C(x,x^{\prime})$. This is done after imposing the following conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CondicaoP(tau)}
-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\langle
x,\tau|x^{\prime},0\rangle &=&
\langle x,\tau|P(\tau)|x^{\prime},0\rangle \, , \\
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\,\prime}}\langle
x,\tau|x^{\prime},0\rangle &=&
\langle x,\tau|P(0)|x^{\prime},0\rangle\, , \label{CondicaoP(0)}\end{aligned}$$ as well as the initial condition $$\label{CondicaoInicial}
\lim_{\tau\rightarrow 0^+}
K(x,x^{\prime};\tau) = \delta(x-x^{\prime})\ .$$
Imposing conditions (\[CondicaoP(tau)\]) and (\[CondicaoP(0)\]) means to substitute in their left hand sides the expression for $\langle x,\tau|x^{\prime},0\rangle$ given by (\[Eq7\]), while in their right hand sides the operators $P(\tau)$ and $P(0)$, respectively, written in terms of the operators $X(\tau)$ and $X(0)$ with the appropriate time ordering.
Examples {#SectionExamples}
========
Charged particle in an uniform magnetic field {#cpumf}
---------------------------------------------
As our first example, we consider the propagator of a non-relativistic particle with electric charge $e$ and mass $m$, submitted to a constant and uniform magnetic field ${\bf B}$. Even though this is a genuine three-dimensional problem, the extension of the results reviewed in the last section to this case is straightforward. Since there is no electric field present, the hamiltonian can be written as $$\label{HamiltonianaBUniforme}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{\left({\bf P} - e{\bf A}\right)^{2}}{2m}
= \frac{\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\pi}$}^2}{2m}\ ,$$ where ${\bf P}$ is the canonical momentum operator, ${\bf A}$ is the vector potential and $\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\pi}$}={\bf P}-e{\bf A}$ is the gauge invariant mechanical momentum operation. We choose the axis such that the magnetic field is given by ${\bf B}=B{\bf e_3}$. Hence, the hamiltonian can be decomposed as $$\mathcal{H} = \frac{\pi_{1}^{2}+\pi_{2}^{2}}{2m} +
\frac{P_3^2}{2m} \; =\; \mathcal{H}_{\bot} +
\frac{P_{3}^{2}}{2m}\ ,$$ with an obvious definition for $\mathcal{H}_{\bot}$. Since the motion along the ${\cal OX}_3$ direction is free, the three-dimensional propagator $K({\bf x},{\bf x}^{\prime};\tau)$ can be written as a product of a two-dimensional propagator, $K_{\bot}({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\prime};\tau)$, related to the magnetic field and a one-dimensional free propagator, $K_{3}^{(0)}(x_3,x_3^{\prime};\tau)$: $$\label{DecomposicaoPropagador}
K({\bf x},{\bf x}^{\prime};\tau)=K_{\bot}({\bf r},{\bf
r}^{\prime};\tau)
K_{3}^{(0)}(x_3,x_3^{\prime};\tau),\;\;\;\;
(\tau>0)$$ where ${\bf r} = x_1{\bf e_1} + x_2{\bf e_2} $ and $K_{3}^{(0)}(x_3,x_3^{\prime};\tau)$ is the well known propagator of the free particle [@FeynmanHibbsBook], $$K_{3}^{(0)}(x_3,x_3^{\prime};\tau)=\sqrt{\frac{m}{2\pi i\hbar \tau}}
\exp{ \Big[ \frac{im}{2\hbar}\frac{(x_3 - x_3^{\prime})^{2}}{\tau}\Big]}.
\label{Eq14}$$ In order to use Schwinger’s method to compute the two-dimensional propagator $K_{\bot}({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\prime};\tau) =
\langle{\bf r},\tau|{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle$, we start by writing the differential equation $$\label{EqDiferencialPropagador2D}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}
\langle{\bf r},\tau|{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle =
\langle {\bf r},\tau|\mathcal{H}_{\bot}({\bf R}_\bot(0),
\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\pi}$}_\bot(0) )| {\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle\ ,$$ where ${\bf R}_\bot(\tau) =
X_{1}(\tau){\bf e_1} + X_{2}(\tau){\bf e_2}$ and $\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\pi}$}_\bot(\tau) =
\pi_{1}(\tau){\bf e_1} + \pi_{2}(\tau){\bf e_2}$. In (\[EqDiferencialPropagador2D\]) $|{\bf r},\tau\rangle$ and $|{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle$ are the eigenvectors of position operators ${\bf R}(\tau)=X_{1}(\tau){\bf
e_1} + X_{2}(\tau){\bf e_2}$ and ${\bf R}(0)=X_{1}(0){\bf e_1} +
X_{2}(0){\bf e_2}$, respectively. More especifically, operators $X_{1}(0)$, $X_{1}(\tau)$, $X_{2}(0)$ and $X_{2}(\tau)$ have the eigenvalues $x_{1}^{\prime}$, $x_{1}$, $x_{2}^{\prime}$ and $x_{2}$, respectively. In order to solve the Heisenberg equations for operators ${\bf R}_\bot(\tau)$ and $\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\pi}$}_\bot(\tau)$, we need the commutators $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ComutadorXcomPi2}
\Big[X_{i}(\tau) , \pi_{j}^{2}(\tau) \Big] &=&
2i\hbar \pi_{i}(\tau)\, ,\cr
\Big[\pi_{i}(\tau) , \pi_{j}^{2}(\tau)\Big] &=& 2i\hbar eB\epsilon_{ij3}\pi_{j}(\tau),
\label{ComutadorPicomPi}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_{ij3}$ is the usual Levi-Civita symbol. Introducing the matrix notation $${\bf R}(\tau)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
X_{1}(\tau) \\ X_{2}(\tau)
\end{array}
\right)
\hspace{0.25cm};\hspace{0.25cm}
\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\pi_{1}(\tau) \\ \pi_{2}(\tau)
\end{array}
\right)
\label{Eq20}\ ,$$ and using the previous commutators the Heisenberg equations of motion can be cast into the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EquacaoR}
\frac{d{\bf R}(\tau)}{d\tau}&=&\frac{\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau)}{m}\ , \\
\frac{d\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau)}{d\tau} &=& 2\omega
\mathbb{C} \mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau) \,,
\label{EquacaoPi}\end{aligned}$$ where $2\omega={eB}/{m}$ is the cyclotron frequency and we defined the anti-diagonal matrix $$\mathbb{C}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\label{Eq21}\ .$$ Integrating equation (\[EquacaoPi\]) we find $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau) &=&
e^{2\omega\mathbb{C}\tau}\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(0)
\label{Eq23}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this solution in equation (\[EquacaoR\]) and integrating once more, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq22}
\textbf{R}(\tau)-\textbf{R}(0)&=&\frac{\sin{(\omega\tau)}}{m\omega}
e^{\omega\mathbb{C}\tau}\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(0)
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where we used the following properties of $\mathbb{C}$ matrix: $\mathbb{C}^{2}\!=\!-\uma$; $\mathbb{C}^{-1}\!=\!-\mathbb{C}=\mathbb{C}^{T}$, $e^{\alpha\mathbb{C}} =
\cos{(\alpha)}\uma + \sin{(\alpha)}\mathbb{C}$ with $\mathbb{C}^{T}$ being the transpose of $\mathbb{C}$. Combining equations (\[Eq22\]) and (\[Eq23\]) we can write $\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(0)$ in terms of the operators ${\bf R}(\tau)$ and ${\bf R}(0)$ as $$\label{Eq24}
\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(0)=\frac{m\omega}{\sin{(\omega\tau)}}
e^{-\omega\mathbb{C}\tau}\biggl({\bf R}(\tau)-{\bf R}(0)\biggr).$$ In order to express $\mathcal{H}_\bot = (\pi_1^2 + \pi_2^2)/2m$ in terms of $\textbf{R}(\tau)$ and $\textbf{R}(0)$, we use (\[Eq24\]). In matrix notation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\bot}&=&\frac{1}{2m}\,\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}^{T}(0)\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(0)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{m\omega^2}{2\sin^2{(\omega\tau)}}\biggl({\bf R}^{T}(\tau){\bf R}(\tau)+{\bf R}^{T}(0){\bf R}(0)+\nonumber\\
&\ &\hspace{1.5cm}-{\bf R}^{T}(\tau){\bf R}(0)-{\bf R}^{T}(0){\bf R}(\tau)\biggr)\ .
\label{Hnaoordenado}\end{aligned}$$ Last term on the r.h.s. of (\[Hnaoordenado\]) is not ordered appropriately as required in the step ([**ii**]{}). The correct ordering may be obtained as follows: first, we write $$\textbf{R}(0)^{T} \textbf{R}(\tau)
= \textbf{R}(\tau)^{T}\textbf{R}(0) +
\sum_{i=1}^{2}[X_{i}(0) , X_{i}(\tau)]\, .$$ Using equation (\[Eq22\]), the usual commutator $[X_{i}(0),{\pi}_j(0)]=i\hbar\delta_{ij}\uma$ and the properties of matrix $\mathbb{C}$ it is easy to show that $$\label{Eq25}
\sum_{i=1}^{2}[X_{i}(0) , X_{i}(\tau)]
=
\frac{2i\hbar\sin(\omega\tau)\cos(\omega\tau)}{m\omega}\, ,$$ so that hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{\bot}$ with the appropriate time ordering takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_\perp&=&\frac{m\omega^2}{2\sin^2{(\omega\tau)}}
\biggl\{{\bf R}^{2}(\tau)+{\bf R}^{2}(0)-2{\bf R}^{T}(\tau){\bf R}(0)\biggr\} \, \nonumber \\ &-& i
\hbar \omega\cot(\omega\tau).
\label{Eq27}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this hamiltonian into equation (\[EqDiferencialPropagador2D\]) and integrating in $\tau$, we obtain $$\label{ProtoPropagador}
\langle{\bf r},\tau\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle =
\frac{C({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\prime})}{\sin{(\omega\tau)}}
\exp\biggl\{{\frac{im\omega}{ 2\hbar}}\cot(\omega\tau)({\bf r}-{\bf
r}^{\prime})^2\biggr\} ,$$ where $C({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\;\prime})$ is an integration constant to be determined by conditions (\[CondicaoP(tau)\]), (\[CondicaoP(0)\]) and (\[CondicaoInicial\]), which for the case of hand read $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{\bf r},\tau\vert\pi_j(\tau)\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle
\!\!&=&\!\!
\left(-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}-eA_j({\bf r})\right)
\langle{\bf r},\tau\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle
\label{Eq30}\\
\langle{\bf r},\tau\vert\pi_j(0)\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle
\!\!&=&\!\!
\left(i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\prime_j}-eA_j({\bf
r}^{\prime})\right) \langle{\bf r},\tau\vert{\bf
r}^{\prime},0\rangle\ ,
\label{Eq31}\\
\lim_{\tau\rightarrow 0^+}\langle{\bf r},
\tau\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle
\!\!&=&\!\! \delta^{(2)}({\bf r}-{\bf
r}^{\prime}).\hspace{3.45cm} \label{Eq32}\end{aligned}$$ In order to compute the matrix element on the l.h.s. of (\[Eq30\]), we need to express $\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}}(\tau)$ in terms of ${\bf R}(\tau)$ and ${\bf R}(0)$. From equaitons (\[Eq23\]) and (\[Eq24\]), we have $$\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}}(\tau)=
\frac{m\omega}{\sin{(\omega\tau)}}\mbox{\large
$e^{\omega\tau\mathbb{C}}$} \biggl({\bf R}(\tau)-{\bf R}(0)\biggr),
\label{Eq33}$$ which leads to the matrix element $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{\bf r},\tau\vert\pi_j(\tau)\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle
&=&
m\omega[\cot(\omega\tau) \left(x_j-x^\prime_j \right) \nonumber\\
&+& \mbox{\large $\epsilon_{jk3}$}\left(x_k-x^\prime_k\right)]
\langle{\bf r},\tau\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle\ , \label{Eq34a}\end{aligned}$$ where we used the properties of matrix $\mathbb{C}$ and Einstein convention for repeated indices is summed. Analogously, the l.h.s. of equation (\[Eq31\]) can be computed from (\[Eq24\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq34b}
\langle{\bf r},\tau\vert\pi_j(0)\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle &=& m\omega[\cot(\omega\tau) \left(x_j-x^\prime_j \right) \nonumber\\
&-&\mbox{\large $\epsilon_{jk3}$}\left(x_k-x^\prime_k\right)] \langle{\bf r},\tau\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle\ .\end{aligned}$$ Substituting equations (\[Eq34a\]) and (\[Eq34b\]) into (\[Eq30\]) and (\[Eq31\]), respectively, and using (\[ProtoPropagador\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Equacao1ParaC}
\Big[i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial x_j} +
eA_j({\bf r})\! + {1\over 2} e
F_{jk}(x_k \!-\! x^\prime_k)\Big] C({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\;\prime})\! \!\!&=&\!\! 0,\\
\Big[i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial x^\prime_j} -eA_j({\bf
r}^{\;\prime}) \! + {1\over 2} e F_{jk}(x_k \! -\!x^\prime_k)\Big]\,
\!C({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\;\prime}) \!\!\!&=& \!\!0,\label{Equacao2ParaC}\end{aligned}$$ where we defined $F_{jk}={\mbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{jk3}\, B$.
Our strategy to solve the above system of differential equations is the following: we first equation (\[Equacao1ParaC\]) assuming in this equation variables ${{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}$ as constants. Then, we impose that the result thus obtained is a solution of equation (\[Equacao2ParaC\]). With this goal, we multiply both sides of (\[Equacao1ParaC\]) by $dx_j$ and sum over $j$, to obtain $$\label{dlnC}
{1\over C}\left({\partial C\over\partial x_j}\; dx_j \right) =
{ie\over\hbar} \biggl[ A_j({\bf r})+{1\over 2}F_{jk}\left(
x_k-x^\prime_k\right)\biggr] \; dx_j\; .$$ Integration of the previous equation leads to $$\label{integracaoCrr'1}
C({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\;\prime}) = C({{\bf r}}^{\;\prime},{{\bf
r}}^{\;\prime})\;
\mbox{\Large$ e^{\{ {ie\over \hbar}_{\;\;\Gamma}
\int_{\;\;\atop{{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}}}^{\;{\bf r}}
[ A_j (\mbox{\footnotesize{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}) +
{1\over 2}\, F_{jk}\left(\xi_k-x^\prime_k\right)] \; d\xi_j\}}$}\; ,$$ where the line integral is assumed to be along curve $\Gamma$, to be specified in a moment. As we shall see, this line integral does not depend on the curve $\Gamma$ joining ${{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}$ and ${\bf r}$, as expected, since the l.h.s. of (\[dlnC\]) is an exact differencial.
In order to determine the differential equation for $C({{\bf
r}}^{\;\prime},{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime})$ we must substitue expression (\[integracaoCrr’1\]) into equation (\[Equacao2ParaC\]). Doing that and using carefully the fundamental theorem of differential calculus, it is straightforward to show that $$\label{integracaoCrr'2}
{\partial C\over\partial x^\prime_j}({{\bf r}}^{\;\prime},{{\bf
r}}^{\;\prime})=0\; ,$$ which means that $C({\bf r}^{\,\prime},{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime})$ is a constant, $C_0$, independent of ${{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}$. Noting that $$[{\bf B}\times\left(\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}- {{\bf
r}}^{\;\prime}\right)]_j =
-F_{jk}\left(\xi_k-x^\prime_k\right)\, ,$$ equation (\[integracaoCrr’1\]) can be written as $$\label{Cintegrado1}
C({\bf r},{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}) \!= C_0\; \exp\left\{ {ie\over
\hbar}_{\;\;\Gamma}\!\! \int_{\;\;\atop{{{\bf
r}}^{\;\prime}}}^{\;{\bf r}}\!\! \bigl[{\bf A}
(\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}})-{1\over 2}\, {\bf B}\times\left
(\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}-{{\bf
r}}^{\;\prime}\right)\bigr]\! \cdot\!
d\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}\right\} .$$ Observe, now, that the integrand in the previous equation has a vanishing curl, $$\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\nabla}$}}_{\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}}
\times\biggl[{\bf A} (\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}})-{1\over
2}\, {\bf B} \times\left(\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}-{{\bf
r}}^{\;\prime}\right)\biggr]= {\bf B}-{\bf B}={\bf 0}\; ,$$ which means that the line integral in (\[Cintegrado1\]) is path independent. Choosing, for convenience, the straightline from ${{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}$ to ${\bf r}$, it can be readly shown that $${\;}_{\;\;\;\atop{\mbox{$\Gamma_{sl}$}}}\!\int_{\;\;\atop{{{\bf
r}}^{\;\prime}}}^{\;{\bf r}} [{\bf B}\times\left(
\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}-{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime} \right)]
\cdot d\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}=0\; ,$$ where $\Gamma_{sl}$ means a straightline from ${{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}$ to ${\bf r}$. With this simplification, the $C({{\bf r}}^{\;\prime},{\bf r})$ takes the form $$\label{Cintegrado1}
C({\bf r},{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}) \!= C_0\; \exp\left\{ {ie\over
\hbar}_{\;\;\Gamma_{sl}}\!\! \int_{\;\;\atop{{{\bf
r}}^{\;\prime}}}^{\;{\bf r}}\!\! {\bf A}
(\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}) \cdot
d\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}\right\} .$$ Substituting last equation into (\[ProtoPropagador\]) and using the initial condition (\[CondicaoInicial\]), we readly obtain $C_{0}=\frac{m\omega}{2\pi i\hbar}$. Therefore the complete Feynman propagator for a charged particle under the influence of a constant and uniform magnetic field takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PropagadorFinalBUniforme}
K({\bf x},{{\bf x}}^{\prime};\tau)\hspace{6.0cm}\nonumber\\
={m\, \omega\over 2\pi i\hbar\,\sin{(\omega\tau)}} \sqrt{{m\over 2\pi i\hbar\tau}}
\exp\left\{ {ie\over \hbar}
\int_{{\bf r}^{\prime}}^{{\bf r}}\!\!\!\!\!{\bf A}
(\mbox {{\mathversion {bold}${\xi}$}}) \cdot d\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}\right\}\nonumber\\
\exp\biggl\{{im\omega\over 2\hbar}\cot(\omega\tau)({\bf r}-{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime})^2\biggr\}
\exp\biggl\{{im\over 2\hbar}{\left( x_3 - x_3^\prime\right)^2\over
\tau}\biggr\}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where in the above equation we omitted the symbol $\Gamma_{sl}$ but, of course, it is implicit that the line integral must be done along a straightline, and we brought back the free propagation along the ${\cal OX}_3$ direction. A few comments about the above result are in order.
1. Firstly, we should emphasize that the line integral which appears in the first exponencial on the r.h.s. of (\[PropagadorFinalBUniforme\]) must be evaluated along a straight line between ${\bf r}^{\prime}$ and ${\bf r}$. If for some reason we want to choose another path, instead of integral $\int_{{\bf r}^{\prime}}^{\bf r}
{\bf A}(\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}})\cdot
d\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}$, we must evaluate $\int_{{\bf r}^{\prime}}^{\bf r}[
{\bf A}(\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}})-(1/2){\bf B}\times
(\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}-{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime})]\cdot
d\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}}$.
2. Since we solved the Heisenberg equations for the gauge invariant operators ${\bf R}_\bot$ and $\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\pi}$}}_\bot$, our final result is written for a generic gauge. Note that the gauge-independent and gauge-dependent parts of the propagator are clearly separated. The gauge fixing corresponds to choose a particular expression for $\bf A(\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}})$. Besides, from (\[PropagadorFinalBUniforme\]) we imediately obtain the transformation law for the propagator under a gauge transformation ${\bf A} \rightarrow {\bf A} +
\mbox{{\mathversion{bold}${\nabla}$}}\Lambda$, namely, $$\label{GaugeTransformation}
K({\bf r},{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime};\tau)\longmapsto
\mbox{\large $ e^{\frac{ie}{\hbar}\,\Lambda({\bf r})}$}\, K({\bf
r},{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime};\tau)\, \mbox{\large $
e^{-\frac{ie}{\hbar}\,\Lambda({{\bf r}}^{\;\prime})}$}\; .\nonumber$$ Although this transformation law was obtained in a particular case, it can be shown that it is quite general.
3. It is interesting to show how the energy spectrum (Landau levels), with the corresponding degeneracy per unit area, can be extracted from propagator (\[PropagadorFinalBUniforme\]). With this purpose, we recall that the partition function can be obtained from the Feynman propagator by taking $\tau=-i\hbar\beta$, with $\beta=1/(K_BT)$, and taking the spatial trace, $$Z(\beta) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty dx_1\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx_2\;
K({\bf r},{\bf r};-i\hbar\beta)\; .$$ Substituting (\[PropagadorFinalBUniforme\]) into last expression, we get $$Z(\beta) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty dx_1\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx_2\;
{m\omega\over 2\pi\hbar\,\mbox{senh}(\hbar\beta\omega)}\; ,$$ where we used the fact that $\sin(-i\theta)=-i\,\sinh\,\theta$. Observe that the above result is divergent, since the area of the ${\cal OX}_1{\cal X}_2$ plane is infinite. This is a consequence of the fact that each Landau level is infinitely degenerated, though the degeneracy per unit area is finite. In order to proceed, let us assume an area as big as we want, but finite. Adopting this kind or regularization, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-L/2}^{L/2} \!\! dx_1\!\!\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\!\! dx_2\;
\!\!\!&K&\!\!\! ({\bf r},{\bf r};-i\hbar\beta)\approx
{L^2\, m\omega\over 2\pi\hbar\,\mbox{senh}(\hbar\beta\omega)}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&=& {L^2\, eB\over 2\pi\hbar\left(\mbox{\large $
e^{\hbar\beta\omega}$}-
\mbox{\large $ e^{-\hbar\beta\omega}$}\right)}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&=& {L^2\, eB\over 2\pi\hbar} {\mbox{\large $ e^{-{1\over
2}\hbar\beta\omega_c}$}\over \left(1-\mbox{\large $
e^{-\hbar\beta\omega_c}$}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{n=0}^\infty {L^2\, eB\over 2\pi\hbar} \mbox{\large $
e^{-\beta(n+{1\over2})\hbar\omega_c}$}\; ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we denoted by $\omega_c = eB/2m$ the ciclotron frequency. Comparing this result with that of a partition function whose energy level $E_n$ has degeneracy $g_n$, given by $$Z(\beta) = \sum_n g_n\; \mbox{\large $ e^{-\beta E_n}$}\; ,$$ we imediately identify the so called Landau leves and the corresponding degeneracy per unit area, $$\label{niveisdeLandau}
E_n = \left( n+{1\over 2}\right)\hbar\omega_c\;\; ;\;\;
{g_n\over A} = {eB\over 2\pi\hbar}\;\;\;\; (n=0,1,...)\;
.\nonumber$$
Charged harmonic oscillator in a uniform magnetic field {#choumf}
-------------------------------------------------------
In this section we consider a particle with mass $m$ and charge $e$ in the presence of a constant and uniform magnetic field $\textbf{B}
= B{\bf e_3}$ and submitted to a 2-dimensional isotropic harmonic oscillator potential in the ${\cal OX}_1{\cal X}_2$ plane, with natural frequency $\omega_{0}$. Using the same notation as before, we can write the hamiltonian of the system in the form $$\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_{\bot} + \frac{P_3^2}{2m}, \label{Eq48}$$ where $$\mathcal{H}_{\bot} = \frac{{\pi}_{1}^{2}+{\pi}_{2}^{2}}{2m} +
\frac{1}{2}m\omega_0^2\left(X_1^2 + X_2^2\right). \label{Eq49}$$ As before, the Feynman propagator for this problem takes the form $K(\textbf{x},\textbf{x}^{\prime};\tau)=K_{\bot}
(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime};\tau)K_{3}^{(0)}(x_3,x_3^{\prime};\tau)$, with $K_{3}^{(0)}(x_3,x_3^{\prime};\tau)$ given by equation (\[Eq14\]). The propagator in the ${\cal OX}_1{\cal X}_2$-plane satisfies the differential equation (\[EqDiferencialPropagador2D\]) and will be determined by the same used in the previous example.
Using hamiltonian (\[Eq49\]) and the usual commutation relations the Heisenberg equations are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\textbf{R}(\tau)}{d\tau}&=&\frac{\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau)}{m} \,, \label{Eq51} \\
\frac{d\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau)}{d\tau} &=& 2\omega
\mathbb{C} \mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau) - m
\omega_{0}^{2}\textbf{R}(\tau)\ , \label{Eq52}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the matrix notation introduced in (\[Eq20\]) and (\[Eq21\]). Equation (\[Eq51\]) is the same as (\[EquacaoR\]), but equation (\[Eq52\]) contains an extra term when compared to (\[EquacaoPi\]). In order to decouple equations (\[Eq51\]) and (\[Eq52\]), we differentiate (\[Eq51\]) with respect to $\tau$ and then use (\[Eq52\]). This procedure leads to the following uncoupled equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2}\textbf{R}(\tau)}{d\tau^{2}}
&-&
2\omega\mathbb{C}\frac{d\textbf{R}(\tau)}{d\tau}+\omega_{0}^{2}\textbf{R}(\tau)=0
\label{Eq53}\end{aligned}$$ After solving this equation, $\textbf{R}(\tau)$ and $\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau)$ are constrained to satisfy equations (\[Eq51\]) and (\[Eq52\]), respectively. A straightforward algebra yields the solution $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{R}(\tau)&=&\mathbb{M}^{-}\textbf{R}(0)+\mathbb{N}\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(0)
\label{Eq56} \\
\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau)
&=&
\mathbb{M}^{+}\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(0)-m^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}\mathbb{N}\textbf{R}(0)\
, \label{Eq57}\end{aligned}$$ where we defined the matrices $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{N}&=&\frac{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}{m\Omega}e^{\omega\tau\mathbb{C}} \label{Eq58}\\
\mathbb{M}^{\pm}&=&e^{\omega\tau\mathbb{C}}\Big[\cos{(\Omega\tau)}\uma\pm
\frac{\omega}{\Omega}\sin{(\Omega\tau)}\mathbb{C}\Big]\ ,
\label{Eq59}\end{aligned}$$ and frequency $\Omega = \sqrt{\omega^{2}+\omega_{0}^{2}}$. Using (\[Eq56\]) and (\[Eq57\]), we write $\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(0)$ and $\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau)$ in terms of $\textbf{R}(\tau)$ and $\textbf{R}(0)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(0)
\!\!&=&\!\!
\mathbb{N}^{-1}\textbf{R}(\tau)-\mathbb{N}^{-1}\mathbb{M}^{-}\textbf{R}(0)\,
,
\label{Pi(0)OH+B} \\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(\tau)
\!\!\!&=&\!\!
\mathbb{M}^{+}\mathbb{N}^{-1}\textbf{R}(\tau) \! -\!\!
\Big[ \mathbb{M}^{+}\mathbb{N}^{-1}\mathbb{M}^{-} \!\!\!+\!
m^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}\mathbb{N}\Big]\! \textbf{R}(0).
\label{Pi(tau)OH+B}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we must order appropriately the hamiltonian operator $\mathcal{H}_{\bot}=\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}^{T}(0)
\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\Pi}$}(0)/(2m)+m\omega_{0}^{2}\textbf{R}^{T}(0)\textbf{R}(0)/2$, which, with the aid of equation (\[Pi(0)OH+B\]), can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\bot}&=& \Big[\textbf{R}^{T}(\tau)(\mathbb{N}^{-1})^T -
\textbf{R}^{T}(0)(\mathbb{M}^{-})^T (\mathbb{N}^{-1})^T \Big] \cr
&&\times \Big[\mathbb{N}^{-1} \textbf{R}(\tau) -
\mathbb{N}^{-1}\mathbb{M}^{-} \textbf{R}(0)\Big] +m\omega_0^2
\textbf{R}^{T}(0)\textbf{R}(0) \cr\cr
&=&\frac{m\Omega^{2}}{2\sin^{2}{(\Omega\tau)}}
\Big[\textbf{R}^{T}(\tau) - \textbf{R}^{T}(0)(\mathbb{M}^{-})^T
\Big] \cr &&\times \Big[\textbf{R}(\tau) - \mathbb{M}^{-}
\textbf{R}(0)\Big] +m\omega_0^2 \textbf{R}^{T}(0)\textbf{R}(0)
\cr\cr &=&\frac{m\Omega^{2}}{2\sin^{2}{(\Omega\tau)}}
\Big[\textbf{R}^{T}(\tau) \textbf{R}(\tau) - \textbf{R}^{T}(\tau)
\mathbb{M}^{-}\textbf{R}(0) \cr &&-
\textbf{R}^{T}(0)(\mathbb{M}^{-})^T \textbf{R}^{T}(\tau) +
\textbf{R}^{T}(0)(\mathbb{M}^{-})^T \mathbb{M}^{-} \textbf{R}(0)
\Big] \cr &&\;\;+m\omega_0^2 \textbf{R}^{T}(0)\textbf{R}(0) \cr\cr
&=&\frac{m\Omega^{2}}{2\sin^{2}{(\Omega\tau)}}\Big[\textbf{R}^{2}(\tau)
-\textbf{R}^{T}(\tau)\mathbb{M}^{-}\textbf{R}(0)
\cr
&& \qquad\qquad -\textbf{R}^{T}(0)(\mathbb{M}^{-})^{T}\textbf{R}(\tau) +\textbf{R}^{2}(0)\Big]\ ,
\label{Eq63}\end{aligned}$$ where superscript $T$ means transpose and we have used the properties of the matrices $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{M}^{-}$ given by (\[Eq58\]) and (\[Eq59\]). In order to get the right time ordering, observe first that $$\textbf{R}^T(0)(\mathbb{M}^{-})^T \textbf{R}(\tau) =
\textbf{R}^T(\tau) \mathbb{M}^{-}\textbf{R}(0) + \Big[\left(
\mathbb{M}^{-} \textbf{R}(0)\right)_{i},\textbf{X}_{i}(\tau)\Big]
\,,$$ where $$\Big[\left( \mathbb{M}^{-}
\textbf{R}(0)\right)_{i},\textbf{X}_{i}(\tau)\Big]
= i\hbar \mbox{Tr}\Big[\mathbb{N}(\mathbb{M}^{-})^{T} \Big]
= \frac{i\hbar}{m\Omega} \sin{(2\Omega\tau)}\, .$$ Using the last two equations into (\[Eq63\]) we rewrite the hamiltonian in the desired ordered form, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hordenada1}
\mathcal{H}_{\bot}&=&\frac{m\Omega^{2}}{2\sin^{2}{(\Omega\tau)}}\Big[\textbf{R}^{2}(\tau)+\textbf{R}^{2}(0) - 2\textbf{R}^{T}(\tau)\mathbb{M}^{-}\textbf{R}(0) \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \qquad - \frac{i\hbar}{m\Omega} \sin{(2\Omega\tau)}
\Big]\ .\end{aligned}$$ For future convenience, let us define $$\begin{aligned}
U(\tau)&=&\cos{(\omega\tau)}\cos{(\Omega\tau)}
+ \frac{\omega}{\Omega}\sin{(\omega\tau)}\sin{(\Omega\tau)}\, , \label{Eq67} \\
V(\tau)&=&\sin{(\omega\tau)}\cos{(\Omega\tau)}
- \frac{\omega}{\Omega}\cos{(\omega\tau)}\sin{(\Omega\tau)}
\label{Eq68}\end{aligned}$$ and write matrix $\mathbb{M}^{-}$, defined in (\[Eq59\]), in the form $$\mathbb{M}^{-}=U(\tau)\uma + V(\tau)\mathbb{C}. \label{Eq66}$$ Substituting (\[Eq66\]) in (\[Hordenada1\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\bot}&=&\frac{m\Omega^{2}}{2\sin^{2}{(\Omega\tau)}}\Big[\textbf{R}^{2}(\tau)+\textbf{R}^{2}(0)
- 2U(\tau)\textbf{R}^{T}(\tau)\textbf{R}(0) \nonumber \\
&-& 2V(\tau)\textbf{R}^{T}(\tau)\mathbb{C}\textbf{R}(0)-\frac{i\hbar}{m\Omega}
\sin{(2\Omega\tau)}\Big]\,.
\label{Eq69}\end{aligned}$$ The next step is to compute the classical function $F({\bf r},{\bf r^{\prime}};\tau)$. Using the following identities $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Omega U(\tau)}{\sin^{2}{(\Omega\tau)}}
&=&
- \frac{d}{d\tau} \Big[\frac{\cos{(\omega\tau)}} {\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}\Big]\, , \label{Eq70} \\
\frac{\Omega V(\tau)}{\sin^{2}{(\Omega\tau)}}
&=&
- \frac{d}{d\tau}\Big[\frac{\sin{(\omega\tau)}} {\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}\Big],
\label{Eq71}\end{aligned}$$ into (\[Eq69\]), we write $F(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime};\tau)$ in the convenient form $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\! F(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime};\tau)
\!\!&=&\!\!
\frac{m\Omega^{2}}{2}(\textbf{r}^{2}+\textbf{r}^{\prime^{2}})\mbox{csc}(\Omega\tau)^{2}
\!\!+ m\Omega\textbf{r}\cdot\textbf{r}^{\prime}\! \frac{d}{d\tau}
\! \Big[ \frac{\cos{(\omega\tau)}} {\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}\Big] \nonumber \\
&+& \; m\Omega\textbf{r}\cdot \mathbb{C}\textbf{r}^{\prime}
\frac{d}{d\tau} \Big[ \frac{\sin{(\omega\tau)}}
{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}\Big]-i \hbar \Omega
\frac{\cos{(\Omega\tau)}}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}\, .
\label{Eq72}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this result into the differential equation $$i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\langle{\bf r},\tau
\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle =
F(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime};\tau)
\langle{\bf r},\tau
\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle\, ,$$ and integrating in $\tau$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\textbf{r},\tau \vert \textbf{r}^{\prime}\!\!\!\!\!
&,&\!\!\!\!\! 0\rangle = \frac{C(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})}
{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}} \mbox{exp} \left\lbrace
\frac{im\Omega}{2\hbar}\Big[ (\textbf{r}^{2}
+ \textbf{r}^{\prime^{2}})\cot{(\Omega\tau)} \right. \nonumber \\
&-&
\left. 2 \left( \textbf{r}\cdot\textbf{r}^{\prime}
\frac{\cos{(\omega\tau)}}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}
+ \textbf{r}\cdot \mathbb{C}\textbf{r}^{\prime}
\frac{\sin{(\omega\tau)}}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}} \right) \Big] \right\rbrace.
\label{ProtoPropagadorOH+B}\end{aligned}$$ where $C({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\;\prime})$ is an arbitrary integration constantto be determined by conditions (\[Eq30\]), (\[Eq31\]) and (\[Eq32\]). Using (\[Pi(tau)OH+B\]) we can calculate the l.h.s. of condition (\[Eq30\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{\bf r}, \!\!\!\!&\tau&\!\!\!\! \vert
\pi_j(\tau)\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle
=
\frac{m\Omega}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}\Big\{ \cos{(\Omega\tau)}x_j-\cos{(\omega\tau)}x^{\prime}_j \nonumber \\
&+&
\Big[\frac{\omega}{\Omega}\sin{(\Omega\tau)} x_k-\sin{(\omega\tau)}x^{\prime}_{k}\Big]
\epsilon_{jk3} \Big\}\langle{\bf r},\tau\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle, \label{Eq74}\end{aligned}$$ and using (\[Pi(0)OH+B\]) we get the l.h.s. of condition (\[Eq31\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{\bf r}, \!\!\!\!&\tau&\!\!\!\! \vert\pi_j(0)\vert{\bf
r}^{\prime},0\rangle = \frac{m\Omega}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}
\Big\{\cos{(\omega\tau)}x_j-\cos{(\Omega\tau)}x^{\prime}_j \nonumber \\
&+& \Big[\frac{\omega}{\Omega}\sin{(\Omega\tau)} x^{\prime}_k-\sin{(\omega\tau)}x_{k}\Big]\epsilon_{jk3} \Big\}
\langle{\bf r},\tau\vert{\bf r}^{\prime},0\rangle.
\label{Eq75}\end{aligned}$$ With the help of the simple identities $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}(\textbf{r}^{2}+\textbf{r}^{\prime^{2}})=2x_j \hspace{0.198cm}
&;&
\hspace{0.198cm} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\prime}_j}(\textbf{r}^{2}
+ \textbf{r}^{\prime^{2}})=2x^{\prime}_j \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\textbf{r}\cdot\textbf{r}^{\prime}=x^{\prime}_j \hspace{0.658cm}
&;&
\hspace{0.658cm} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\prime}_j}\textbf{r}\cdot\textbf{r}^{\prime}= x_j \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\textbf{r}\cdot
\mathbb{C}\textbf{r}^{\prime}=\epsilon_{jk3}x^{\prime}_k \hspace{0.2295cm}
&;&
\hspace{0.2295cm} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\prime}_j}\textbf{r}\cdot
\mathbb{C}\textbf{r}^{\prime}= -\epsilon_{jk3}x_k. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and also using equation (\[ProtoPropagadorOH+B\]), we are able to compute the right hand sides of conditions (\[Eq30\]) and (\[Eq31\]), which are given, respectively, by $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\{
\!\!\!\!&-&\!\!\!\!
\frac{i\hbar}{C(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})}\frac{\partial
C(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})} {\partial x_j}
+ m\Omega\frac{\cos{(\Omega\tau)}}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}x_j
- m\Omega\frac{\cos{(\omega\tau)}}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}x^{\prime}_j
\nonumber \\
&-&
m\Omega\frac{\sin{(\omega\tau)}}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}\epsilon_{jk3}x^{\prime}_k
- e A_j(\textbf{r}) \Big\} \langle\textbf{r},\tau|\textbf{r}^{\prime},0\rangle
\label{Eq77}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\{
\!\!\!\!\!&{\,}&\!\!\!\!\!
\frac{i\hbar}{C(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})}
\frac{\partial C(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})} {\partial x^{\prime}_j}
m\Omega\frac{\cos{(\Omega\tau)}}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}x^{\prime}_j
%\nonumber \\
+ m\Omega\frac{\cos{(\omega\tau)}}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}x_j
\nonumber\\
&-&
m\Omega\frac{\sin{(\omega\tau)}}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}\epsilon_{jk3}x_k
-e A_j(\textbf{r}^{\prime})\Big\} \langle\textbf{r},\tau|\textbf{r}^{\prime},0\rangle.
\label{Eq78}\end{aligned}$$ Equating (\[Eq74\]) and (\[Eq77\]), and also (\[Eq75\]) and (\[Eq78\])), we get the system of differential equations for $C(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})$ $$\begin{aligned}
i\hbar \frac{\partial C(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})}{\partial
x_j}
&+&
e\Big[A_j(\textbf{r})+\frac{F_{jk}}{2}x_k \Big] C(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})=0\, , \label{Eq79} \\
i\hbar \frac{\partial C(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})}{\partial x^{\prime}_j}
&-&
e\Big[A_j(\textbf{r}^{\prime})+\frac{F_{jk}}{2}x^{\prime}_k \Big] C(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})=0.
\label{Eq80}\end{aligned}$$ Proceeding as in the previous example, we first integrate (\[Eq79\]). With this goal, we multiply it by $dx_j$, sum in $j$ and integrate it to obtain $$C({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\;\prime})= C({{\bf r}}^{\;\prime},{\bf
r}^{\;\prime})
\exp\left\lbrace {ie\over \hbar}_{\;\;\Gamma}\!\!
\int_{{\bf r}^{\prime}}^{{\bf r}}
\Big[ A_j(\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$})+{F_{jk}\over 2}\xi_k\Big] d\xi_j \right\rbrace\, , \\
\label{CrrLinha1}$$ where the path of integration $\Gamma$ will be specified in a moment. Inserting expression (\[CrrLinha1\]) into the second differential equation (\[Eq80\]), we get $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j^{\prime}}
C({{\bf r}}^{\;\prime},{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}) = 0
\;\;\Longrightarrow\;\;
C({{\bf r}}^{\;\prime},{{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}) =C_0\, ,$$ where $C_0$ is a constant independent of ${{\bf r}}^{\;\prime}$, so that equation (\[CrrLinha1\]) can be cast, after some convenient rearrangements, into the form $$C({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\prime})=C_{0}\exp{\left\lbrace{ie\over\hbar}
_{\;\;\Gamma}\!\!
\int_{{\bf r}^{\prime}}^{{\bf r}}
\Big[\textbf{A}(\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$})
- \frac{1}{2}\textbf{B}\times\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}\Big]\cdot
d\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}\right\rbrace }.
\label{CrrLinha2}$$ Note that the integrand has a vanishing curl so that we can choose the path of integration $\Gamma$ at our will. Choosing, as before, the straight line between ${\bf r}^{\prime}$ and ${\bf r}$, it can be shown that $$\int_{\textbf{r}^{\prime}}^{\textbf{r}}
\Big[ \textbf{A}(\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$})-\frac{\textbf{B}}{2}
\times\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}\Big]
\cdot d\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}=\int_{\textbf{r}^{\prime}} ^{\textbf{r}}
\textbf{A}(\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$})\cdot
d\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}
+ \frac{1}{2}B\textbf{r}\cdot\mathbb{C}\textbf{r}^{\prime}\, ,
\label{IntegralLinha1}$$ where, for simplicity of notation, we omitted the symbol $\Gamma_{sl}$ indicating that the line integral must be done along a straight line. From equations (\[CrrLinha1\]), (\[CrrLinha2\]) e (\[IntegralLinha1\]), we get $$C({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\prime}) =
C_{0}\exp{\left\lbrace{ie\over\hbar}\int_{\atop{{{\bf
r}}^{\prime}}}^{{\bf r}}
\textbf{A}(\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$})\cdot
d\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}\right\rbrace }
\exp{\left\lbrace{im\omega\over\hbar}\textbf{r}
\cdot\mathbb{C}\textbf{r}^{\prime}\right\rbrace} ,
\label{Eq86}$$ which substituted back into equation (\[ProtoPropagadorOH+B\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\textbf{r},\tau|\textbf{r}^{\prime},0\rangle
= \frac{C_{0}}{\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}\exp{\left\lbrace{ie\over\hbar}
\int_{\atop{{{\bf r}}^{\prime}}}^{{\bf r}} \textbf{A}(\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$})
\cdot d\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}\right\rbrace } \nonumber \\
\mbox{exp} \Big\{ \frac{im\Omega}{2\hbar\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}
\Big\{(\textbf{r}^{2} +\textbf{r} ^{\prime^{2}}) \cos{(\Omega\tau)}
\nonumber \\
- 2\textbf{r} \cdot\textbf{r}^{\prime}\cos{(\omega\tau)}
%\nonumber \\
- 2\Big[\sin{(\omega\tau)}-\frac{\omega}{\Omega}\sin{\Omega\tau} \Big]
\textbf{r}\mathbb{C}\textbf{r}^{\prime} \Big\} \Big\}
\label{Eq87}\end{aligned}$$ The initial condition implies $C_0=m\Omega/(2\pi i\hbar)$. Hence, the desired Feynman propagator is finally given by
$$\begin{aligned}
K({\bf x},{{\bf x}}^{\prime};\tau)
&=&
K_{\bot}
(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime};\tau)K_{3}^{(0)}(x_3,x_3^{\prime};\tau)\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{m\Omega}{2\,\pi\, i\, \hbar\,\sin{(\Omega\tau)}}
\sqrt{{m\over 2\pi i\hbar\tau}} \exp{\left\lbrace{ie\over\hbar}
\int_{\atop{{{\bf r}}^{\prime}}}^{{\bf r}} \textbf{A}(\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$})
\cdot d\mbox{\mathversion{bold}${\xi}$}\right\rbrace } \mbox{exp} \left\lbrace
\frac{im\Omega}{2\hbar\sin{(\Omega\tau)}} \left\lbrace \cos{(\Omega\tau)}
(\textbf{r}^{2} +\textbf{r} ^{\prime^{2}}) \right. \right. \nonumber \\
&{\;}& \, -\;\;
\left. \left. 2 \cos{(\omega\tau)} \textbf{r} \cdot\textbf{r}^{\prime} -
2 \Big[\sin{(\omega\tau)}-\frac{\omega}{\Omega}\sin{(\Omega\tau)} \Big]
\textbf{r}\cdot\mathbb{C}\textbf{r}^{\prime} \right\rbrace \right\rbrace
\exp\biggl\{{im\over 2\hbar}{\left(x_3 - x_3^\prime\right)^2\over \tau}\biggr\}\, ,
\label{Eq90}\end{aligned}$$
where we brought back the free part of the propagator corresponding to the movement along the ${\cal OX}_3$ direction. Of course, for $\omega_0=0$ we reobtain the propagator found in our first example and for ${\bf B}={\bf 0}$ we reobtain the propagator for a bidimensional oscillator in the ${\cal OX}_1{\cal X}_2$ plane multiplied by a free propagator in the ${\cal OX}_3$ direction, as can be easily checked.
Regarding the gauge dependence of the propagator, the same comments done before are still valid here, namely, the above expression is written for a generic gauge, the transformation law for the propagator under a gauge transformation is the same as before, etc. We finish this section, extracting from the previous propagator, the corresponding energy spectrum. With this purpose, we first compute the trace of the propagator,
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty\!\!\! dx_1\!\!
\int_{-\infty}^\infty\!\!\! dx_2 \,
K_\perp^{\,\prime}(x_1,x_1,x_2,x_2;\tau) &=& {m\Omega\over 2\pi
i\hbar\,\sin(\Omega\tau) }
\int_{-\infty}^\infty\!\!\! dx_1
\!\!\int_{-\infty}^\infty\!\!\! dx_2
\exp\biggl\{ {im\Omega\over
2\hbar\,\sin(\Omega\tau)}\left[
2\Bigl(\mbox{cos}(\Omega\tau)-\mbox{cos}(\omega\tau)\Bigr)(x_1^2+x_2^2)\right]
\biggr\} \nonumber\\
&=& {1\over 2[\mbox{cos}(\Omega\tau)-\mbox{cos}(\omega\tau)]}\; ,\end{aligned}$$
where we used the well known result for the Fresnel integral. Using now the identity $$\cos(\Omega\tau)-\cos(\omega\tau) = -2\,\sin[(\Omega+\omega)\tau/2]
\,\sin[(\Omega-\omega)\tau/2)]\, ,$$ we get for the corresponding energy Green function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FGreenG(E)}
\!\!&{\cal G}&\!\!\!(E) =\! -i\!\!\int_0^\infty\!\!\! d\tau\,
e^{{i\over\hbar}E\tau} \!\!\int_{-\infty}^\infty\, \!\!\!\!
dx_1\!\!\int_{-\infty}^\infty\!\!\!\! dx_2\,
K_\perp^{\,\prime}(x_1,x_1,x_2,x_2;\tau)\cr\cr
&=&{i\over4}\int_0^\infty d\tau {e^{{i\over\hbar}E\tau}\over
\,\mbox{sen}({\Omega\tau\over2}\tau)\,\mbox{sen}({\Omega-\omega\over2}\tau)}\cr\cr
&=&-i\!\!\int_0^\infty\!\!\!\! d\tau\,
e^{{i\over\hbar}E\tau}\left(\sum_{l=0}^\infty
e^{-(l+{1\over2})(\Omega+\omega)\tau}\!\!\right)\!\!
\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty
e^{-i(n+{1\over2}(\Omega-\omega)\tau}\!\!\right) ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where is tacitly assumed that $E\rightarrow E-i\varepsilon$ and we also used that (with the assumption $\nu\rightarrow \nu-i\epsilon$) $${1\over\,\mbox{sen}({\nu\over2}\tau)}=2i\sum_{n-0}^\infty
e^{-i(n+{1\over2}) \nu\tau}\; .$$ Changing the order of integration and summations, and integrating in $\tau$, we finally obtain $${\cal G}(E)=\sum_{l,n=0}^\infty{1\over E-E_{nl}}\; ,$$ where the poles of ${\cal G}(E)$, which give the desired energy levels, are identified as $$E_{nl}=(l+n+1)\hbar\Omega+(l-n)\hbar\omega\, ,\;\;\; (l,n = 0,1,...)\; .$$ The Landau levels can be reobtained from the previous result by simply taking the limit $\omega_0\rightarrow 0$: $$E_{nl}\longrightarrow(2l+1)\hbar\omega
= (l+{1\over2})\hbar\omega_c\; ,$$ with $l=0,1,...$ and $\omega_c = eB/m$, in agreement to the result we had already obtained before.
${\;}$
Final Remarks {#SectionFinalRemarks}
=============
In this paper we reconsidered, in the context of Schwinger’s method, the Feynman propagators of two well known problems, namely, a charged particle under the influence of a constant and uniform magnetic field (Landau problem) and the same problem in which we added a bidimensional harmonic oscillator potential. Although these problems had already been treated from the point of view of Schwinger’s action principle, the novelty of our work relies on the fact that we solved the Heisenberg equations for gauge invariant operators. This procedure has some nice properties, as for instance: the Feynman propagator is obtained in a generic gauge; [*(ii)*]{} the gauge-dependent and gauge-independent parts of the propagator appear clearly separated and [*(iii)*]{} the transformation law for the propagator under gauge transformation can be readly obtained. Besides, we adopted a matrix notation which can be straightforwardly generalized to cases of relativistic charged particles in the presence of constant electromagnetic fields and a plane wave electromagnetic field, treated by Schwinger [@Schwinger1951]. For completeness, we showed explicitly how one can obtain the energy spectrum directly from que Feynman propagator. In the Landau problem, we obtained the (infinitely degenerated) Landau levels with the corresponding degeneracy per unit area. For the case where we included the bidimensional harmonic potential, we obtained the energy spectrum after identifying the poles of the corresponding energy Green function. We hope that this pedagogical paper may be useful for undergraduate as well as graduate students and that these two simple examples may enlarge the (up to now) small list of non-relativistic problems that have been treated by such a powerful and elegant method.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
F.A. Barone, H. Boschi-Filho and C. Farina would like to thank Professor Marvin Goldberger for a private communication and for kindly sending his lecture notes on quantum mechanics where this method was explicitly used. We would like to thank CNPq and Fapesp (brazilian agencies) for partial financial support.
[99]{}
F.A. Barone, H. Boschi-Filho and C. Farina, [*Three methods for calculating the Feynman propagator*]{}, Am. J. Phys. [**71**]{}, 483-491 (2003).
J. Schwinger, [*On Gauge Invariance And Vacuum Polarization*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**82**]{}, 664 (1951).
Claude Itzykson and Jean-Bernard Zuber, [*Quantum Field Theory*]{}, (McGraw-Hill Inc., NY, 1980), pg 100.
E.S Fradkin, D.M Gitman and S.M. Shvartsman, [*Quantum Eletrodinamics with Unstable Vacuum*]{} (Springer, Berlim, 1991).
V. V. Dodonov, I. A. Malkin, and V. I. Manko, “Invariants and Green’s functions of a relativistic charged particle in electromagnetic fields,” Lett. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. **14**, 241-244 (1975).
V. V. Dodonov, I. A. Malkin, and V. I. Manko, “Green’s functions for relativistic particles in non-uniform external fields,” J. Phys. A , 1791- 1796 (1976).
J. D. Likken, J. Sonnenschein, and N. Weiss, “The theory of anyonic superconductivity: A review,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 5155-5214 (1991).
A. Ferrando and V. Vento, “Hadron correlators and the structure of the quark propagator,” Z. Phys. C[**63**]{}, 485 (1994).
H. Boschi-Filho, C. Farina and A. N. Vaidya, “Schwinger’s method for the electron propagator in a plane wave field revisited,” Phys. Lett. A **215**, 109-112 (1996).
S. P. Gavrilov, D. M. Gitman and A. E. Goncalves, “QED in external field with space-time uniform invariants: Exact solutions,” J. Math. Phys. [**39**]{}, 3547 (1998).
D. G. C. McKeon, I. Sachs and I. A. Shovkovy, “SU(2) Yang-Mills theory with extended supersymmetry in a background magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. D[**59**]{}, 105010 (1999).
T. K. Chyi, C. W. Hwang, W. F. Kao, G. L. Lin, K. W. Ng and J. J. Tseng, “The weak-field expansion for processes in a homogeneous background magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 105014 (2000).
N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, “Schwinger’s propagator is only a Green’s function,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**18**]{}, 83 (2001).
M. Chaichian, W. F. Chen and R. Gonzalez Felipe, “Radiatively induced Lorentz and CPT violation in Schwinger constant field approximation,” Phys. Lett. B [**503**]{}, 215 (2001).
J. M. Chung and B. K. Chung, “Induced Lorentz- and CPT-violating Chern-Simons term in QED: Fock-Schwinger proper time method,” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 105015 (2001).
H. Boschi-Filho, C. Farina e A.N. Vaidya, [*Schwinger’s method for the electron propagator in a plane wave field revisited*]{}, Phys. Let. [**A215**]{} (1996) 109-112.
Luis F. Urrutia and Eduardo Hernandez, [*Calculation of the Propagator for a Time-Dependent Damped, Forced Harmonic Oscillator Using the Schwinger Action Principle*]{}, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**23**]{}, 1105-1127 (1984)
L.F. Urrutia and C. Manterola, [*Propagator for the Anisotropic Three-Dimensional Charged Harmonic Oscillator in a Constant Magnetic Field Using the Schwinger Action Principle*]{}, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**25**]{}, 75-88 (1986).
N. J. M. Horing, H. L. Cui, and G. Fiorenza, [*Nonrelativistic Schrodinger Greens function for crossed time-dependent electric and magnetic fields*]{}, Phys. Rev. A[**34**]{}, 612615 (1986).
C. Farina and Antonio Segui-Santonja, [*Schwinger’s method for a harmonic oscillator with a time-dependent frequency*]{}, Phys. Lett. A[**184**]{}, 23-28 (1993).
S.J. Rabello and C. Farina, [*Gauge invariance and the path integral*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**A51**]{}, 2614-2615 (1995).
J. Schwinger, [*Quantum Mechanics: Symbolism of Atomic Measurements*]{}, edited by B.G. Englert (Springer, 2001).
Private communication with Professor M. Goldberger. We thank him for kindly sending us a copy of his notes on quantum mechanics given at Princeton for more than ten years.
R.P. Feynman e A.R. Hibbs, [*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*]{} (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Broad Absorption Line (BAL) trough variability is predominantly due to cloud motion transverse to our line of sight. The rate at which the variability occurs indicates the velocity of the cloud, which can provide constraints on the cloud’s distance from the central source. This requires detailed spectroscopy during a variability event. Such spectra have proven elusive, suggesting either the timescale of variability is too short to be caught, or too long to notice until a sufficient amount of time has passed. Photometric monitoring of BAL quasar colours may potentially be used as an early warning system to trigger time resolved spectroscopic monitoring of BAL variability. Towards this end, we are analyzing both BAL and non-BAL colour variability using time series photometry from Stripe 82 in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.'
author:
- 'Jesse A. Rogerson,$^1$ Patrick B. Hall,$^1$ Chelsea MacLeod,$^2$ and Željko Ivezić$^2$'
nocite:
- '[@MIK10]'
- '[@GJB09]'
- '[@AHM11]'
- '[@WM91]'
title: Monitoring Quasar Colour Variability in Stripe 82
---
Stripe 82 and Statistical Variability
=====================================
A small section of sky observed by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) known as Stripe 82 (S82) was specifically targeted for multiple photometric observations. The stripe covers the area 22h 24m$ < $ RA$ < $ 04h 08m and $|$Dec$| <$ 1.27 degrees, approximating 290 square degrees on the sky. S82 has been observed over 50 times with revisit time ranging from 3 hours to 8 years. There are 9275 spectroscopically confirmed quasars in the Stripe 82 SDSS Data Release 7 ([MacLeod]{} et al. 2010). We sorted these into BAL and non-BAL quasars based on the classifications done in [Gibson]{} et al. (2009) and [Allen]{} et al. (2011) (DR5 and DR6, respectively).
Our working hypothesis is that BAL quasars will exhibit higher variability in their colour than non-BAL quasars as a result of the changes in absorption troughs. We use the time-series nature of the S82 photometry to extract a signal of higher variability among the BAL quasars. Nearly all BAL quasars exhibit absorption due to [C[iv]{}]{} 1550, and so we build our preliminary study around this transition.
Using the possible range in blueshift of a BAL trough (-25 000 km s$^{-1}$ to -3000 km s$^{-1}$, as defined in [Weymann]{} et al. 1991) and the wavelength range of the SDSS filters, we sort the quasars of S82 into redshift bins based on where the [C[iv]{}]{} trough will occur. For example, in the redshift range $1.73 < z < 2.51$, any [C[iv]{}]{} broad absorption trough will land entirely within the SDSS $g$ filter. We can therefore use the colour $g-r$ to compare the colour variability of BAL and non-BAL quasars in that redshift range.
Preliminary Results
===================
To quantify the overall variability of a given colour, we use the $\chi$ distribution $\chi_i = (c_i - c_0)/(\sigma_i)$, where $c_i$ is the $i$th colour in a series, $\sigma_i$ is the observational uncertainty on the colour, and $c_0$ is the mean colour. In S82, we observe a higher number of large positive and negative $\chi$ values in the BAL colours compared to non-BALs (significance: $10^{-15}$), as well as larger values of the reduced $\chi^2$ statistic. This indicates that, overall, BAL quasars exhibit larger deviation from their mean colours than non-BAL quasars.
As an example of a variable BAL quasar (selected for large reduced $\chi^2$), in Fig. \[example\]a, we have plotted the time-series colours $g-r$ and $r-i$ (as a comparison), along with estimated colour measurements from spectra taken at the given MJD, of SDSSJ 213138.07-002537.8, a BAL quasar at $z=1.837\pm0.002$. It is clear that large variations have occured in $g-r$, where the [C[iv]{}]{} trough is, but not in $r-i$. In Fig. \[example\]b, we have plotted the three spectra indicated by the square symbols. There are clear changes in the [C[iv]{}]{} trough which contributes to the colour changes observed. The continuum has also changed by a significant amount.
The S82 photometry provides an excellent testbed to compare colour variability in different types of quasars. We have found BAL colour to be more variable than non-BAL colour, a feature attributed to the variable nature of absorption troughs. Such a result hints towards a photometric monitoring program that would trigger spectroscopic followup and coverage when a colour begins to vary. These data also provide a basis from which to track the colours of non-BAL quasars that may turn into BALs.
JAR and PBH are supported by NSERC. We acknowledge support by NSF grant AST-0807500 to the University of Washington, and NSF grant AST-0551161 to LSST for design and development activity.
, J. T., [Hewett]{}, P. C., [Maddox]{}, N., [Richards]{}, G. T., & [Belokurov]{}, V. 2011, , 410, 860.
, R. R., [Jiang]{}, L., [Brandt]{}, W. N., [Hall]{}, P. B., [Shen]{}, Y., [Wu]{}, J., [Anderson]{}, S. F., [Schneider]{}, D. P., [et al.]{} 2009, , 692, 758.
, C. L., [Ivezi[ć]{}]{}, [Ž]{}., [Kochanek]{}, C. S., [Koz[ł]{}owski]{}, S., [Kelly]{}, B., [Bullock]{}, E., [Kimball]{}, A., [Sesar]{}, B., [et al.]{} 2010, , 721, 1014.
, R. J., [Morris]{}, S. L., [Foltz]{}, C. B., & [Hewett]{}, P. C. 1991, , 373, 23
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'An efficient algorithm for the reconstruction of the magnetization state within magnetic components is presented. The occurring inverse magnetostatic problem is solved by means of an adjoint approach, based on the Fredkin-Koehler method for the solution of the forward problem. Due to the use of hybrid FEM-BEM coupling combined with matrix compression techniques the resulting algorithm is well suited for large-scale problems. Furthermore the reconstruction of the magnetization state within a permanent magnet is demonstrated.'
author:
- Florian Bruckner
- Claas Abert
- Gregor Wautischer
- Christian Huber
- Christoph Vogler
- Michael Hinze
- Dieter Suess
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Solving Large-Scale Inverse Magnetostatic Problems using the Adjoint Method'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Magnetic materials are used in a wide range of applications, ranging from permanent magnets, magnetic machines, up to magnetic sensors and magnetic recording devices. Solving the Inverse Magnetostatic Problem allows to reconstruct the internal magnetization state of a magnetic component, by means of magnetic field measurements outside of the magnetic part, which is of importance for quality control. Compared with the forward problem, where the magnetic state is known and the strayfield is calculated, inverse problems are much harder to solve, since they typically are much worse conditioned and often not uniquely solveable. Inverse problem solvers are based on stable and reliable solvers for the forward problem. In the case of magnetostatic Maxwell equations, Finite Element (FEM) formulations, combined with methods to handle the open-boundary, have proven to be the methods of choice for many efficient and accurate methods [@brunotte_finite_1992; @khebir_asymptotic_1990; @fredkin_hybrid_1990].
The applications of inverse problems can be coarsely divided into optimal design and source identification. Optimal design problems define a desired strayfield and try to calculate optimal material distributions or geometries to reach these requirements as accurate as possible [@neittaanmaki_inverse_1996; @yoo_topology_2000]. In contrast to this, source identification problems try to reconstruct the state of existing magnetic components. The identification of (permanent) magnetic materials has e.g. been successfully applied for reconstructing the state of magnetic rollers used in copy machines [@igarashi_inverse_2000], magnetically biased chokes [@husstedt_detailed_2014], or even for the magnetic anomaly created by ferromagnetic ships [@chadebec_recent_2002].
The presented solver for the inverse 3D magnetostatic Maxwell equations, is based on the well-established Fredkin-Koehler-Method [@fredkin_hybrid_1990], which uses a hybrid FEM-BEM coupling for efficient handling of the open-boundary conditions. Combined with a hierarchical matrix compression technique for the dense boundary integral matrices, the algorithm is able to handle large-scale problems. Additionally, the use of a general Tikhonov regularization (see e.g. [@calvetti_tikhonov_2000]), provides a very flexible means to define application specific regularizations.
Adjoint Method
==============
Forward Problem
---------------
The demagnetization field of a magnetic body is defined as ${\boldsymbol{h}}_\text{d} = - {\boldsymbol{\nabla}} u$, where the magnetic scalar potential $u$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Delta u &= {\boldsymbol{\nabla}} \cdot {\boldsymbol{m}} &&\quad\text{in}\quad \Omega \label{eq:demag_first} \\
\Delta u &= 0 &&\quad\text{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^3 \setminus \Omega\end{aligned}$$ with jump and boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ u \right]_{\partial \Omega} &= 0 \\
\left[ \frac{\partial u}{\partial {\boldsymbol{n}}} \right]_{\partial \Omega} &= - {\boldsymbol{m}} \cdot {\boldsymbol{n}} \\
u({\boldsymbol{r}}) &\rightarrow \mathcal{O}(1/|{\boldsymbol{r}}|) \quad \text{for} \quad |{\boldsymbol{r}}| \rightarrow \infty
\label{eq:demag_last}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{m}}$ is the magnetization and $\Omega$ is the magnetic region.
(image) at (0,0) [ ![ Discretized magnetization region $\Omega_\text{m}$ (blue) and measurement region $\Omega_\text{h}$ (brown). Since the strayfield problem is scale-invariant, length units are omitted. The magnetization is defined on a unit cube. Measurement boxes of thickness $0.04$ are located next to each side of the cube, using an airgap of $0.1$ (the 2 boxes in front are not shown in the figure). []{data-label="fig:mesh"}](mesh_cube.png "fig:"){width="0.7\columnwidth"} ]{};
(0.70, 0.87) circle\[radius=0.005, fill\] – (0.80, 0.92) node\[right\] [$\Omega_\text{h}$]{}; (0.70, 0.40) circle\[radius=0.005, fill\] – (0.80, 0.45) node\[right\] [$\Omega_\text{m}$]{};
The forward problem requires the solution of the potential $u$ on the region $\Omega_\text{h}$ generated by the magnetization in a magnetic region $\Omega_\text{m}$ (see Fig. \[fig:mesh\]). This problem is solved by considering a single region $\Omega = \Omega_\text{m} \cup \Omega_\text{h}$ with ${\boldsymbol{m}}({\boldsymbol{x}}) = 0$ for ${\boldsymbol{x}} \in \Omega_\text{h}$. The hybrid FEM/BEM method introduced by Fredkin and Koehler [@fredkin_hybrid_1990] is one of the most accurate methods for the solution of this problem and will be used in the following. Consider the following splitting of the solution $u$: $$u = u_1 + u_2$$ Here $u_1$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Delta u_1 &= {\boldsymbol{\nabla}} \cdot {\boldsymbol{m}} && \quad \text{in} \quad \Omega \\
\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial {\boldsymbol{n}}} &= - {\boldsymbol{m}} \cdot {\boldsymbol{n}} && \quad \text{on} \quad \partial\Omega \\
u_1 &= 0 && \quad \text{in} \quad \mathbb{R}^3 \setminus \Omega.\end{aligned}$$ This Neumann problem is solved with the finite-element method. While $u_1$ solves for the right-hand side ${\boldsymbol{m}}$ and fulfills the jump condition of the normal derivative $-{\boldsymbol{m}} \cdot {\boldsymbol{n}}$, it is not continuous across $\partial \Omega$ as required. This jump is compensated by $u_2$ which is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Delta u_2 &= 0 && \quad \text{in} \quad \Omega \\
[u_2] &= - [u_1] && \quad \text{on} \quad \partial \Omega \\
\left[\frac{\partial u_2}{\partial {\boldsymbol{n}}}\right] &= 0 && \quad \text{on} \quad \partial\Omega \\
u_2({\boldsymbol{x}}) &= \mathcal{O}(1/|{\boldsymbol{x}}|) && \quad \text{if} \quad |{\boldsymbol{x}}| \rightarrow \infty\end{aligned}$$ This system is solved by the following double-layer potential $$u_2 = \int_{\partial \Omega} u_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial {\boldsymbol{n}}} \frac{1}{|{\boldsymbol{x}} - {\boldsymbol{x}}'|} {\,\text{d}{\boldsymbol{x}}}$$ For efficiency reasons the double-layer potential is only computed on the boundary $\partial \Omega$ using a Galerkin boundary-element method. Subsequently these values are used as Dirichlet boundary conditions to solve $u_2$ within $\Omega$ using the finite-element method.
All potentials are calculated using piecewise linear basis function ($\mathcal{P}_1$) and the derived strayfield would be constant within each element. Thus, a mass lumping procedure needs to be used to project the field onto piecewise linear basis functions which are defined on each vertex of the mesh.
Inverse Problem
---------------
The inverse problem can be understood as a PDE constrained optimization problem. Due to the ill-posedness of the inverse problem, some additional information needs to be provided to allow reasonable results. This can be achieved by using Tikhonov regularization, which uses an additional penalty term which should be considered for the optimization. A possible candidate for the objective function is $$J = \frac{1}{2} \int_{\Omega_\text{h}} \| -{\boldsymbol{\nabla}} u - {\boldsymbol{h}}_\text{m} \|^2 {\,\text{d}{\boldsymbol{x}}}+ \alpha \, T({\boldsymbol{m}})$$ where ${\boldsymbol{h}}_\text{m}$ is the prescribed (measured) field in $\Omega_\text{h}$ and $\alpha$ is the Tikhonov constant corresponding to the regularization functional $T({\boldsymbol{m}})$. This functional should be minimized, constrained by $$F = \Delta u - {\boldsymbol{\nabla}} \cdot {\boldsymbol{m}} = 0 \quad \text{on} \quad \Omega$$ with boundary conditions as given above. We aim to solve this problem using a gradient based iterative minimizer. The constraint $F$ gives an implicit expression for $u({\boldsymbol{m}})$ which allows to directly calculate the desired gradient by $$\frac{\text{d} J}{\text{d} {\boldsymbol{m}}} = \frac{\partial J}{\partial u} \; \frac{\partial u}{\partial {\boldsymbol{m}}} + \frac{\partial J}{\partial {\boldsymbol{m}}}$$ The inefficient calculation of the term $\frac{\partial u}{\partial {\boldsymbol{m}}}$ can be avoided using the adjoint approach, which makes use of the derivative of the constraint equation to eliminate the problematic term: $$\frac{\text{d} J}{\text{d} {\boldsymbol{m}}} = \lambda^T \frac{\partial F}{\partial {\boldsymbol{m}}} + \frac{\partial J}{\partial {\boldsymbol{m}}}$$ where $\lambda$ is given by the adjoint equation $$\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial u}\right)^T \lambda = - \left(\frac{\partial J}{\partial u}\right)^T.
\label{eqn:adjoint}$$ Since the Poisson problem is self-adjoint, the adjoint system can be solved along the lines of the forward problem. Computing the variational derivative on the RHS yields $$\Delta \lambda = {\boldsymbol{\nabla}} \cdot ({\boldsymbol{\nabla}}u + {\boldsymbol{h}}_\text{m}) \quad \text{on} \quad \Omega.
\label{eqn:demag_adjoint}$$ where the sources (RHS) live on $\Omega_\text{h}$ and the solution is only computed on $\Omega_\text{m}$. The same boundary conditions as for the forward problem hold. Thus, the above described hybrid method is applied. The gradient of $J$ is then finally given by $$\frac{\text{d} J}{\text{d} {\boldsymbol{m}}} = {\boldsymbol{\nabla}} \lambda + \alpha \, \frac{\partial T}{\partial {\boldsymbol{m}}}
\label{eqn:demag_gradient}$$ Note that ${\boldsymbol{\nabla}} u$ and ${\boldsymbol{\nabla}} \lambda$ are projected onto $\mathcal{P}_1$ before computing and respectively. The algorithm is implemented using Magnum.Fe [@abert_magnum.fe:_2013], which is based on the finite element library FEniCS [@logg_automated_2012]. This allows a very comfortable definition of the regularization functional. Furthermore, automatic differentiation can be used for the calculation of the corresponding partial derivatives. The algorithm was verified by comparison with a FEM-only implementation, using the dolfin-adjoint library [@farrell_automated_2013], which allows to automatically derive the adjoint equation for a given forward problem.
Numerical Experiments
=====================
The presented algorithm is validated by the reconstruction of the flower-state within a magnetic unit cube. The strayfield is calculated within measurement planes next to each side of the cube (see Fig. \[fig:mesh\]). The magnetic state of the cube is parametrized by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:flower_state}
{\boldsymbol{m}} = \begin{pmatrix} \sin(c_\text{tilt} \theta) \, \cos(\phi) \\ \sin(c_\text{tilt} \theta) \, \sin(\phi) \\ \cos(c_\text{tilt} \theta) \end{pmatrix} & &
\begin{matrix} \theta=z \, \sqrt{x^2+y^2} \\ \phi=\tan^{-1}(y/x) \end{matrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_\text{tilt}$ is an open parameter that allows to change the strength of the flower state. For the proper reconstruction of the magnetic state additional knowledge about the solution needs to be provided. For all presented results a smooth reconstructed magnetization is desired which suggests using the following default regularization functional $$T({\boldsymbol{m}}) = \int_{\Omega_\text{m}} (\nabla {\boldsymbol{m}})^2 {\,\text{d}{\boldsymbol{x}}}$$ For this specific flower-state the absolute value of the magnetization is known to be constant. Thus, the solution of the inverse problem could be simplified by using the following penaltization functional $$\label{eqn:constant_norm_regularization}
T^*({\boldsymbol{m}}) = \int_{\Omega_\text{m}} ({\boldsymbol{m}}^2-1)^2 {\,\text{d}{\boldsymbol{x}}}$$ The assumption of a constant magnetization may be a good approximation for (isotropic) permanent magnetic materials. Due to the large magnetic remanence and the relatively small susceptibility the induced magnetization may be negligible (see [@bruckner_macroscopic_2016] for a simple model of isotropic permanent magnetic materials).
A Gaussian noise with zero mean and a standard deviation $\sigma = 10^{-4}$ has been added to the field, calculated by the forward problem, which should simulate unavoidable measurement errors. The minimization problem is solved by a gradient descent method combined with a line-search strategy. As expected, reconstruction without using a proper regularization leads to large magnetization vectors near to the edges of the unit cube. Increasing the regularization parameter $\alpha$, first avoids the over-fitting of the noisy measurement data, but finally leads to blurring of the reconstruction results if $\alpha$ gets too large. Determining the optimal alpha is a crucial step for the solution of an inverse problem. The results for the reconstruction of a flower state with $c_\text{tilt}=2$ using $\alpha=10^{-3}$ is visualized in Fig. \[fig:diff\]. Although there are some deviations of the reconstructed magnetization from the reference state. It can be seen that the created strayfield is nearly identical. As stated above this is a clear indication of the bad condition of the inverse problem.
(image) at (0,0) [ ![ Reconstruction of a flower-state within a unit cube according to Eqn. using $c_\text{tilt}=2$. A cut through the $y=0$ plane is visualized. Starting from the initial parametrized flower state in $\Omega_m$ the magnetic strayfield is calculated within the fieldboxes $\Omega_h$ (green arrows). In order to simulate measurement errors a Gaussian noise with $\sigma=10^{-4}$ has been added to the forward strayfield. The reconstructed magnetization as well as strayfield are computed using $\alpha=10^{-3}$ (red arrows). The relative differences of initial and reconstructed states are indicated by the gray-scale. Maximal relative errors of the $x$-components amount to $0.25$ for the magnetization, and $5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ for the induced magnetic field, respectively. []{data-label="fig:diff"}](diff.png "fig:"){width="0.7\columnwidth"} ]{};
(0.82, 0.93) circle\[radius=0.005, fill\] – (0.84, 0.99) node\[above\] [$\Omega_\text{h}$]{}; (0.82, 0.82) circle\[radius=0.005, fill\] – (0.89, 0.88) node\[right\] [$\Omega_\text{m}$]{};
Using the so-called L-curve method [@hansen_use_1993], allows to visualize the trade-off between the reconstruction of the strayfield and the fulfillment of the regularization constraint. Plotting the regularization norm (also called solution norm) $\| T(\mathbf{m}) \|$ over the residual norm $\| -{\boldsymbol{\nabla}} u - {\boldsymbol{h}}_\text{m} \|$ for different regularization parameters $\alpha$, shows an L-shaped curve. The optimal $\alpha_\text{opt}$ can be selected at the corner of the L-curve which means that $\alpha$ is large enough to reduce the regularization norm significantly, but it does not change the residual norm too much. The resulting L-curves for the reconstruction of the flower state for different noise levels are summarized in Fig. \[fig:lcurve\]. An optimal value $\alpha_\text{opt} \approx 5 \cdot 10^{-5}$ can be found.
table\[x index=2, y index=1\] [6boxes\_grad\_None.dat]{}; table\[x index=2, y index=1\] [6boxes\_grad\_1e-5.dat]{}; table\[x index=2, y index=1\] [6boxes\_grad\_1e-4.dat]{}; table\[x index=2, y index=1\] [6boxes\_grad\_1e-3.dat]{}; ;
at (axis cs:6.5e-05, 2.8e+01) [$\alpha = 10^{-9}$ (over-fitting)]{}; at (axis cs:7.5e-05, 6.2e-01) [$\alpha_\text{opt} = 5 \cdot 10^{-5}$ (optimal)]{}; at (axis cs:3.0e-04, 2.98e-03)
----------------------------
$\alpha = 5 \cdot 10^{-3}$
(over-smoothing)
----------------------------
;
The application of the presented method to optimal design problems should now be demonstrated by means of a Halbach cylinder configuration. The goal is to find a magnetization configuration within a cylindrical domain, which creates a homogeneous strayfield inside of the cylinder. The magnetization domain $\Omega_\text{m}$ has an outer radius $r_o = 1.0$, an inner radius $r_i = 0.6$, and a height of $h=2.0$, while a cylindrical measurement domain $\Omega_\text{h}$ with radius $r_m=0.5$ and the same height is used. The magnetization vectors should have constant norm, which suggests using the constant-norm penaltization functional . The analytic solution for a cylindical Halbach array [@halbach_design_1980] can be expressed in cylindrical coordinates as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:halbach}
\mathbf{m}(\rho, \phi) = \cos(\phi) \; \mathbf{e}_\rho - \sin(\phi) \; \mathbf{e}_\phi\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$, $\phi$ are the cylindrical coordinates, with the corresponding unit vectors $\mathbf{e}_\rho$, $\mathbf{e}_\phi$.
As visualized in Fig. \[fig:halbach\] there is a nearly perfect match of the reconstructed and the analytical Halbach configuration.
(image) at (0,0) [ ![ Optimal design problem of a Halbach cylinder creating a homogeneous strayfield inside of the cylinder. Starting from a homogeneous strayfield the presented algorithm reproduces a Halbach like magnetization configuration within $\Omega_\text{m}$ (red arrows). A constant-norm regularization with $\alpha = 10^4$ is used and shows a nearly perfect match with the analytical solution (green arrows). The resulting strayfield is calculated inside $\Omega_\text{h}$ and shows a nearly homogeneous distribution (red arrows). The relative errors of the magnetization magnitude and the reconstruced strayfield are indicated by the gray-scale, and their maximum amount to $2\%$ and $6\%$, respectively. []{data-label="fig:halbach"}](halbach.png "fig:"){width="0.7\columnwidth"} ]{};
(0.72, 0.50) circle\[radius=0.005, fill\] – (0.96, 0.70) node\[right\] [$\Omega_\text{h}$]{}; (0.82, 0.82) circle\[radius=0.005, fill\] – (0.89, 0.88) node\[right\] [$\Omega_\text{m}$]{};
Conclusion
==========
An efficient algorithm for the solution of inverse problems has been introduced. The use of the Finite Element library FEniCS allows to easily define application specific regularization functionals in a very flexible way. Thus, the implemented algorithm is suitable for a wide range of applications including reverse engineering of magnetic components, design and optimization of magnetic circuits and topology optimization, respectively. Using the hybrid FEM-BEM method proposed by Fredkin-Koehler allows to handle the open-boundary problem accurately and without the need for global mesh including a large airbox. Source identification has been validated by the successful reconstruction of the magnetic flower-state within a unit cube by means of Tikhonov regularization. The selection of a suitable regularization parameter has been demonstrated using the L-curve method. Finally, the application of the method to an optimal design problem has been demonstrated by means of an Halbach cylinder, which is nearly perfectly reproduced.
Acknowledgments
===============
The authors acknowledge the CD-Laboratory AMSEN (financed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth, the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development), the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) under Grant No. MA14-044 and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under gant No. I2214-N20 for financial support.
[^1]: Correspondence to: <[email protected]>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Solving the error correcting code is an important goal with regard to communication theory. To reveal the error correcting code characteristics, several researchers have applied a statistical-mechanical approach to this problem. In our research, we have treated the error correcting code as a Bayes inference framework. Carrying out the inference in practice, we have applied the NMF (naive mean field) approximation to the MPM (maximizer of the posterior marginals) inference, which is a kind of Bayes inference. In the field of artificial neural networks, this approximation is used to reduce computational cost through the substitution of stochastic binary units with the deterministic continuous value units. However, few reports have quantitatively described the performance of this approximation. Therefore, we have analyzed the approximation performance from a theoretical viewpoint, and have compared our results with the computer simulation.'
author:
- Masami Takata
- Hayaru Shouno
- Kazuki Joe
- Masato Okada
title: Naive Mean Field Approximation for the Error Correcting Code
---
Introduction
============
Within the framework of an error-correcting code, a sender encodes a message with redundant information added to the transmitted sequence, and a receiver obtains the noise-corrupted sequence through a noisy transmitting channel. Decoding process of the error-correcting code is to restore the transmitted message from the received sequence that is corrupted through the transmitting process. Sourlas suggested that the error-correcting code can be dealt with Bayesian inference, and proposed an encoding model where all possible combinations of $r$-bits must be multiplied as the redundant information just like the Mattis model [@Mattis76]. Sourlas also showed that the channel capacity of the model can reach the theoretical limit, called the Shannon bound [@Shannon48] in the limit of $r\rightarrow\infty$. Unfortunately, under the condition $r\rightarrow\infty$, the transmitting speed becomes to $0$, so that the model with large $r$ is not practical. Recently, however, Kabashima & Saad pointed out that the Sourlas encoding model with a small $r$, – for example $r=2, 3$ –, is capable of good restoration ability with a practical transmitting speed [@Kabashima99].
In this paper, we also treat this problem according to a Bayesian inference framework. This framework is based on estimating the restored message occurrence probability (posterior) from both the prior probability meaning the original message generation probability and the likelihood, which depends on the corruption process model.
One strategy using Bayesian inference is to use a message which maximizes the posterior probability. This method is called maximum a posteriori (posterior) probability (MAP) inference. Given a corrupted sequence, the MAP inference accepts as the restored result the message which maximizes the posterior probability. From the statistical mechanical point of view, the logarithm of the posterior probability can be regarded as the energy, so we can consider the MAP inference as an energy minimization problem.
Another strategy is to use inference in which we consider the expectation value with respect to the maximized marginal posterior probability at each site’s thermal equilibrium as the original message. This method is called maximizer of the posterior marginals (MPM) inference[@Rujan93][@Sourlas94][@Nishimori00]. From the statistical mechanical point of view, the MPM inference corresponds to minimization of the free energy. In the MAP inference, the posterior probability is given for each candidate of sequences. In contrast, in the MPM inference, the posterior marginal probability is given for each bit in the sequence, and the state which has the largest posterior probability is chosen as the restored state for each bit. Hence, to find a optimal bit sequence through the MPM inference, we should compare the posterior probability for each bit, and this requires that we calculate the thermal average for each sequence bit. Recently, the MPM inference has been discussed with regard to error correcting code [@Rujan93] [@Sourlas94] [@Nishimori00]. Ruján pointed out the effectiveness of carrying out a decoding procedure not at the ground state, but at a finite temperature[@Rujan93]. Sourlas used the Bayes formula to re-derive the finite-temperature decoding of Rujan’s result under more general conditions [@Sourlas94]. Finite-temperature decoding corresponds to the MPM inference, while decoding at the ground state corresponds to the MAP inference. Comparison of the restoration ability of the MPM inference to that of the MAP inference with regard to the error rate per bit has shown that, the MPM inference is superior to the MAP inference [@Rujan93][@Nishimori00].
To consider the error correcting code from a statistical mechanical perspective, we denoted the message length, where the message is represented by a binary unit sequence, as $N$, and assumed that each unit can take a binary state $\{-1,+1\}$. The number of feasible message combinations in this case would reach $2^N$, making it hard to find a correct message among the numerous candidates. Thus, to apply the MAP or MPM inference in a practical way, we usually have to adopt some kind of gradient descent algorithm, such as the Glauber dynamics, despite a risk that the solution will be captured by local minima. Moreover, applying the MPM inference may take more computational time than applying the MAP inference. In the MAP inference, once the system reaches a macroscopic equilibrium state, each pixel value can be properly determined with a probability of $1$. On the other hand, when the system reaches a macroscopic equilibrium state in the MPM inference, each unit value cannot be deterministicly decided because the probabilities for each binary state have finite values in finite-temperature decoding. Therefore, we need to calculate the thermal averages for each unit, and this requires many samplings. In this paper, we discuss an approximation that replaces the stochastic binary units with deterministic analog units which can take $[-1,+1]$ continuously. In other words, we introduce deterministic dynamics into the MPM inference to avoid the need to sample for the thermal average. In statistical mechanics, this approximation is sometimes called the “naive mean field (NMF)” approximation [@Bray86]. The purpose of the NMF approximation has usually been to enable deterministic analog units to emulate the behavior of stochastic binary units. This approximation has been applied to several combinatorial optimization problems, such as the traveling salesman problem (TSP) [@Hopfield86].
One important advantage of applying the NMF approximation is that the calculation cost is reduced since we can avoid calculating the thermal average which requires many samplings in stochastic dynamics. However, the NMF approximation has typically been applied as a mere approximation in algorithm implementation, so few researchers who have used the NMF approximation have investigated its quantitative ability - e.g., the approximation accuracy. In this paper, we discuss the quantitative ability of the NMF approximation in the MPM inference[@Shouno02]. Nishimori & Wong formulated the image restoration problem and the error correcting code from the statistical-mechanical perspective by introducing mean field models for binary image restoration, and analyzed this model theoretically through the replica method. We have applied the NMF approximation to the formulation, and analyzed the model through the replica method in the manner of Bray et al [@Bray86].
In the field of neural networks, a network model using the NMF approximation is sometimes called an analog neural network. Roughly speaking, Hopfield & Tank’s network is a result of applying the NMF approximation to the optimization network proposed by Kirkpatrick [@Kirkpatrick83][@Hopfield86]. Therefore, a Hopfield-Tank type network can be regarded as a kind of analog neural network. The formulation of this kind of optimization network is very similar to that of the Sourlas encoding model with $r=2$. In our study, we applied the NMF approximation to the Sourlas encoding model with $r\geq 2$, which is called ‘r-body interaction’ from a statistical-mechanical viewpoint, so that our formulation can be considered a natural extension of a Hopfield-Tank type network with higher-order dimension interactions.
In Sec. II, we formulate the error-correcting code using Bayes inference in the manner of Nishimori & Wong’s formulation[@Nishimori00]. In Sec. III, we compare the results between from our analysis to those of a computer simulation. Within the limits of the mean field approximation, our results agreed with the simulation results.
Model and Analysis
==================
Formulation of the Error Correcting Code
----------------------------------------
In this section, to make this paper self-contained, we explain the error correcting code in the manner of Nishimori & Wong [@Nishimori00]. Fig. \[fig:method\] shows a schematic diagram of the error correcting code. On the sender side, the original signal is represented by $\Vec{\xi}$, and each element is a binary unit that takes binary states $\xi_i =
\{-1, +1\}$ for $i=1 \cdots N$. The number of elements means the message length which can be denoted as $N$.
Through the transmission channel, the signals being sent are degraded by noise, so redundant information is needed to enable retrieval of the original message. The error-correcting code has been discussed from a Bayesian inference point of view [@Rujan93] [@Sourlas94] [@Nishimori00]. In the manner of the Sourlas code [@Sourlas94], the redundant message is produced from the $r$-units product: $$\xi_{i_1} \xi_{i_2} \cdots \xi_{i_r},
\label{eq:redundant}$$ where the indices satisfy $1 \leq i_1 < i_2 < \cdots < i_r \leq N$. The sender transmits the redundant message $\xi_{i_1} \xi_{i_2} \cdots
\xi_{i_r}$ for all possible combinations of the indices. Thus, the redundant message length becomes $_N C_r$. In addition, we assumed that the original message $\{\xi_i\}$ has a uniform prior probability: $$P_s( \Vec{ \xi} ) = \frac{1}{2^N} \quad {\text{for any }}\Vec{\xi}.
\label{eq:prior}$$
On the receiver side, degraded signals are observed since transmission channels ares noisy. In this paper, received signals $\Vec{\tau}$ correspond to the original message $\Vec{\xi}$ (whose elements consists of $\xi_i \: (i=1 \cdots N)$) and their elements are denoted as $\tau_i \: (i=1 \cdots N)$, while signals $\Vec{J}$ (whose elements consists of $J_{i_1 \cdots i_r} \: (1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_r \leq N)$) correspond to the redundant message whose elements consists of $\xi_{i_1}\cdots \xi_{i_r}$. The receiver should be able to estimate the original message $\Vec{\xi}$ from the received signals $\Vec{\tau}$, $\Vec{J}$.
To apply Bayesian inference to estimate the original message, we should consider the posterior probability based on observation: $$P(\Vec{\xi} |\Vec{J}, \Vec{\tau}) =
\frac{
P_{\mathrm{out}} (\Vec{J}, \Vec{\tau} | \Vec{\xi}) P_s( \Vec{\xi} )
}
{
\TR_{\left\{ \Vec{\xi} \right\} }
P_{\mathrm{out}} (\Vec{J}, \Vec{\tau} | \Vec{\xi}) P_s( \Vec{\xi} )
}
\label{eq:posterior1}$$ where $P_{\mathrm{out}} (\Vec{J}, \Vec{\tau} |\Vec{\xi})$ is a conditional probability of the observed signal which can be regarded as the probability expression of the corrupting process in the communication channel.
In this study, we assumed the communication channel is a Gaussian channel: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\mathrm{out}} (\Vec{J}, \Vec{\tau} | \Vec{\xi}) &=
P(\Vec{J} | \Vec{\xi}) P(\Vec{\tau} | \Vec{\xi})
\notag \\
&=
\prod_{i_1 < \cdots < i_r} P(J_{i_1 \cdots i_r} | \Vec{\xi})
\prod_{i=1} P(\tau_{i} | \Vec{\xi})
\label{eq:noise1}
\\
P(J_{i_1 \cdots i_r} | \Vec{\xi}) &=
\left( \frac{N^{r-1}}{J^2 \pi r!} \right)^{1/2}
\notag\\
&
\times\exp \left(
- \frac{N^{r-1}}{J^2 r!} \left(
J_{i_1 \cdots i_r} - \frac{j_0 r! }{N^{r-1}} \xi_{i_1} \cdots \xi_{i_r}
\right)^2
\right)
\\
P(\tau_{i} | \Vec{\xi}) &=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \tau^2}}
\exp \left(
-\frac{1}{2\tau^2}
\left(
\tau_i - \tau_0 \xi_i
\right)^2
\right)\end{aligned}$$ The first term in Eq.(\[eq:noise1\]) corresponds to the noise of the redundant message channel, and the second term corresponds to the noise of the original message channel. The random variable $J_{i_1 \cdots i_r}$ is i.i.d. according to a normal distribution whose mean is $\frac{j_0 r! }{N^{r-1}} \xi_{i_1} \cdots \xi_{i_r}$. and whose variance is $2 J^2 r!/N^{r-1}$. The random variable $\tau_i$ is i.i.d. according to a normal distribution whose mean is $\tau_0 \xi_i$ and whose variance is $\tau^2$. Thus, we can describe the transmission channel characteristics using the parameters $j_0$, $J$, $\tau_0$, and $\tau$.
Substituting Eqs.(\[eq:prior\]) and (\[eq:noise1\]) into Eq.(\[eq:posterior1\]), we can denote the posterior probability as: $$\begin{aligned}
& P(\Vec{ \xi} | \Vec{ J}, \Vec{ \tau}) =
\notag\\
&\quad
\frac{1}{Z}
\exp\left(
\displaystyle
\frac{2j_0}{J^2}
\sum_{i_1 < \cdots < i_r} J_{i_1 \cdots i_r}
\xi_{i_1} \cdots \xi_{i_r}
+
\frac{\tau_0}{\tau^2}\sum_{i=1} \tau_i \xi_i
\right),
\label{eq:posterior2}
\\
& Z =
\TR_{\left\{\Vec{\sigma} \right\} }
\exp\left(
\displaystyle
\frac{2j_0}{J^2}
\sum_{i_1 < \cdots < i_r} J_{i_1 \cdots i_r}
\xi_{i_1} \cdots \xi_{i_r}
+
\frac{\tau_0}{\tau^2}\sum_{i=1} \tau_i \xi_i
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $Z$ is a partition function.
To distinguish the restored signal from the original one, which is denoted $\Vec{\xi}$, we use the notation $\Vec{ \sigma}$ for the restored units. Moreover, the noise channel characteristics, denoted by $2j_0/J^2$, and $\tau_0/\tau^2$ in Eq..(\[eq:posterior2\]), are not given on the receiver side, so the receiver should estimate these terms, which are called hyper-parameters. We refer to describe these hyper-parameters as $\beta$, and $h$ respectively. The posterior probability can thus be described as $$\begin{aligned}
& P(\Vec{ \sigma} | \Vec{ J}, \Vec{ \tau}) =
\notag\\
&\quad
\frac{1}{Z}
\exp\left(
\displaystyle
\beta
\sum_{i_1 < \cdots < i_r} J_{i_1 \cdots i_r}
\sigma_{i_1} \cdots \sigma_{i_r}
+
h
\sum_{i=1} \tau_i \sigma_i
\right)
\label{eq:posterior3}
\\
&
Z = \TR_{\left\{\Vec{\sigma} \right\}}
\exp\left(
\displaystyle
\beta
\sum_{i_1 < \cdots < i_r} J_{i_1 \cdots i_r}
\sigma_{i_1} \cdots \sigma_{i_r}
+
h
\sum_{i=1}
\tau_i \sigma_i
\right).\end{aligned}$$
From Eq. (\[eq:posterior3\]), it is natural to introduce a Hamiltonian described as $$\beta H = -\beta \sum_{i_1 < \cdots < i_r}
J_{i_1 \cdots i_r} \sigma_{i_1} \cdots \sigma_{i_r}
- h \sum_{i} \tau_i \sigma_i
\label{eq:H1}.$$ If we ignore the original message channel –, that is $h=0$ –, the Hamiltonian consists of only the r-body interaction term; i.e., only the redundant message is effective for restoration, which is called the Sourlas code. Sourlas introduced the Hamiltonian and discussed the macroscopic property of the error correcting code using statistical analysis [@Sourlas94].
Rujan and Nishimori & Wong have applied the MPM inference to the error-correcting code as the restoration strategy [@Nishimori00][@Rujan93], that is adopting the $\sigma_i$ which maximizes the marginal probability: $$P(\sigma_i | \Vec{J}, \Vec{\tau})
=
\TR_{\left\{ \sigma_j \right\}_{j\neq i}}
\frac{
\exp( - \beta H )
}
{
\TR_{\left\{ \sigma_j \right\}}
\exp( - \beta H )
}
\label{eq:marginal1}$$ In this case, this is equivalent to adopting $\sigma_i$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_i &=
\sgn\left(
P(\sigma_i = +1 | \Vec{J}, \Vec{\tau} ) -
P(\sigma_i = -1 | \Vec{J}, \Vec{\tau} )
\right)
\notag \\
&=
\sgn\left(
\TR_{\sigma_i} \sigma_i P(\sigma_i | \Vec{J}, \Vec{\tau} )
\right)
\notag\\
&=
\sgn\left(
\frac{
\TR_{\left\{ \sigma_j \right\}}
\sigma_i \exp( - \beta H )
}
{
\TR_{\left\{ \sigma_j \right\}}
\exp( - \beta H )
}
\right)
\\
&= \sgn \langle \sigma_i \rangle_{\beta}
\label{eq:finite}\end{aligned}$$ The term $\langle \sigma_i \rangle_{\beta}$ in Eq. (\[eq:finite\]) represents the thermal average of $\sigma_i$ in the Hamiltonian $H (in (\ref{eq:H1}))$ with the finite temperature $\beta$. Therefore the MPM inference is called finite-temperature decoding.
Nishimori and Wong compared the MPM and MAP inferences which used the $\Vec{\sigma}$ that minimized the Hamiltonian $H$ in Eq.(\[eq:H1\]) [@Nishimori00]. They pointed out that the MAP inference is equivalent to the MPM inference within the limit of the temperature $T (= \beta^{-1}) \rightarrow 0$. They also suggested that the MPM inference is superior to the MAP inference with regard to the overlap: $$\begin{aligned}
M_o &=
\left[ \frac{1}{N}
\sum \: \xi_i \: \sgn \langle \sigma_i \rangle_{\beta}
\right]
\label{eq:ovlp1}
\\
& =
\TR_{\{ \Vec{\xi} \}, \{ \Vec{J} \}, \{ \Vec{\tau} \}}
P_s(\Vec{\xi})
P_{{\mathrm{out}}} (\Vec{J}, \Vec{\tau}| \Vec{ \xi})
\: \xi_i
\: \sgn \langle \sigma_i \rangle_{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ In Eq.(\[eq:ovlp1\]), the bracket $[\cdot]$ , which is called as the configuration average, denotes the averages over the sets $\{\Vec{\xi}\}$, $\{ \Vec{J} \}$, and $\{\Vec{\tau}\}$. Restoration ability measured in terms of overlap is maximized when the parameters $\beta$ and $h$ equal, respectively, $2j_0/J^2$ and $\tau_0/\tau^2$ [@Nishimori00].
In the MPM inference, each restored unit $\sigma_i$, which is a stochastic binary unit, is subject to thermal fluctuation since the decoding is carried out at a finite temperature; this means each $\sigma_i = \pm 1$ state has finite probability value. Therefore, we should calculate the thermal averages for all of the units when decoding is carried out. In contrast, decoding using the MAP inference is done at the temperature $\beta^{-1}=0$, so there is no thermal fluctuation does not occurred. When the MPM inference is applied to information processing, the calculation cost of the thermal averaging must be evaluated, and the averaging process requires a lot of calculation cost[@Shouno02]. To avoid this high cost, we have introduced the naive mean field (NMF) approximation. We previously reported that an image-restoration model using the MPM inference with stochastic binary units requires more than $50$ times as much computational time as a model using the NMF approximation [@Shouno02].
Naive Mean Field Approximation
------------------------------
In this study, in an attempt to find the ground state in a practical way, we introduced the NMF approximation [@Hopfield86][@Shouno02]. When the NMF approximation is used, each stochastic binary unit $\sigma_i$ is replaced by an analog unit $s_i$ that can take a continuous value $[-1,+1]$, and the output of each analog unit is regarded as $\langle \sigma_i
\rangle$; that is, the thermal average of the corresponding binary unit output $\sigma_i$ can take binary states $\sigma_i=\pm 1$ stochastically. To replace the stochastic binary units with deterministic analog units on the receiver side, we introduced a Hamiltonian for substituting Eq.(\[eq:H1\]). $$\beta {\cal H} = - M
\left(
\beta
\sum_{i_1 < \cdots < i_r } J_{i_1 \cdots i_r}
\hs_{i_1} \cdots \hs_{i_r}
+
h
\sum_{i} \tau_{i} \hs_{i}
\right) ,
\label{eq:H2}$$
where $\hs_i$ denotes an output of an analog unit which takes a continuous value $[-1,+1]$ in the equilibrium state. $M$ is a scaling factor described below. To analyze the model described by the Hamiltonian Eq.(\[eq:H2\]), we followed the manner of Bray [*et al.*]{} [@Bray86]. We assumed each $i$th site consists of $M$ binary units, and the analog unit output $\hs_i$ can be calculated using the average of $M$ binary units $\hsigma_{ia}$ (see Fig.\[fig:fig2\]). $$\hs_i = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{a=1}^{M} \hsigma_{ia}$$ For the limit $M\rightarrow \infty$, each output $\hs_i$ can take a continuous value $[-1,+1]$. When $M$ is a finite value, each $\hs_i$ is called a ‘binominal spins’ which can take $-1, -1+\frac{2}{M}, \cdots, 1-\frac{2}{M}, 1$ with a binominal distribution. We can thus introduce a ‘spin weight function’ as $$\begin{aligned}
W(\hs_i) &= \:\: \TR \:\: \delta \left( M\hs_i - \sum_{a=1}^{M} \hsigma_{ia}
\right)
\notag\\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi {\mathrm j}}
\int_{-{\mathrm j} \infty}^{+{\mathrm j}\infty} du_i
\exp( M (-u_i \hs_i + \ln 2 \cosh(u_i) )).\end{aligned}$$ The partition function $\cal Z$ can be described as $$\begin{aligned}
& {\cal Z} = \prod_{i=1}^{N} \int_{-1}^{+1} d\hs_i W(\hs_i) \exp(- \beta {\cal H} )
\notag\\
&=
M \int_{-{\mathrm j} \infty}^{+{\mathrm j}\infty}
\prod_{i=1}^{N} \left(\frac{du_i}{2\pi {\mathrm j}}\right)
\int_{-1}^{+1} \prod_{i=1} d\hs_i
\notag\\
&\quad\quad
\exp\Biggl( M \biggl(
\beta
\sum_{i_1 < \cdots < i_r } J_{i_1 \cdots i_r}
\hs_{i_1} \cdots \hs_{i_r}
\notag\\
& \quad
+
h
\sum_{i} \tau_{i} \hs_{i}
-u_i \hs_i + \ln 2 \cosh(u_i) \biggr)\Biggr)
\label{eq:analogZ}\end{aligned}$$ At the limit $M\rightarrow \infty$, the integrals over $\{u_i\}$ and $\{\hs_i\}$ in Eq. (\[eq:analogZ\]) can be evaluated by the saddle-point method. To derive the saddle-point equations, we differentiated the exponent of Eq.(\[eq:analogZ\]) by $\hs_{i}$ and $u_i$, and obtained $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \frac{\beta}{(r-1)!} \sum_{i_2=1}^{N} \cdots \sum_{i_r=1}^{N}
J_{i\: i_2 \cdots i_r}
\hs_{i_2} \cdots \hs_{i_r}
+ h \tau_{i}
- u_{i},
\label{eq:saddle1}
\\
0 &= -\hs_i + \tanh u_i.
\label{eq:saddle2}\end{aligned}$$ To derive Eq.(\[eq:saddle1\]), we assumed $J_{i_1 \cdots i_r}$ was symmetric: $$J_{i_1 \cdots i_r} = J_{i'_1 \cdots i'_r},$$ where the indices group $(i'_1 \cdots i'_r)$ is any permutation group of $(i_1 \cdots i_r)$ . Moreover, we assumed self-coupled term in $J_{i_1 \cdots i_r }$ equals zero: $$J_{i_1 \cdots l \cdots l \cdots i_r} = 0.$$ Eliminating $u_{i}$ from Eqs.(\[eq:saddle1\]) and (\[eq:saddle2\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\hs_{i} &=
\tanh \left(
\frac{\beta}{(r-1)!}
\sum_{i_2=1}^{N} \cdots \sum_{i_r =1}^{N}
J_{i\: i_2 \cdots i_r} \hs_{i_2} \cdots \hs_{i_r}
+ h \tau_{i}
\right).
\label{eq:equil1}\end{aligned}$$ For example, for $r=3$, Eq.(\[eq:equil1\]) can be denoted as $$\hs_i =
\tanh \left( \frac{\beta}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^{N} J_{ijk} \: \hs_j \hs_k
+ h \tau_i \right),$$ where we assumed $J_{ijk} = J_{kij} = J_{jki} = J_{kji} = J_{ikj} = J_{jik}$, and $J_{ijj} = J_{jij} = J_{jji} = 0$.
We can derive naturally a discrete synchronous updating rule: $$s_{i}^{t+1} =
\tanh \left(
\frac{\beta}{(r-1)!}
\sum_{i_2, \cdots, i_r} J_{i \: i_2 \cdots i_r} \hs_{i_2}^{t} \cdots \hs_{i_r}^{t}
+ h \tau_{i}
\right).
\label{eq:dynamics}$$ where $s^{t}_i$ denotes the analog unit output at time $t$. Eq.(\[eq:dynamics\]) does not include any stochastic calculation, so we refer to Eq.(\[eq:dynamics\]) as the deterministic dynamics. When the model described by Eq. (\[eq:dynamics\]) reached to the equilibrium state $s^{\infty}_i$, all units should satisfy Eq. (\[eq:equil1\]). Therefore, to investigate the equilibrium state of dynamics (Eq. (\[eq:dynamics\])), we should use the analog Hamiltonian described by Eq.(\[eq:H2\]). From the idea of the NMF approximation, each analog unit state expressed by $s^{\infty}_i$ in the equilibrium state will correspond to $\langle \sigma_i \rangle$, i.e. $s^{\infty}_i$ can be regarded as the thermal average of $\sigma_i$. From Eq. (\[eq:dynamics\]), this model follows the deterministic dynamics, so there is no need to calculate the thermal average of a stochastic unit; the expected calculation cost is thus lower than that for the stochastic binary units model.
Equilibrium State Analysis
--------------------------
To investigate the macroscopic property, we analyzed the NMF approximated model that includes the Hamiltonian described by Eq. (\[eq:H2\]) through the “replica method”, which is a standard statistical-mechanical analysis tool. The MPM inference corresponds to the minimization of the free energy denoted as $T [\ln {\cal Z}]$. Here, ${\cal Z}$ is the partition function: $${\cal Z} = \TR_{\{\sigma_{ia}\}} \exp( -\beta {\cal H}),$$ where ${\cal H}$ is described as Eq.([\[eq:H2\]]{}). However, it is impossible to evaluate $[\ln {\cal Z}]$ in practical, we use replica trick $[\ln {\cal Z}] = \lim_{n\rightarrow 0} ([{\cal Z}^n]-1)/n$. The $n$ replicated partition function $[{\cal Z}^n]$ can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
&\left[ {\cal Z}^n \right]
=
\TR
\left(
\int \prod_{i_1 < \cdots < i_r} \sqrt{\frac{N^{r-1}}{J^2 \pi r!}}
dJ_{i_1 \cdots i_r}
\right)
\left(
\int \prod_{i=1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\tau^2}} d\tau_i
\right)
\notag\\
&\quad\quad
\times
P_s(\{\xi_i\})
P_{{\mathrm{out}}} (\{J_{i_1 \cdots i_r}\}, \{ \tau_i \}| \{ \xi_i\})
{\cal Z}^n, \\
&
{\cal Z}^n =
\prod_{\alpha=1}^{n}
\exp\biggl(
\frac{\beta}{M^{r-1}} \sum_{i_1 < \cdots < i_r }
J_{i_1 \cdots i_r}
\sum_{k_1,\cdots,k_r}
\hsigma_{i_1 k_1}^\alpha \cdots \hsigma_{i_r k_r}^\alpha
\notag
\\
& \quad\quad\quad
+
h \sum_{i} \tau_i \sum_{k} \hsigma_{ik}^{\alpha}
\biggr),\end{aligned}$$ where operator $\TR$ in the last equation represents the sum over all states about $\{\hsigma_{ia}^{\alpha}\}$ and $\{ \xi_i \}$. We analyzed this replicated partition function through the standard replica method. The replica symmetry solution can be described as $$\begin{aligned}
m &= \int Dz \: G(z), \\
q &= \int Dz \: G(z)^2, \\
\chi &=
\frac{1}
{\displaystyle \left(\frac{\beta^2 J^2 r q^{r-1}}{2} + h^2 \tau^2 \right)^{1/2}}
\int Dz \: z G(z), \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& G(z) = \tanh \Biggl(
\biggl(
\frac{\beta^2 J^2 r q^{r-1}}{2}
+ h^2 \tau^2
\biggr)^{1/2} z
\notag \\
&\quad
+\frac{\beta^2 J^2}{2} r (r-1) \chi q^{r-2} G(z)
+\beta j_0 r m^{r-1} + h\tau_0
\Biggr)
\label{eq:G}\end{aligned}$$ Using these solutions, we could obtain the overlap $M_o$: $$\begin{aligned}
M_o &=
\left[
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \xi_i \: \sgn( \hs_i )
\right]
\\
&=
\int Dz \: \sgn\left( G(z) \right)\end{aligned}$$ If we Assume $\chi=0$, this analysis agrees with the result obtained using stochastic binary units reported by Nishimori& Wong [@Nishimori00]. Thus, in our analysis, the difference in the result that arises from the reaction term $\frac{\beta^2 J^2}{2} r (r-1) \chi q^{r-2} G(z)$ in Eq.(\[eq:G\]).
Result
======
In this section, we compare the theoretical and simulation results for the conventional stochastic binary model and the NMF approximated (deterministic analog) model. We refer to the decoding using the MPM inference with conventional stochastic binary units as the ‘binary model’ and to the NMF approximated model as the ‘analog model’. In subsection \[sec:result1\], we show the analytical results for each model. In subsection \[sec:result2\], we compare the results from these theoretical analyses with those from computer simulations. To compare these results, we configured an environment described by several parameters having the same value; that is, $r = 3$, $h = 0$, and $J = 1$. The condition $r = 3$ means a redundant message was generated by 3-body $\xi_i \xi_j \xi_k$ where $1\leq i < j < k \leq N$. We use $h = 0$, which means the decoding was carried out using only information $\Vec{J}$ corresponding to the redundant message. Thus, $\Vec{\tau}$ had no effect in our decoding models. Under this condition, the original message was generated by uniform prior probability Eq.(\[eq:prior\]). The redundant messages were generated by Eq.(\[eq:redundant\]), and the message corruption process is described by Eq.(\[eq:noise1\]). In the simulation, to decode the original message $\Vec{\xi}$ from the corrupted signals $\Vec{J}$ using the stochastic binary model, we used a kind of gradient descent algorithm –, that is Glauber dynamics, – to find the minimum state of the Hamiltonian $H$ described in Eq.(\[eq:H1\]). For decoding using the analog model, we used the update rule describe in Eq.(\[eq:dynamics\]) to find the minimum of the free energy of the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}$ described in Eq.(\[eq:H2\]).
The ability of NMF Approximation {#sec:result1}
--------------------------------
Fig.\[fig:phase\](a) is a phase diagram for the binary model with $r=3$. In the figure, we only show the ‘replica symmetry’ solution; a more detailed solution has been given by Nishimori & Wong [@Nishimori00]. The $x$-axis shows $j_0/J$, which corresponds to the S/N ratio in the communication channel, and the $y$ axis shows $T/J$, which corresponds to the decoding temperature. Region ‘F’, which represents the ferromagnetic state ($m>0$ and $q>0$), in the figure shows the retrievable region.
Fig.\[fig:phase\](b) is a phase diagram for the analog model using the same parameters as for the binary model. Comparing figs.\[fig:phase\](b) and \[fig:phase\](a), we see that the decoding ability of the analog model looks better than that of the binary model in the high temperature region. In Fig.\[fig:phase\](c), region “A” shows where the analog model is superior to the binary model, while region ‘B’ shows where the binary model provides better decoding ability than the analog model. The binary model is better when the S/N ratio is low, while the analog model is more robust with respect to the decoding temperature $T$.
Comparison with Computer Simulation {#sec:result2}
-----------------------------------
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
\(a) Binary, $j_0/J=0.80$, $N=100$ \(c) Binary, $j_0/J=1.0$, $N=100$
\(b) Analog, $j_0/J=0.80$, $N=100$ \(d) Analog, $j_0/J=0.80$, $N=100$
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
The theoretical results described in sec.\[sec:result1\], were realized in an equilibrium state, so we confirmed the validity of our theory through the computer simulations. In the simulations, we assumed a message length as $N=100$.
In the binary model simulation, we used asynchronous Glauber dynamics. First, we randomly selected one site $l$, and calculated the transition probability as determined by the heat-bath method: $$\begin{aligned}
W( \Vec{\sigma}^t \rightarrow {\cal F}_l (\Vec{\sigma}^t)) =
\frac{1}
{1+\exp(\beta (H(\Vec{\sigma}^t) - H({\cal F}_l (\Vec{\sigma}^t) ) ) )},\end{aligned}$$ where the operator ${\cal F}_l(\cdot)$ flipped $\sigma_l^t$ to $-\sigma_l^t$. The difference of the Hamiltonian $H(\Vec{\sigma}^t) - H({\cal F}_l(\Vec{\sigma}^t))$ can be denoted as $$\begin{aligned}
& H(\Vec{\sigma}^t) - H({\cal F}_l \Vec{\sigma}^t) = 2 \sigma_l F_l(\Vec{\sigma}^t)\\
& F_l(\Vec{\sigma}) = \frac{1}{(r-1)!} \sum_{i_2, \cdots i_r}
J_{l i_2 \cdots i_r} \sigma_{i_2}^t \cdots \sigma_{i_r}^t + h \tau_l\end{aligned}$$ This is equivalent to determining the $l$th site probability by $$P(\sigma_l^{t+1} = \pm 1) = \frac{1}{2} \pm
\frac{\tanh (\beta F_l( \Vec{\sigma}^t ))}{2}.$$ In this simulation, the initial state $\Vec{\sigma}^1$ was set to the true message $\Vec{\xi}$, so the simulation result indicated the stability of the true message in the model.
In the analog model simulation we used the synchronous update rule describe in Eq..(\[eq:dynamics\]). Thus all units were updated simultaneously. In the analog simulation, we also set the true message $\Vec{\xi}$ as the initial state $\Vec{s}^1$.
Figs.\[fig:SimResult\](a) and (c) show the binary model simulation results along with the theoretical analysis results at $j_0/J=0.8$ and $j_0/J=1.0$, respectively. (The horizontal axis shows $T/J$, and the vertical axis shows the absolute value of the overlap $|M_o|$.) The computer simulation results are represented by error bars showing the quartile deviation, and the dashed line shows the theoretical analysis result. The phase transition occurred at about $T/J = 1.0$ and $T/J=1.5$ in figs.\[fig:SimResult\](a) and (c), respectively, and the results of the computer simulation agree with the theoretical analysis results.
Figs.\[fig:SimResult\](b) and (d) shows the analog model simulation results along with the theoretical analysis results at $j_0/J=0.8$ and $j_0/J=1.0$, respectively. The computer simulation results are again represented by error-bars, and agree with the replica analysis results. In figs.\[fig:SimResult\](b) and (d), the theoretical results show that the phase transition occurred at about $T/J=1.5$ and $T/J = 1.9$, respectively. The computer simulation agreed with the analysis at such high temperatures. In the analog model, the critical temperatures, which cause the phase transition, became higher than those of the binary model. This indicates that the deterministic analog decoding model is more robust than the binary decoding model in terms of decoding ability when the receiver overestimates the decoding temperature.
However, at low temperatures in the analog model the simulation results did not agree with theoretical result (Fig.\[fig:SimResult\](b)). The simulation initial state is $\Vec{s}^1 = \Vec{\xi}$, and there exist meta-stable states around the $\Vec{\xi}$, so the dynamics of $\Vec{s}^t$ is captured by this state and the absolute overlap $|M_o|$ stays close to $1.0$.
An important feature of the analog model simulation results shown in figs.\[fig:SimResult\](b) and (d), is that the absolute value of the overlap $|M_o|$ was exactly $0$ at high temperature. In the analog model, the all units value $s_i$ exactly converged to $0$ for any messages $\{\Vec{\xi}\}$, so we can guess whether the retrieval is failed or not at high temperature exceeding the retrievable limit. In practical, the ability to determine whether decoding will be finished in failure or success is a desirable feature.
Convergence Speed
-----------------
The main advantage of the NMF approximation is the low calculation cost of convergence. Here, we discuss the convergence time that should be set in the computer simulation for each method. To calculate the thermal average in the computer simulation, we implemented $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\langle \sigma^t_i \rangle} &= \frac{1}{T}
\sum_{\tau = t_{\text{min}}}^{t} \sigma_i^{\tau}, \\
T &= t - t_{\text{min}}+1,\end{aligned}$$ as the thermal average, where the superscript $t$ means discrete time and $t_{\text{min}}$ means the beginning of thermal average calculation. First, we observed the macroscopic quantities $m^t$; $$m^t = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{N} \sum \overline{\langle \sigma^t_i \rangle} & \:\:\: {\text{(binary model)}} \\
\frac{1}{N} \sum s^t_i & \:\:\: {\text{(analog model: NMF approximation) }}
\end{array}
\right.$$ In this simulation, we set the initial value $\Vec{s}^1$ and $\Vec{\sigma}^1$ to satisfy the overlap $M_o = 0.8$, and $t_{\text{min}} = 1$. Fig.\[fig:sim\_macroconv\] shows the dynamics of $m^t$. The solid line represents $m^t$ of the binary stochastic model and the dashed line represents that of the analog deterministic model. The convergence times for the two lines seem to be of the same order.
----- -----
(a) (b)
----- -----
In the MPM inference, however, we should determine each unit’s value; that is, the microscopic quantity. Thus, we investigated the behavior of the thermal average of unit $\overline{\langle\sigma_1^t \rangle}$ for the binary model and $s_1^t$ for the analog model. In the analog model, all units were updated simultaneously because we adopted synchronous updating. In contrast, we adopt asynchronous updating in the binary model. To compare the convergence time between analog unit and binary unit, we regarded $N$ updates as one Monte Carlo step ($1$ MCS) for binary model, where $N(=100)$ means the number of units in the simulation. Thus, one MCS update corresponds to one synchronous update in the analog model. Fig. \[fig:sim\_conv\](a) shows a typical result regarding the convergence speed for the S/N ratio $j_0/J = 1.0$ and temperature $T/J=1.0$; we set the beginning of the thermal average calculation as $t_{\text{min}}=100$ MCS. The horizontal axis shows the calculation time measured by MCS, and the vertical axis shows the value of $\sigma_1^t$ and $s_1^t$. The solid line shows typical dynamics of $\sigma_0^t$, and the dashed line shows typical dynamics of $s_0^t$. In macroscopic points of view, each model achieved the same overlap $|M_o|$, but in microscopic perspective, the deterministic analog model converged about over 1000 times as quickly as the stochastic binary model.
Fig. \[fig:sim\_conv\](b) shows the dynamics at a higher temperature $T/J = 2.2$. $\overline {\langle\sigma^t_1 \rangle}$ did not converge to 0; however $s_1^t$ seemed to be converging to exactly $0$ in the early time steps. Thus, when using the analog model, we can easily predict within the early time steps whether the decoding will be finished in failure or not.
Conclusion
==========
In this research, we have investigated an error-correcting code that uses the MPM inference. Since the MPM inference requires many trials to calculate the thermal average for each unit, we tried to replace this operation with a form of deterministic analog dynamics called naive mean field approximation. We analyzed the decoding ability with the deterministic analog model through the replica method, and quantitatively compared it with that of the stochastic binary model suggested by Nishimori & Wong[@Nishimori00] . We found that the decoding ability of the deterministic analog model is superior to that of the stochastic binary mode l at higher temperature area. To confirm this result, we carried out a computer simulation for each model and obtained the results that agreed with our analysis results.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was partially supported by research grant No.15700192 of the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) in Japan.
[10]{}
D. C. Mattis. . , 56A(5), April 1976.
C.E. Shannon. . , 27:379–423, 623–656, 1948.
Y. Kabashima and D. Saad. . , 44(5):668–674, 1999.
P. Ruján. . , 70(19):2968–2971, 1993.
N. Sourlas. . , 25(3):159–164, 1994.
. , 60(1):132–144, 1999.
A. J. Bray, H. Sompolinsky, and C. Yu. , 19:6389–6406, 1986.
J. J. Hopfield and D. W. Tank. Computing with neural circuits: A model. , 233:625–633, 1986.
H. Shouno, K. Wada, and M. Okada. Naive mean field approximation for image restoration. , 71(10), Oct. 2002.
M. Vecchi. S. Kirkpatrick, C. Gelatt. Optimization by simulated annealing. , 220(4589):671–680, 1983.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present a new radio survey of about 100 late-M and L dwarfs undertaken with the Very Large Array (VLA). The sample was chosen to explore the role of rotation in the radio activity of ultracool dwarfs. As part of the survey we discovered radio emission from three new objects: 2MASS J$0518113\!-\!310153$ (M6.5), 2MASS J$0952219\!-\!192431$ (M7), and 2MASS J$1314203\!+\!132001$ (M7), and made an additional detection of LP349-25 (M8). Combining the new sample with results from our previous studies and from the literature, we compile the largest sample to date of ultracool dwarfs with radio observations and measured rotation velocities ($167$ objects). In the spectral type range M0–M6 we find a radio activity-rotation relation, with saturation at $L_{\rm rad}/L_{\rm
bol}\approx 10^{-7.5}$ above $v{\rm sin}i\approx 5$ km s$^{-1}$, similar to the relation in H$\alpha$ and X-rays. However, at spectral types $\gtrsim {\rm M7}$ the ratio of radio to bolometric luminosity increases significantly regardless of rotation velocity, and the scatter in radio luminosity increases. In particular, while the most rapid rotators ($v{\rm sin}i\gtrsim 20$ km s$^{-1}$) exhibit “super-saturation” in X-rays and H$\alpha$, this effect is not seen in the radio. We also find that ultracool dwarfs with $v{\rm sin}i
\gtrsim 20$ km s$^{-1}$ have a higher radio detection fraction by about a factor of 3 compared to objects with $v{\rm sin}i\lesssim 10$ km s$^{-1}$. When measured in terms of the Rossby number ($Ro$), the radio activity-rotation relation follows a single trend and with no apparent saturation from G to L dwarfs and down to $Ro\sim 10^{-3}$; in X-rays and H$\alpha$ there is clear saturation at $Ro\lesssim 0.1$, with super-saturation beyond M7. A similar trend is observed for the radio surface flux ($L_{\rm rad}/R_*^2$) as a function of $Ro$. The continued role of rotation in the overall level of radio activity and in the fraction of active sources, and the single trend of $L_{\rm
rad}/L_{\rm bol}$ and $L_{\rm rad}/R_*^2$ as a function of $Ro$ from G to L dwarfs indicates that rotation effects are important in regulating the topology or strength of magnetic fields in at least some fully-convective dwarfs. The fact that not all rapid rotators are detected in the radio provides additional support to the idea of dual dynamo states proposed from spectropolarimetric observations.
author:
- 'M. McLean, E. Berger, and A. Reiners'
title: 'The Radio Activity-Rotation Relation of Ultracool Dwarfs'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Rotation plays a key role in the magnetic dynamos of cool stars. The $\alpha\Omega$ dynamo [@par55] is the standard mechanism used to explain magnetic field generation in sun-like stars. The combination of winding of magnetic field lines due to differential rotation, and twisting by convective motions results in the generation of a magnetic field whose strength is highly dependent on stellar rotation. Indeed, this dynamo mechanism is supported by the observed correlation between rotation and magnetic activity (indicated by H$\alpha$, H&K, X-rays, and radio), as well as between rotation and inferred magnetic field strengths (from Zeeman broadening) in F to early-M dwarfs [@nhb+84; @sis+88; @jjj+00; @dfp+98; @pmm+03; @bbm+10; @rbb09; @mdp+10]. The critical parameter appears to be the Rossby number, $Ro=P/\tau_c$, where $P$ is the rotation period and $\tau_c$ is the convective turnover timescale; magnetic activity increases with a decreasing Rossby number (e.g., @nhb+84). However, since the $\alpha\Omega$ dynamo operates at the transition layer between the radiative and convective zones in stars where differential rotation is maximized, a separate mechanism may be required to account for magnetic fields in fully-convective dwarfs (spectral types $\gtrsim
{\rm M3}$).
Observationally, H$\alpha$ and X-ray activity measurements demonstrate that the correlation between rotation and activity continues beyond the expected transition to full convection [@dfp+98; @mb03]. However, since the activity in early- to mid-M dwarfs becomes saturated at a fairly low rotation rate, corresponding to $v\approx 5$ km s$^{-1}$, few objects display the unsaturated correlation. An eventual breakdown in the saturated rotation-activity relation is observed in ultracool dwarfs (spectral type $\gtrsim {\rm M7}$) in both X-rays and H$\alpha$ (e.g., @bm95 [@mb03; @bbg+08]), such that the activity levels decline precipitously in all objects, independent of rotation (e.g., @bbf+10). A similar breakdown is seen in the correlation between rotation and magnetic flux $Bf$ [@rb10]; here $B$ is the magnetic field and $f$ is the magnetic filling factor. Moreover, late-M dwarfs appear to exhibit distinct regimes of magnetic field topologies and strengths with no obvious correlation to the stellar rotation [@mdp+10].
There are also hints of super-saturation among the most rapid rotators (with $v\gtrsim 20$ km s$^{-1}$) where there appears to be a particularly strong suppression of H$\alpha$ [@rb10] and X-ray [@jjj+00; @bbg+08] activity at spectral types beyond M7. It is unclear whether the super-saturation phenomenon is related to external effects such as centrifugal coronal stripping [@ju99; @jjj+00; @bbg+08], or to the actual generation of the magnetic field. Unfortunately, it is not possible to make direct magnetic flux measurements in rapidly rotating objects because Zeeman broadening is masked by rotational broadening [@mdp+10; @rb10].
Similarly, there is an inherent difficulty in using H$\alpha$ and X-ray emission to study field generation in ultracool dwarfs since the decrease in activity may be due to a decoupling between the increasingly neutral atmosphere and any existing magnetic fields [@mbs+02], or to a change in the bulk coronal density (e.g., @bbg+08). This is potentially manifested in the sharp breakdown of the tight radio/X-ray activity correlation [@gb93; @bg94] at spectral type M7 [@ber02; @ber06; @bbf+10]. Thus, while X-ray and H$\alpha$ activity plummet in ultracool dwarfs, the ratio of radio to bolometric luminosity actually increases in the coolest objects, while the radio luminosity itself remains largely unchanged, at least to spectral type $\sim {\rm L4}$ [@ber02; @ber06; @bbf+10]. Thus, radio observations indicate that ultracool dwarfs are capable of generating stable large-scale kilo-Gauss magnetic fields. This result has been confirmed with Zeeman broadening observations of M dwarfs [@rb10], as well as with magnetic topology studies using spectropolarimetry (Zeeman Doppler Imaging; @dfc+06 [@mdp+10]). However, radio activity remains a unique tool for studying the field topology and dissipation in rapid rotators.
Theoretical studies have led to several proposed models to explain the continued presence of magnetic fields in fully convective stars and brown dwarfs. @ddr93 proposed a turbulent dynamo that generates small-scale chaotic magnetic fields, with little dependence on rotation. However, this mechanism cannot produce sufficient large-scale magnetic fields to explain the observed Zeeman broadening, or the strong radio activity among ultracool dwarfs, particularly periodic radio emission that appears to require a substantial field with low multipole order [@brp+09; @mbi+11]. @ck06 explored the $\alpha^2$ dynamo, which predicts large-scale primarily toroidal fields with a strong dependence on rotation, and saturation at high rotation rates where the $\alpha^2$ mode becomes super-critical. This dynamo model has been proposed to dominate among all fast solid-body rotators, even the partially radiative early-M dwarfs. @dsb06 conducted 3-dimensional hydrodynamic and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of fully convective spheres, and found magnetic fields on all spatial scales, as well as differential rotation. They also found that the fields on the largest scales increase with rotation rate, reaching saturation only at fast rotation ($Ro\approx 0.01$), and exhibiting no sign of super-saturation. The MHD simulations of @bro08 also find that faster rotation produces higher magnetic energy densities, as well as magnetic fields on increasingly large-scales with a dipolar topology. However, their models do not include the fastest rotators.
In this paper, we study the relation between radio activity and rotation in M and L dwarfs as a way to explore and constrain the magnetic dynamo mechanism of ultracool dwarfs. A radio activity-rotation relation has been found in F–K stars [@sis+88; @ss89], as expected from the X-ray activity-rotation relation and the strong radio/X-ray correlation. Based on a small sample of ultracool dwarfs, @bbg+08 found hints that a connection between radio activity and rotation may persist in late-M and L dwarfs, despite the breakdown in the H$\alpha$ and X-ray activity-rotation relations. Here we present a much larger sample of objects, taking advantage of new radio observations of 104 M and L dwarfs, as well as new rotation velocity measurements for previously-studied objects [@rb08; @rb10]. We present the radio observations in §\[sec:obs\], and new ultracool dwarf detections in §\[sec:rad\]. In §\[sec:rot\] we study the role of rotation in producing radio activity, and we discuss implications for dynamo models in §\[sec:disc\]. Our key finding is that the fastest rotators (highest $v{\rm sin}i$ and lowest Rossby number) have higher ratios of radio to bolometric luminosity, higher radio surface fluxes, and a higher radio detection fraction, suggesting that rotation continues to play a role in the magnetic dynamo mechanism of ultracool dwarfs.
Observations {#sec:obs}
============
We carried out a survey of $104$ M and L dwarfs with the Very Large Array (VLA). The properties of the sources are summarized in Table \[tab:obsn\] and plotted in Figure \[fig:surv\]. The targets are concentrated in the spectral type range M6–M9, where the X-ray/radio correlation and the X-ray/H$\alpha$ activity-rotation relation break down. The sample includes sources with no previous radio observations, as well as several objects with previous detections or upper limits. The majority of the sample is located at $\lesssim 20$ pc. Taking into account objects with new velocity measurements that were observed in previous radio surveys, we have increased the number of objects with both radio and rotation measurements by about a factor of three compared to previous studies.
Each object was observed for 1 hr at 8.46 GHz using the standard continuum mode with $2\times 50$ MHz contiguous bands. The flux density scale was determined using the extragalactic calibrators 3C48 (J0137+331), 3C138 (J0521+166), or 3C286 (J1331+305), while the phase was monitored using calibrators located within $10^\circ$ of the target sources. The data were reduced and analyzed using the Astronomical Image Processing System. The resulting flux density measurements are given in Table \[tab:obsn\]. Previous radio observations collection from the literature are presented in Table \[tab:obso\] [@wjk89; @kll99; @bbb+01; @ber02; @bp05; @ber06; @pol+07; @brp+09].
New Radio Detections {#sec:rad}
====================
As part of this new survey we detect radio emission from four objects: 2MASS J$0518113-310153$ (M6.5), 2MASS J$0952219-192431$ (M7), 2MASS J$1314203+1320011$ (M7; @mbi+11), and the previously-detected binary system LP349-25 (M8; @pol+07). The measured flux densities are $181\pm 27$ $\mu$Jy, $233\pm 15$ $\mu$Jy, $1156\pm 15$ $\mu$Jy, and $323\pm 14$ $\mu$Jy, respectively. The fractional circular polarization for the four objects are $f_c\lesssim 45\%$ (2M$0518-3101$), $f_c\lesssim 30\%$ (2M$0952-1924$), $f_c=18\pm 2\%$ (2M$1314+1320$), and $f_c\lesssim
23\%$ (LP349-25). These values are consistent with the level of circular polarization in the quiescent emission observed in other ultracool dwarfs (e.g., @ber02 [@ber06]). The flux density measured for LP349-25 is consistent with the value reported by @pol+07. No radio emission was detected from GJ2005, BRI0021-0214 or GJ234A, despite previous radio detections [@wjk89; @ber02; @ber06]. Our upper limits for GJ2005 and BRI0021-0214 are only a factor of 1.7 and 1.4 below the previous detections, respectively. However, the upper limit on GJ234A is almost 7 times below the detection from @wjk89, indicative of long-term variability.
We also carried out a 10 hr follow-up observation of 2M$0952-1924$ at 4.96 GHz and 8.46 GHz, but found no significant detection, to a limit of $69$ $\mu$Jy, a factor of 2.4 below the original detection. This indicates that the initial detection was either a flare, or that the source experiences long-term variability. Since 2M$0952-1924$ has a rotation velocity of $v{\rm sin}i\approx 6$ km s$^{-1}$, its rotation period could be as long as 20 hr, indicating that the non-detection in 10 hr could also result from significant rotational modulation [@brr+05; @had+06; @hbl+07; @brp+09; @mbi+11].
Exploring the Role of Rotation {#sec:rot}
==============================
To explore the connection between rotation and radio activity we study the full sample of M and L dwarfs with radio observations and measured rotation velocities. In Figure \[fig:lrlb\] we plot the ratio of radio to bolometric luminosity as a function of spectral type for the full sample (Tables \[tab:obsn\] and \[tab:obso\]). We find an overall trend of increasing radio activity with later spectral type, at least to spectral type $\sim{\rm L4}$, with a dearth of sources with $L_{\rm rad}/L_{\rm bol}\gtrsim 10^{-7}$ in spectral types earlier than M6 (see also @ber02 [@ber06]). Moreover, essentially every detected object beyond a spectral type of M7 exhibits a value of $L_{\rm rad}/L_{\rm bol}$ that is larger than the saturated activity level in the M0–M6 dwarfs.
The distribution of rotation velocities as a function of spectral type is shown in Figure \[fig:vsini\]. There are no M0–M6 dwarfs with rotation velocities of $v{\rm sin}i\gtrsim 30$ km s$^{-1}$, while among the ultracool dwarfs the sample is fairly uniformly distributed over the range of $\approx 5-60$ km s$^{-1}$. Combining the rotation velocities with the radio luminosities (Figure \[fig:rrad\]), we find no clear correlation, although there is a tantalizing paucity of objects with $v{\rm sin}i\gtrsim 30$ km s$^{-1}$ and radio luminosity of $\lesssim 10^{23}$ erg s$^{-1}$, which are present at $v{\rm
sin}i\lesssim 30$ km s$^{-1}$. The lack of an obvious change in radio luminosity from early-M dwarfs to ultracool dwarfs contrasts with the trends seen in H$\alpha$ and X-rays [@bbf+10].
Since the X-ray and H$\alpha$ rotation trends are strongest when scaled relative to the bolometric luminosity, we plot $L_{\rm rad}/
L_{\rm bol}$ as a function of rotation velocity in Figure \[fig:rbol\]. In the early- to mid-M dwarfs we find an apparent radio rotation-activity relation, with subsequent saturation at $v{\rm sin}i\gtrsim 5$ km s$^{-1}$ and $L_{\rm rad}/L_{\rm bol}
\approx 10^{-7.5}$. There are few detections below the saturation velocity, but the bulk of the upper limits for the slow rotators are well below the saturated emission level. This behavior is consistent with the rotation-activity relation observed in the X-rays, as expected from the radio/X-ray correlation in early-M dwarfs [@gb93; @bg94]. It is also similar to the H$\alpha$ rotation-activity relation [@dfp+98; @mb03]. On the other hand, the detected late-M and L dwarfs exhibit a general increase in $L_{\rm
rad}/L_{\rm bol}$ compared to M0–M6 (Figure \[fig:lrlb\]). Therefore, the ultracool dwarfs no longer follow the saturation level observed in the early-M dwarfs, and instead reside at higher values of $L_{\rm rad}/L_{\rm bol}\sim 10^{-6.4}$. There is also an increase in the scatter of radio activity levels in ultracool dwarfs, similar to that seen in X-rays and H$\alpha$ (see Figure \[fig:rmulti\]). The increased scatter is indicative of a breakdown in the correlation between the activity level and rotation velocity. On the other hand, at $v{\rm sin}i\gtrsim 20$ km s$^{-1}$, where the X-ray and H$\alpha$ activity appear to exhibit super-saturation, there are indications of a trend towards higher radio activity levels (Figure \[fig:rmulti\]). It is therefore clear that the radio activity and the H$\alpha$/X-ray trends diverge in ultracool dwarfs, regardless of whether we normalize by the bolometric luminosity or not.
We further explore the role of rotation by investigating the fraction of objects with radio detections as a function of rotation velocity. We divide the objects with spectral types M7–L4 into three $v{\rm
sin}i$ bins, using two sets of binning, and retaining only significant non-detections, i.e., those with $L_{\rm rad}\lesssim 2.5\times
10^{23}$ erg s$^{-1}$, which is the typical luminosity of the detected sources. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:rstat\]. For both sets of binning we find a clear increase in the fraction of radio detections as a function of $v{\rm sin}i$, from a few percent at $v{\rm sin}i\lesssim 15$ km s$^{-1}$ to about $30\%$ at $v{\rm
sin}i\gtrsim 30$ km s$^{-1}$. This result suggests that while radio luminosity may not increase with faster rotation, the probability of producing radio emission does depend on fast rotation. This may be due to the influence of rotation on the magnetic field strength and/or its topology.
Studies of X-ray, H&K, and H$\alpha$ activity indicate that the Rossby number is the rotation parameter most highly closely correlated with magnetic activity [@nhb+84]. We estimate the Rossby numbers for our sample using the method of @rb10. The periods are estimated from $v{\rm sin}i$ combined with radii estimated from the mass-magnitude [@dfs+00] and mass-radius [@bca+98] relations. A radius of 0.1 $R_\odot$ is used for spectral types beyond M8. We estimate $\tau_c$ using the empirical relation of @ks07 imposing a maximum of 70 d, consistent with @gil86. In Figure \[fig:roslum\] we plot radio luminosity as a function of $Ro$. As in the case of radio luminosity versus $v{\rm
sin}i$, we find no significant evolution from early-M to ultracool dwarfs. However, we note that the ultracool dwarfs with radio emission are clearly concentrated at $Ro\lesssim 5\times 10^{-3}$, indicating that objects with low Rossby numbers are more likely to produce detectable radio activity.
In Figure \[fig:rosmulti\] we plot the luminosity in radio, X-ray and H$\alpha$ scaled by the bolometric luminosity as a function of $Ro$. We supplement our data with results for F–K stars from the literature [@mek85; @sis+88; @ss89; @dfp+98; @jjj+00; @pmm+03]. The previously-discussed trends in X-ray and H$\alpha$ activity versus $v{\rm sin}i$ are more pronounced when plotted versus Rossby number. In particular, for spectral types earlier than M6 the X-ray activity exhibits a rapid increase by about 3 orders of magnitude as $Ro$ decreases from $\sim 2$ to $\sim 0.2$, followed by saturation at $Ro\lesssim 0.2$. The ultracool dwarfs exhibit a clear super-saturation trend of decreasing activity as a function of decreasing Rossby number in the range $Ro\approx 10^{-2}-10^{-3}$ (see also @bbg+08). A similar trend is apparent in H$\alpha$ activity (see also @rb10). On the other hand, in the radio band we find a uniform trend of increasing activity as a function of decreasing Rossby number over the range $Ro\approx 0.1-10^{-3}$ and for spectral types G to L, indicating that at least in some ultracool dwarfs, there is no evidence for a breakdown in the activity-Rossby number relation. A Spearman’s rank correlation test for the detected sources gives $\rho\approx -0.88$ with a null hypothesis (no correlation) probability of only $\approx 1.1\times 10^{-15}$. A linear regression fit indicates an overall trend of $L_{\rm rad}/
L_{\rm bol}\propto Ro^{-1.1}$.
Finally, @ss89 noted the potential importance of radio surface flux ($L_{\rm rad}/R_*^2$) as a quantity strongly correlated with rotation in G–K stars; here $R_*$ is the stellar radius normalized to solar units. These authors found that $L_{\rm rad}/R_*^2 \propto
P^{-1.8\pm 0.3}\,R_*^{1.8\pm 0.4}$. In Figure \[fig:rosflux\] we plot radio surface flux as a function of Rossby number for the ultracool dwarfs in our sample and from the literature, as well as for the main sequence stars in the @ss89 sample. The objects, ranging from spectral type G to L, again appear to follow a single trend with respect to $Ro$. A Spearman’s rank correlation test for the detected sources gives $\rho\approx -0.72$ with a null hypothesis (no correlation) probability of only $\approx 7.0\times 10^{-8}$. A linear regression fit indicates an overall trend of $L_{\rm rad}/R_*^2
\propto Ro^{-0.5}$.
Implications for Magnetic Dynamo Models {#sec:disc}
=======================================
The single trend of radio activity and surface flux as a function of Rossby number for G–L dwarfs, the overall increase in radio activity with rotation velocity, and the enhanced fraction of radio emitters at $v{\rm sin}i\gtrsim 25$ km s$^{-1}$ indicate that rotation continues to play a role in the dynamo mechanism of ultracool dwarfs. These trends are at odds with observations in X-rays and H$\alpha$, which point to a breakdown in the relation between activity and rotation. This suggests that the reduced activity levels in X-rays and H$\alpha$ are due to external effects, such as the increased neutrality of the atmospheres, a reduction in the efficiency of bulk coronal heating, or centrifugal stripping, rather than to a substantial decrease in the dynamo efficiency. In this context, the radio observations provide strong support to Zeeman measurements that point to the continued presence of $\sim 1-3$ kG fields in some late-M dwarfs [@mdp+10; @rb10]. However, ZDI measurements suggest a breakdown in the correlation between stellar parameters (e.g., rotation) and the field strength for $Ro\lesssim 0.1$ such that some rapid rotators have weak fields, while others have substantial fields [@mdp+10]. The evidence from radio observations extends to faster rotation velocities than the limit of $v{\rm sin}i\lesssim 20$ km s$^{-1}$ for Zeeman measurements, and may be indicative of a similar trend, namely rapid rotators are more likely to produce radio emission, and to follow the same trend with respect to Rossby number of G–K stars, but there is a large fraction of rapid rotators with no detectable radio emission.
With the exception of the purely turbulent dynamo model of @ddr93, all other published models of fully-convective dynamos predict some level of relation between the magnetic energy density and rotation, at least up to a saturation level [@ck06; @dsb06; @bro08]. In particular, @ck06 find that for in an $\alpha^2$ dynamo the resulting field strength depends on rotation up to a saturation value, and it may indeed dominate in the fastest rotators leading to the activity-rotation saturation observed in X-rays and H$\alpha$. Similarly, @dsb06 find that on the large scales the magnetic energy increases with rotation (up to some saturation value), while small-scale fields are nearly independent of rotation. @bro08 also finds that faster rotators produce stronger fields, and that rapid rotation leads to suppression of differential rotation.
The dynamo models also predict that rotation will affect the field topology, but there is little agreement about the resulting field configurations. Predictions range from dominant axisymmetric fields [@bro08], with a primary quadrupolar component [@dsb06], to large-scale, non-axisymmetric, high multipole order fields [@ck06]. As in the case of field strength, field topology measurements with the ZDI technique suggest that in late-M dwarfs there is no clear correlation between stellar parameters (e.g., rotation) and the field topology. Since a substantial fraction of the radio emitters produce simple rotationally modulated emission indicative of a dipolar field topology [@brr+05; @had+06; @hbl+07; @brp+09; @mbi+11], it is possible that magnetic topology rather than field strength is the key to the change in the nature of magnetic activity among ultracool dwarfs, and that this is the main parameter that is correlated with rotation. A clear test of this possibility is to observe all radio emitters for at least a few rotation periods to test for periodicity. For the objects with $v{\rm sin}i\lesssim 20$ km s$^{-1}$ this will require $\sim 40$ hr per source.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
We presented new observations of a large sample of M and L dwarfs with measured rotation velocities aimed at addressing the radio activity-rotation relation in fully convective objects. This survey triples the number of ultracool dwarfs with measured rotation velocities and radio observations. As part of this survey we also discovered three new radio active ultracool dwarfs, of which one (2M1314+1320) exhibits periodic radio emission [@mbi+11]. Combining our observations with objects from the literature we find the following key results:
- In the M0–M6 dwarfs we find a saturation-type relation between rotation period and radio activity, similar to the one seen in H$\alpha$ and X-ray, and reaching saturation at a relatively low rotation velocity of about 5 km s$^{-1}$.
- Unlike the rapid decline in X-ray and H$\alpha$ activity in ultracool dwarfs, even for the most rapid rotators, the radio luminosity remains unchanged as a function of rotation velocity and spectral type, at least to spectral type of about L4. The ratio of radio to bolometric luminosity increases with later spectral type, well beyond the saturation value of M0–M6 dwarfs. However, as in the case of X-ray and H$\alpha$ activity we find an increased scatter in $L_{\rm rad}$ and $L_{\rm rad}/L_{\rm bol}$ for ultracool dwarfs.
- In the regime of fastest rotation ($v\sin i\gtrsim 20$ km s$^{-1}$), there are fewer objects with low radio luminosity and a higher fraction of detected objects. This is contrary to the apparent X-ray and H$\alpha$ super-saturation in these fast rotators.
- The ratio of radio to bolometric luminosity and the radio surface flux increase as a function of decreasing Rossby number with a single trend for $Ro\sim 0.1-10^{-3}$ and spectral types G–L. This is in direct contrast to the saturated X-ray/H$\alpha$ activity-$Ro$ relation in G–L dwarfs, and the X-ray/H$\alpha$ super-saturation in ultracool dwarfs.
Our most basic conclusion from these observations is that rotation continues to play a role in the magnetic activity of ultracool dwarfs, and hence in the underlying dynamo mechanism. It is not possible at the present to determine whether rotation mainly influences the field strength or its topology, since both may affect the detectability of radio emission. A clear test is long-term monitoring of the radio emitters to check for periodic modulation, which will allow us to reconstruct the field configuration [@brp+09; @mbi+11]. The ability of radio observations to trace the presence of magnetic fields in the most rapid rotators ($v{\rm sin}i\gtrsim 20$ km s$^{-1}$) is particularly important in light of the inability of Zeeman measurements to probe this regime. We are clearly able to study the role of rotation down to $Ro\sim 10^{-3}$, while the Zeeman techniques are sensitive only to $Ro\gtrsim 10^{-2}$ [@mdp+10; @rb10].
While rotation clearly plays a role in radio activity, there are rapid rotators with no detectable radio emission, suggesting that more than one dynamo mechanism could be operating in ultracool dwarfs, or that the dynamo may lead to significantly different strengths/topologies. This is similar to the conclusion of @mdp+10 from ZDI measurements of mid- and late-M dwarfs. In particular, it is possible that some rapid rotators are dominated by a dynamo that leads to a large-scale, low multipole order field that is more likely to result in detectable radio emission (particularly simple periodic radio emission). The long-term variability of at least some ultracool dwarfs (§\[sec:rad\]; @adh+08 [@bbf+10]) may be indicative of an episodic switch between the dynamo states.
Since most of the radio detections of ultracool dwarfs to date are close to the sensitivity limit of the VLA, future studies of individual objects and trends such as the activity-rotation relation will greatly benefit from the order of magnitude increase in sensitivity afforded by the now-operational EVLA. Any constraints on the convective dynamo mechanism, atmospheric coupling of the magnetic field, or bulk coronal densities must take results from radio activity studies into account, particularly for the fastest rotators. In addition, theoretical dynamo models should explore the range of stellar parameters and rotation rates that are directly probed by radio observations, extending down to at least $Ro\sim 10^{-3}$.
E.B. acknowledges support for this work from the National Science Foundation through Grant AST-1008361. A.R. received research funding from the DFG as an Emmy Noether fellow (RE 1664/4-1). This work has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
, A., [Doyle]{}, J. G., [Hallinan]{}, G., [Bourke]{}, S., & [Golden]{}, A. 2008, , 487, 317
, I., [Chabrier]{}, G., [Allard]{}, F., & [Hauschildt]{}, P. H. 1998, , 337, 403
, G., & [Marcy]{}, G. W. 1995, AJ, 109, 762
, A. O., & [Guedel]{}, M., 285, 621
, E. 2002, , 572, 503
, E. 2006, , 648, 629
, E., et al. 2001, , 410, 338
, E., et al. 2010, , 709, 332
, E., et al. 2008, , 676, 1307
, E., et al. 2009, , 695, 310
, E., et al. 2005, , 627, 960
, M. K. 2008, , 676, 1262
, M. K., [Basri]{}, G., [Marcy]{}, G. W., [West]{}, A. A., & [Zhang]{}, J. 2010, , 139, 504
, A. J., & [Putman]{}, M. E. 2005, , 626, 486
, G., & [K[ü]{}ker]{}, M. 2006, , 446, 1027
, K. L., [Reid]{}, I. N., [Liebert]{}, J., [Kirkpatrick]{}, J. D., & [Lowrance]{}, P. J. 2003, , 126, 2421
, X., [Forveille]{}, T., [Perrier]{}, C., & [Mayor]{}, M. 1998, , 331, 581
, X., [Forveille]{}, T., [S[é]{}gransan]{}, D., [Beuzit]{}, J.-L., [Udry]{}, S., [Perrier]{}, C., & [Mayor]{}, M. 2000, , 364, 217
, W., [Stix]{}, M., & [Brandenburg]{}, A. 2006, , 638, 336
, J.-F., [Forveille]{}, T., [Collier Cameron]{}, A., [Barnes]{}, J. R., [Delfosse]{}, X., [Jardine]{}, M. M., & [Valenti]{}, J. A. 2006, Science, 311, 633
, B. R., [De Young]{}, D. S., & [Roxburgh]{}, I. W. 1993, , 145, 207
, J. K., [Burgasser]{}, A. J., [Cruz]{}, K. L., [Shara]{}, M. M., [Walter]{}, F. M., & [Gelino]{}, C. R. 2009, , 137, 1
, R. L. 1986, , 300, 339
, M., & [Benz]{}, A. O. 1993, ApJ, 405, L63
, M., [Schmitt]{}, J. H. M. M., & [Benz]{}, A. O. 1995, , 302, 775
, G., [Antonova]{}, A., [Doyle]{}, J. G., [Bourke]{}, S., [Brisken]{}, W. F., & [Golden]{}, A. 2006, , 653, 690
, G., et al. 2007, , 663, L25
, D. J., [Jardine]{}, M. M., [Jeffries]{}, R. D., [Randich]{}, S., [Collier Cameron]{}, A., & [Ferreira]{}, M. 2000, , 318, 1217
, M., & [Unruh]{}, Y. C. 1999, , 346, 883
, J. S., [Ramsey]{}, L. W., [Jones]{}, H. R. A., [Pavlenko]{}, Y., [Gallardo]{}, J., [Barnes]{}, J. R., & [Pinfield]{}, D. J. 2009, , 704, 975
, M., & [Stepien]{}, K. 2007, Acta Astron., 57, 149
, A., [Leto]{}, G., & [Linsky]{}, J. L. 1999, , 118, 1369
, M., [Berger]{}, E., [Irwin]{}, J., [Forbrich]{}, J., & [Reiners]{}, A. 2011, Submitted to ApJ; arXiv:1107.1516
, M. V. 1985, , 117, 381
, S., & [Basri]{}, G. 2003, , 583, 451
, S., [Basri]{}, G., [Shu]{}, F., [Allard]{}, F., & [Chabrier]{}, G. 2002, , 571, 469
, J., [Donati]{}, J.-F., [Petit]{}, P., [Delfosse]{}, X., [Forveille]{}, T., & [Jardine]{}, M. M. 2010, , 407, 2269
, R. W., [Hartmann]{}, L. W., [Baliunas]{}, S. L., [Duncan]{}, D. K., & [Vaughan]{}, A. H. 1984, , 279, 763
, E. N. 1955, , 122, 293
, N., [Osten]{}, R. A., [Lim]{}, J., [Mart[í]{}n]{}, E. L., & [Ho]{}, P. T. P. 2007, , 658, 553
, N., [Maggio]{}, A., [Micela]{}, G., [Sciortino]{}, S., & [Ventura]{}, P. 2003, , 397, 147
, I. N., [Kirkpatrick]{}, J. D., [Liebert]{}, J., [Gizis]{}, J. E., [Dahn]{}, C. C., & [Monet]{}, D. G. 2002, , 124, 519
, A., & [Basri]{}, G. 2008, , 684, 1390
, A., & [Basri]{}, G. 2010, , 710, 924
, A., [Basri]{}, G., & [Browning]{}, M. 2009, , 692, 538
, O. B., & [Stewart]{}, R. T. 1989, , 236, 129
, R. T., [Innis]{}, J. L., [Slee]{}, O. B., [Nelson]{}, G. J., & [Wright]{}, A. E. 1988, , 96, 371
, S. M., [Jackson]{}, P. D., & [Kundu]{}, M. R. 1989, , 71, 895
[llcccccccll]{} 0.08in $0318238\!-\!010018$ & SDSS-MEB-1 & M4.0 & 15.4 & 14.62 & 375 & & $-1.81$ & & $<78 $ & $<-5.74$\
$0629234\!-\!024850$A & GJ 234 A & M4.5 & 6.38 & 5.49 & 4 & 6 & $-2.89$ & $-3.98$ & $<81 $ & $<-8.50$\
$1406493\!-\!301828$ & LHS 2859 & M5.0 & 11.36 & 10.37 & 19 & & $-2.84$ & & $<81 $ & $<-7.27$\
$2043192\!+\!552053$ & GJ 802 A & M5.0 & 9.56 & 8.75 & 9 & 6.4 & $-2.23$ & & $<93 $ & $<-7.03$\
$0004575\!-\!170937$ & & M5.5 & 11.00 & 10.08 & 16 & & $-3.31$ & $-3.81$ & $<78 $ & $<-6.98$\
$1610584\!-\!063132$ & LP 684-33 & M5.5 & 11.35 & 10.37 & 18 & & $-2.91$ & & $<96 $ & $<-7.19$\
$2132297\!-\!051158$ & LP 698-2 & M5.5 & 11.42 & 10.38 & 19 & & $-2.91$ & $-5.06$ & $<72 $ & $<-7.29$\
$2151270\!-\!012713$ & LP 638-50 & M5.5 & 11.28 & 10.39 & 19 & & $-2.81$ & & $<63 $ & $<-7.43$\
$2205357\!-\!110428$ & LP 759-25 & M5.5 & 11.66 & 10.72 & 19 & 13 & $-2.98$ & $-4.20$ & $<84 $ & $<-7.15$\
$1236153\!-\!310646$ & & M5.5 & 11.78 & 10.81 & 19 & & $-3.00$ & & $<111 $ & $<-6.96$\
$0013466\!-\!045736$ & LHS 1042 & M6.0 & 11.46 & 10.48 & 17 & & $-3.01$ & & $<81 $ & $<-7.23$\
$0024441\!-\!270824$ & GJ 2005 A & M6.0 & 9.25 & 8.24 & 19 & 9 & $-3.25$ & $-4.62$ & $<96 $ & $<-6.50$\
$1236396\!-\!172216$ & & M6.0 & 11.77 & 10.63 & 19 & & $-3.02$ & & $<69 $ & $<-7.16$\
$1346460\!-\!314925$ & LP 911-56 & M6.0 & 10.98 & 10.04 & 14 & & $-2.96$ & & $<84 $ & $<-7.41$\
$1432085\!+\!081131$ & LHS 2935 & M6.0 & 10.11 & 9.17 & 9 & & $-2.96$ & & $<81 $ & $<-7.79$\
$1552446\!-\!262313$ & LHS 5303 & M6.0 & 10.37 & 9.30 & 11 & & $-2.98$ & & $<78 $ & $<-7.67$\
$1614252\!-\!025100$ & & M6.0 & 11.30 & 10.28 & 18 & & $-2.87$ & $-4.19$ & $<90 $ & $<-7.23$\
$2049527\!-\!171608$ & & M6.0 & 11.81 & 10.81 & 19 & & $-3.02$ & & $<60 $ & $<-7.22$\
$0518113\!-\!310153$ & & M6.5 & 11.88 & 10.90 & 20 & & $-3.04$ & & $181\pm 27$ & $-6.73$\
$0931223\!-\!171742$ & LP 788-1 & M6.5 & 11.07 & 10.07 & 13 & & $-3.09$ & & $<54 $ & $<-7.55$\
$1516407\!+\!391048$ & LP 222-65 & M6.5 & 10.80 & 9.81 & 12 & & $-3.23$ & & $<81 $ & $<-7.30$\
$1606339\!+\!405421$ & LHS 3154 & M6.5 & 11.05 & 10.07 & 12 & & $-3.34$ & & $<117 $ & $<-7.02$\
$1646315\!+\!343455$ & LHS 3241 & M6.5 & 10.53 & 9.61 & 11 & & $-3.15$ & & $<84 $ & $<-7.46$\
$0535218\!-\!054608$AB & & M6.5 & 14.65 & 13.47 & 156 & & $-2.35$ & & $<93 $ & $<-5.88$\
$0711113\!+\!432959$ & LHS 1901 & M6.5 & 9.98 & 9.13 & 13 & & $-2.94$ & & $<117 $ & $<-7.35$\
$0741068\!+\!173845$ & LHS 1937 & M7.0 & 12.01 & 10.94 & 18 & 10 & $-3.17$ & $-4.10$ & $<75 $ & $<-7.03$\
$0818580\!+\!233352$ & & M7.0 & 12.18 & 11.15 & 19 & 4.5 & $-3.19$ & $-4.11$ & $<78 $ & $<-6.94$\
$0952219\!-\!192431$ & & M7.0 & 11.87 & 10.87 & 30 & 6 & $-3.08$ & $-3.94$ & $<69 $ & $<-6.43$\
& & & & & & & & & $233\pm 15$ & $ -6.20$\
$1048126\!-\!112009$ & GJ 3622 & M7.0 & 8.86 & 7.93 & 5 & $<3$ & $-3.09$ & $-4.63$ & $<96 $ & $<-8.20$\
$1141440\!-\!223215$ & & M7.0 & 12.63 & 11.57 & 22 & 10 & $-3.25$ & $-4.90$ & $<108 $ & $<-6.62$\
$1314203\!+\!132001$A & & M7.0 & 9.75 & 8.79 & 16 & 45 & $-3.17$ & $-3.97$ & $1156\pm 15$ & $ -5.92$\
$1354087\!+\!084608$ & & M7.0 & 12.19 & 11.16 & 17 & & $-3.79$ & & $<105 $ & $<-6.31$\
$1356414\!+\!434258$ & LP 220-13 & M7.0 & 11.71 & 10.65 & 16 & 14 & $-3.59$ & $-3.92$ & $<99 $ & $<-6.61$\
$1534570\!-\!141848$ & 2MUCD 11346 & M7.0 & 11.38 & 10.31 & 11 & 10 & $-3.34$ & $-4.01$ & $<87 $ & $<-7.21$\
$2337383\!-\!125027$ & LP 763-3 & M7.0 & 11.46 & 10.45 & 19 & & $-2.89$ & $-3.50$ & $<84 $ & $<-7.20$\
$0351000\!-\!005244$ & GJ 3252 & M7.5 & 11.30 & 10.23 & 15 & 6.5 & $-3.06$ & $-4.16$ & $<123 $ & $<-7.10$\
$1006319\!-\!165326$ & LP 789-23 & M7.5 & 12.04 & 10.99 & 16 & 16 & $-3.28$ & $-4.22$ & $<87 $ & $<-6.96$\
$1155429\!-\!222458$ & LP 851-346 & M7.5 & 10.94 & 9.88 & 10 & 33 & $-3.30$ & $-4.58$ & $<90 $ & $<-7.36$\
$1246517\!+\!314811$ & LHS 2632 & M7.5 & 12.23 & 11.21 & 18 & 7.3 & $-3.25$ & $-5.27$ & $<90 $ & $<-6.86$\
$1250526\!-\!212113$ & & M7.5 & 11.16 & 10.13 & 11 & & $-3.25$ & & $<72 $ & $<-7.39$\
$1253124\!+\!403403$ & LP 218-8 & M7.5 & 12.19 & 11.16 & 17 & 9 & $-3.29$ & $-4.27$ & $<78 $ & $<-6.94$\
$1332244\!-\!044112$ & & M7.5 & 12.37 & 11.28 & 21 & 9 & $-3.18$ & $-4.37$ & $<60 $ & $<-6.97$\
$1507277\!-\!200043$ & & M7.5 & 11.71 & 10.66 & 14 & 64 & $-3.61$ & $-4.47$ & $<96 $ & $<-6.69$\
$1546054\!+\!374946$ & & M7.5 & 12.44 & 11.41 & 20 & 10 & $-3.25$ & $-3.98$ & $<84 $ & $<-7.04$\
$1757154\!+\!704201$ & LP 44-162 & M7.5 & 11.45 & 10.40 & 12 & 33 & $-3.30$ & $-5.01$ & $<117 $ & $<-7.05$\
$2331217\!-\!274950$ & & M7.5 & 11.30 & 10.23 & 15 & 9 & $-3.06$ & $-4.03$ & $<72 $ & $<-7.32$\
$0027559\!+\!221932$ & LP 349-25 B & M8.0 & 10.61 & 9.57 & 10 & 56 & $-3.12$ & $-4.53$ & $323\pm 14$ & $ -6.95$\
$0248410\!-\!165121$ & & M8.0 & 12.55 & 11.42 & 17 & $<3$ & $-3.45$ & $-4.25$ & $<81 $ & $<-6.77$\
$0320596\!+\!185423$ & LP 412-31 & M8.0 & 11.76 & 10.64 & 15 & 15 & $-3.26$ & $-3.87$ & $<81 $ & $<-7.08$\
$0544115\!-\!243301$ & & M8.0 & 12.53 & 11.46 & 19 & $<3$ & $-3.33$ & $-4.12$ & $<63 $ & $<-6.90$\
$0629235\!-\!024851$B & GJ 234 B & M8.0 & 8.38 & 7.33 & 4 & & $-3.00$ & & $<81 $ & $<-8.45$\
$1016347\!+\!275149$ & LHS 2243 & M8.0 & 11.99 & 10.96 & 14 & $<3 $& $-3.38$ & $-3.87$ & $<84 $ & $<-6.99$\
$1024099\!+\!181553$ & 2MUCD 10906 & M8.0 & 12.28 & 11.24 & 16 & 5 & $-3.38$ & $-4.84$ & $<87 $ & $<-6.86$\
$1309218\!-\!233035$ & & M8.0 & 11.79 & 10.67 & 13 & 7 & $-3.63$ & $-4.35$ & $<93 $ & $<-6.74$\
$1428041\!+\!135613$ & LHS 2919 & M8.0 & 11.01 & 10.03 & 10 & & $-3.37$ & & $<90 $ & $<-7.25$\
$1440229\!+\!133923$ & & M8.0 & 12.40 & 11.34 & 18 & $<3$ & $-3.33$ & $-4.60$ & $<75 $ & $<-6.87$\
$1444171\!+\!300214$ & LP 326-21 & M8.0 & 11.67 & 10.62 & 13 & & $-3.61$ & & $<81 $ & $<-6.87$\
$1843221\!+\!404021$ & GJ 4073 & M8.0 & 11.31 & 10.31 & 14 & 5 & $-3.09$ & $-4.11$ & $<96 $ & $<-7.21$\
$2206227\!-\!204706$ & & M8.0 & 12.37 & 11.32 & 27 & 24 & $-2.95$ & $-4.54$ & $<84 $ & $<-6.83$\
$2349489\!+\!122438$ & LP 523-55 & M8.0 & 12.60 & 11.56 & 20 & 4 & $-3.31$ & $-4.61$ & $<60 $ & $<-6.89$\
$2351504\!-\!253736$A & & M8.0 & 12.47 & 11.27 & 18 & 36 & $-3.36$ & $-4.61$ & $<69 $ & $<-6.88$\
$1121492\!-\!131308$ & GJ 3655 & M8.5 & 11.93 & 10.74 & 12 & 27 & $-3.68$ & $-3.87$ & $<102 $ & $<-6.74$\
$1124048\!+\!380805$ & & M8.5 & 12.71 & 11.57 & 19 & 7.5 & $-3.41$ & $-5.16$ & $<66 $ & $<-6.80$\
$1403223\!+\!300754$ & & M8.5 & 12.68 & 11.60 & 19 & 10 & $-3.39$ & $-4.49$ & $<60 $ & $<-6.86$\
$2353594\!-\!083331$ & & M8.5 & 13.03 & 11.93 & 22 & 4.5 & $-3.41$ & $-4.42$ & $<69 $ & $<-6.64$\
$0443376\!+\!000205$ & & M9.0 & 12.51 & 11.22 & 16 & 13.5 & $-3.47$ & $-5.00$ & $<54 $ & $<-6.99$\
$1224522\!-\!123835$ & & M9.0 & 12.57 & 11.35 & 17 & 7 & $-3.94$ & $-4.52$ & $<102 $ & $<-6.20$\
$1411213\!-\!211950$ & & M9.0 & 12.44 & 11.33 & 16 & 44 & $-3.93$ & $-4.93$ & $<93 $ & $<-6.29$\
$1428432\!+\!331039$ & LHS 2924 & M9.0 & 11.99 & 10.74 & 11 & 11 & $-3.59$ & $-5.14$ & $<84 $ & $<-6.98$\
$1707234\!-\!055824$ & 2MUCD 20701 & M9.0 & 12.25 & 10.90 & 17 & & $-3.31$ & & $<81 $ & $<-6.92$\
$2200020\!-\!303832$AB & & M9.0 & 13.44 & 12.20 & 35 & 17 & $-3.17$ & $-5.03$ & $<78 $ & $<-6.44$\
$0024246\!-\!015819$ & BRI B0021-02 & M9.5 & 11.99 & 10.54 & 12 & 33 & $-3.45$ & $-6.12$ & $<60 $ & $<-7.09$\
$1438082\!+\!640836$ & & M9.5 & 12.99 & 11.65 & 18 & 12 & $-4.08$ & $-4.77$ & $<105 $ & $<-5.96$\
$2237325\!+\!392239$ & G216-7B & M9.5 & 13.34 & 12.18 & 19 & & $-3.66$ & $-5.02$ & $<81 $ & $<-6.46$\
$0314034\!+\!160305$ & & L0.0 & 12.53 & 11.24 & 14 & 19 & $-3.59$ & $-4.69$ & $<108 $ & $<-6.66$\
$1159385\!+\!005726$ & & L0.0 & 14.08 & 12.81 & 30 & 71 & $-3.57$ & $-5.06$ & $<54 $ & $<-6.35$\
$1221277\!+\!025719$ & & L0.0 & 13.17 & 11.95 & 19 & 25 & $-3.59$ & $-4.88$ & $<78 $ & $<-6.54$\
$1731297\!+\!272123$ & & L0.0 & 12.09 & 10.91 & 12 & 15 & $-3.56$ & $-4.80$ & $<69 $ & $<-7.03$\
$1854459\!+\!842947$ & & L0.0 & 13.66 & 12.47 & 23 & 7 & $-3.62$ & $-4.73$ & $<87 $ & $<-6.29$\
$1412244\!+\!163311$ & & L0.5 & 13.89 & 12.52 & 25 & 19 & $-3.61$ & $-5.50$ & $<69 $ & $<-6.33$\
$1441371\!-\!094559$ & & L0.5 & 14.02 & 12.66 & 28 & 23 & $-3.59$ & $-5.48$ & $<84 $ & $<-6.20$\
$2351504\!-\!253736$B & & L0.5 & 12.47 & 11.27 & 18 & 41 & $-3.36$ & $-5.22$ & $<69 $ & $<-6.87$\
$0235599\!-\!233120$ & & L1.0 & 13.67 & 12.19 & 21 & 13 & $-3.63$ & $-6.44$ & $<99 $ & $<-6.30$\
$1045240\!-\!014957$ & & L1.0 & 13.16 & 11.78 & 17 & $<3$ & $-3.65$ & $-6.44$ & $<57 $ & $<-6.71$\
$1048428\!+\!011158$ & & L1.0 & 12.92 & 11.62 & 15 & 17 & $-3.69$ & $-5.71$ & $<21 $ & $<-7.22$\
$1439283\!+\!192914$ & & L1.0 & 12.76 & 11.55 & 14 & 11 & $-3.67$ & $-5.20$ & $<78 $ & $<-6.71$\
$1555157\!-\!095605$ & & L1.0 & 12.56 & 11.44 & 13 & 11 & $-3.68$ & $-5.35$ & $<84 $ & $<-6.75$\
$1145571\!+\!231729$ & GL Leo & L1.5 & 15.39 & 13.95 & 44 & 14 & $-3.70$ & $-5.27$ & $<90 $ & $<-5.65$\
$1334062\!+\!194035$ & & L1.5 & 15.48 & 14.00 & 46 & 30 & $-3.68$ & $-6.53$ & $<60 $ & $<-5.74$\
$1645221\!-\!131951$ & & L1.5 & 12.45 & 11.15 & 12 & 9 & $-3.69$ & $-5.66$ & $<108 $ & $<-6.71$\
$1807159\!+\!501531$ & 2MUCD 11756 & L1.5 & 12.93 & 11.62 & 15 & 76 & $-3.71$ & $-5.26$ & $<84 $ & $<-6.62$\
$0828341\!-\!130919$ & & L2.0 & 12.80 & 11.30 & 14 & 33 & $-3.64$ & $-6.63$ & $<66 $ & $<-6.83$\
$0921141\!-\!210444$ & DENIS-092114 & L2.0 & 12.78 & 11.69 & 12 & 15 & $-3.83$ & $<-6.42$& $<75 $ & $<-6.72$\
$1029216\!+\!162652$ & & L2.5 & 14.29 & 12.62 & 23 & 29 & $-3.72$ & $-5.76$ & $<33 $ & $<-6.64$\
$1047310\!-\!181557$ & & L2.5 & 14.20 & 12.89 & 22 & 15 & $-3.86$ & $-5.99$ & $<63 $ & $<-6.23$\
$0913032\!+\!184150$ & & L3.0 & 15.97 & 14.28 & 46 & 34 & $-3.77$ & $-6.86$ & $<102 $ & $<-5.47$\
$1203581\!+\!001550$ & & L3.0 & 14.01 & 12.48 & 19 & 39 & $-3.84$ & $-6.02$ & $<63 $ & $<-6.39$\
$1506544\!+\!132106$ & & L3.0 & 13.37 & 11.74 & 14 & 20 & $-3.80$ & $-6.32$ & $<78 $ & $<-6.60$\
$1615441\!+\!355900$ & & L3.0 & 14.54 & 12.94 & 24 & 13 & $-3.82$ & $<-5.98$& $<75 $ & $<-6.13$\
$1707234\!-\!055824$ & 2MUCD 20701 & L3.0 & 13.96 & 12.25 & 17 & & $-3.80$ & & $<81 $ & $<-6.42$\
$0700366\!+\!315726$A & & L3.5 & 13.23 & 11.62 & 12 & 41 & $-3.88$ & $-6.04$ & $<78 $ & $<-6.39$
[llcccccccllc]{} 0.08in $1120052\!+\!655047$ & GJ 424 & M0.0 & 6.31 & 5.53 & 9 & & $<-1.71$& $<-5.0$ & $<240$ & $<-8.33$ & 1\
$1300466\!+\!122232$ & GJ 494B & M0.5 & 6.44 & 5.58 & 11 & 10 & $-1.63$ & & $340$ & $ -8.06$ & 1\
$0042482\!+\!353255$ & GL29.1 & M1.0 & 7.16 & 6.32 & 24 & & $-1.27$ & & $<150$ & $<-8.14$ & 1\
$0610346\!-\!215152$ & GJ 229A & M1.0 & 5.10 & 4.17 & 6 & 1 & $-1.74$ & & $<290$ & $<-8.61$ & 1\
$0102389\!+\!622042$ & GL49 & M1.5 & 6.23 & 5.37 & 10 & $<3.4$ & $-1.66$ & & $<370$ & $<-8.10$ & 1\
$0018225\!+\!440122$ & GL15A & M2.0 & 5.25 & 4.02 & 4 & 2.9 & $-2.37$ & & $<220$ & $<-8.52$ & 1\
$1103202\!+\!355811$ & GJ 411 & M2.0 & 4.20 & 3.25 & 3 & $<2.9$ & $-2.10$ & $<-5$ & $<300$ & $<-9.49$ & 1\
$1105290\!+\!433135$ & GJ 412A & M2.0 & 5.54 & 4.77 & 5 & $<3.0$ & $-1.95$ & $<-5$ & $<220$ & $<-8.68$ & 1\
$2238455\!-\!203716$ & GJ 867A & M2.0 & 5.67 & 4.80 & 9 & & $-1.58$ & & $<600$ & $<-8.11$ & 1\
$2349125\!+\!022403$ & GJ 908 & M2.0 & 5.83 & 5.04 & 6 & $<3.1$ & $-1.90$ & $<-5$ & $<200$ & $<-8.59$ & 1\
$0533448\!+\!015643$ & GJ 207.1 & M2.5 & 7.76 & 6.86 & 17 & 10 & $-1.86$ & & $<150$ & $<-7.85$ & 1\
$1332446\!+\!164839$ & GJ 516A & M2.5 & 7.64 & 6.83 & 20 & & $-1.25$ & & $<320$ & $<-8.10$ & 1\
$1454292\!+\!160603$ & GJ 569AB & M2.5 & 6.63 & 5.77 & 10 & $<2.5$ & $-1.84$ & & $<390$ & $<-7.92$ & 1\
$0032297\!+\!671404$ & GL22B & M3.0 & 7.17 & 6.38 & 10 & & $-1.97$ & & $<390$ & $<-7.77$ & 1\
$1332446\!+\!164839$ & GJ 516B & M3.0 & 7.64 & 6.83 & 14 & & $-1.91$ & & $<320$ & $<-7.65$ & 1\
$1655528\!-\!082010$ & GJ 644A & M3.0 & 5.27 & 4.40 & 7 & & $-1.66$ & & $1220$ & $ -7.97$ & 1\
$1842466\!+\!593749$ & GL 725A & M3.0 & 5.19 & 4.43 & 4 & $<5$ & $-2.06$ & $<-5$ & $<180$ & $<-8.92$ & 1\
$1849492\!-\!235010$ & GJ 729 & M3.0 & 6.22 & 5.37 & 3 & 4 & $-2.71$ & & $<300$ & $<-8.21$ & 1\
$1855274\!+\!082409$ & GJ 735 & M3.0 & 6.31 & 5.43 & 12 & $<10$ & $-1.58$ & & $450\pm 150$ & $ -7.98$ & 1\
$0004364\!-\!404402$ & GJ 1001A & M3.5 & 8.60 & 7.74 & 10 & & $-2.66$ & & $<45$ & $<-8.31$ & 2\
$0032297\!+\!671408$ & GL22A & M3.5 & 6.84 & 6.04 & 10 & & $-1.85$ & & $<390$ & $<-7.89$ & 1\
$0532146\!+\!094915$ & GJ 206 & M3.5 & 7.42 & 6.56 & 13 & 10 & $-1.93$ & & $1500$ & $ -7.56$ & 1\
$1736259\!+\!682022$ & GJ 687 & M3.5 & 5.34 & 4.55 & 5 & $<5$ & $-1.94$ & $<-5$ & $300$ & $ -9.15$ & 1\
$1842468\!+\!593737$ & GL 725B & M3.5 & 5.72 & 5.00 & 4 & $<7$ & $-2.25$ & $<-5$ & $<180$ & $<-8.74$ & 1\
$1916552\!+\!051008$ & GJ 752A & M3.5 & 5.58 & 4.67 & 6 & $<2.6$ & $-1.90$ & $<-5$ & $ 290$ & $ -8.44$ & 1\
$2238453\!-\!203651$ & GJ 867B & M3.5 & 7.34 & 6.49 & 9 & & $-2.23$ & & $ 810$ & $ -7.33$ & 1\
$2331520\!+\!195614$ & GJ 896A & M3.5 & 6.16 & 5.33 & 6 & 10 & $-2.02$ & & $ 570$ & $ -7.97$ & 1\
$0112305\!-\!165957$ & GL54.1 & M4.0 & 7.26 & 6.42 & 4 & $<2.5$ & $-2.92$ & & $<390$ & $<-7.69$ & 1\
$0139011\!-\!175701$ & GL65A & M4.0 & 6.28 & 5.34 & 3 & 29.4 & $-2.89$ & & $400$ & $ -7.76$ & 1\
& & & & & & & $ $ & & $4000$ & $ -6.99$ & 1\
$0431114\!+\!585837$ & GJ 169.1AB & M4.0 & 6.62 & 5.72 & 6 & 1.9 & $-2.35$ & $-5.16$ & $<150$ & $<-8.31$ & 1\
$1147444\!+\!004816$ & GJ 447 & M4.0 & 6.51 & 5.65 & 3 & $<2$ & $-2.73$ & $<-5$ & $<210$ & $<-8.24$ & 1\
$1233163\!+\!090126$ & GJ 473A & M4.0 & 6.88 & 6.04 & 4 & & $-2.75$ & & $ 200$ & $ -7.92$ & 1\
$2227595\!+\!574145$ & GJ 860B & M4.0 & 5.58 & 4.78 & 4 & 4.7 & $-2.15$ & $-4.11$ & $1283$ & $ -7.35$ & 1\
$0200127\!+\!130311$ & GL83.1 & M4.5 & 7.51 & 6.65 & 5 & 3.8 & $-2.87$ & $-4.35$ & $<260$ & $<-7.75$ & 1\
$0415217\!-\!073917$ & GJ 166C & M4.5 & 6.75 & 5.96 & 5 & 5 & $-2.41$ & $-3.95$ & $<270$ & $<-8.09$ & 1\
$0629234\!-\!024850$ & GJ 234A & M4.5 & 6.38 & 5.49 & 4 & 6 & $-2.89$ & $-3.98$ & $ 420$ & $ -8.45$ & 1\
$0710018\!+\!383145$ & GJ 268 & M4.5 & 6.73 & 5.85 & 6 & & $-2.27$ & & $ 330$ & $ -8.04$ & 1\
$0744401\!+\!033308$ & GJ 285 & M4.5 & 6.58 & 5.70 & 6 & 6.5 & $-2.27$ & $-3.18$ & $ 300$ & $ -7.94$ & 1\
& & & & & & & $ $ & & $2000$ & $ -7.22$ & 1\
$1019363\!+\!195212$ & GJ 388 & M4.5 & 5.45 & 4.59 & 5 & 2.7 & $-2.01$ & $-3.77$ & $ 200$ & $ -8.68$ & 1\
$1300335\!+\!054108$ & GJ 493.1 & M4.5 & 8.55 & 7.66 & 8 & 16.8 & $-2.80$ & $-3.96$ & $1280$ & $ -7.09$ & 1\
$1634204\!+\!570943$ & GJ 630.1A & M4.5 & 8.50 & 7.80 & 15 & 27.5 & $-2.10$ & & $<530$ & $<-7.18$ & 1\
$1719529\!+\!263002$ & GJ 669B & M4.5 & 8.23 & 7.35 & 12 & $<10$ & $-2.32$ & & $ 510$ & $ -7.15$ & 1\
$2029483\!+\!094120$ & GJ 791.2 & M4.5 & 8.23 & 7.31 & 10 & & $-2.74$ & $-3.84$ & $<350$ & $<-7.10$ & 1\
$2246498\!+\!442003$ & GJ 873A & M4.5 & 6.11 & 5.30 & 5 & 6.9 & $-2.17$ & $-3.70$ & $<300$ & $<-8.28$ & 1\
$0103197\!+\!622155$ & GL51 & M5.0 & 8.61 & 7.72 & 10 & & $-2.60$ & & $7280$ & $ -5.83$ & 1\
$2217189\!-\!084812$ & GJ 852A & M5.0 & 9.02 & 8.17 & 10 & & $-2.97$ & & $<290$ & $<-6.87$ & 1\
$2217187\!-\!084818$ & GJ 852B & M5.0 & 9.46 & 8.53 & 9 & 32 & $-2.61$ & & $<290$ & $<-7.28$ & 1\
$1953544\!+\!442454$ & GJ 1245A & M5.5 & 7.79 & 6.85 & 5 & 22.5 & $-3.01$ & $-4.27$ & $<310$ & $<-7.50$ & 1\
$1953550\!+\!442455$ & GJ 1245B & M5.5 & 8.28 & 7.39 & 5 & 6.8 & $-3.14$ & $-4.25$ & $<310$ & $<-7.34$ & 1\
$0018254\!+\!440137$ & GL15B & M6.0 & 6.79 & 5.95 & 4 & $<3.1$ & $-2.77$ & & $<220$ & $<-8.12$ & 1\
$0024441\!-\!270825$ & GJ 2005A & M6.0 & 9.25 & 8.24 & 7 & 9 & $-3.25$ & $-4.62$ & $161\pm 15$ & $ -7.39$ & 2\
$0139012\!-\!175702$ & GL65B & M6.0 & 6.28 & 5.34 & 3 & 31.5 & $-2.91$ & & $1500$ & $ -7.41$ & 1\
& & & & & & & $ $ & & $3000$ & $ -7.11$ & 1\
$1105313\!+\!433117$ & GJ 412B & M6.0 & 8.74 & 7.84 & 5 & 7.7 & $-3.33$ & $-3.95$ & $<220$ & $<-7.30$ & 1\
$1056288\!+\!070052$ & GJ 406 & M6.5 & 7.09 & 6.08 & 2 & $<3$ & $-3.37$ & $-3.89$ & $<390$ & $<-7.63$ & 1\
$0435161\!-\!160657$ & LP 775-31 & M7.0 & 10.4 & 9.34 & 9 & & $-3.59$ & $-4.28$ & $<48$ & $<-7.44$ & 2\
$0440232\!-\!053008$ & LP 655-48 & M7.0 & 10.68 & 9.56 & 10 & 16.5 & $-3.62$ & $-3.80$ & $<39$ & $<-7.39$ & 2\
$0752239\!+\!161215$ & LP 423-31 & M7.0 & 10.83 & 9.82 & 11 & 9 & $-3.56$ & $-3.44$ & $<39$ & $<-7.39$ & 2\
$1456383\!-\!280947$ & GJ 3877 & M7.0 & 9.96 & 8.92 & 7 & 8 & $-3.29$ & $-4.02$ & $270\pm 40$ & $ -7.23$ & 3\
$1634216\!+\!571008$ & GJ 630.1B & M7.0 & 14.11 & 14.14 & 16 & & $-3.13$ & & $<530$ & $<-6.05$ & 1\
$1655352\!-\!082340$ & VB 8 & M7.0 & 9.78 & 8.83 & 6 & 9 & $-3.21$ & & $<24$ & $<-8.37$ & 4\
$0148386\!-\!302439$ & & M7.5 & 12.28 & 11.24 & 18 & 48 & $-3.67$ & $-4.35$ & $<45$ & $<-6.73$ & 2\
$0331302\!-\!304238$ & LP 888-18 & M7.5 & 11.37 & 10.28 & 12 & $<3$ & $-3.70$ & $-4.07$ & $<72$ & $<-6.86$ & 2\
$0417374\!-\!080000$ & & M7.5 & 12.17 & 11.05 & 17 & 7 & $-3.72$ & $-4.32$ & $<36$ & $<-6.83$ & 2\
$0429184\!-\!312356$ & & M7.5 & 10.89 & 9.80 & 10 & $<3$ & $-3.70$ & $-3.93$ & $<48$ & $<-7.23$ & 2\
$1521010\!+\!505323$ & NLTT 40026 & M7.5 & 12.00 & 10.92 & 16 & 40 & $-3.70$ & $-4.88$ & $<39$ & $<-6.88$ & 2\
$0019262\!+\!461407$ & & M8.0 & 12.61 & 11.47 & 19 & 68 & $-3.80$ & $-4.51$ & $<33$ & $<-6.68$ & 2\
$0350573\!+\!181806$ & LP 413-53 & M8.0 & 12.95 & 11.76 & 23 & 4 & $-3.82$ & & $<105$ & $<-6.02$ & 2\
$0436103\!+\!225956$ & & M8.0 & 13.76 & 12.19 & 140 & & $-2.62$ & & $<45$ & $<-6.02$ & 2\
$0517376\!-\!334902$ & & M8.0 & 12.00 & 10.82 & 15 & 8 & $-3.82$ & $-4.42$ & $<54$ & $<-6.70$ & 2\
$1016347\!+\!275149$ & LHS 2243 & M8.0 & 11.95 & 10.95 & 16 & $<3$ & $-3.65$ & $-3.87$ & $<45$ & $<-6.88$ & 5\
$1048146\!-\!395606$ & DENIS 1048 & M8.0 & 9.55 & 8.45 & 4 & 18 & $-3.39$ & $-5.15$ & $140\pm 40$ & $-7.83$ & 3\
& & & & & & & $ $ & & $29600\pm 100$ & $-5.51$ & 3\
$1139511\!-\!315921$ & & M8.0 & 12.67 & 11.49 & 20 & & $-3.39$ & & $<99$ & $<-6.60$ & 3\
$1534570\!-\!141848$ & & M8.0 & 11.39 & 10.31 & 11 & 10 & $-3.39$ & $-4.01$ & $<111$ & $<-7.06$ & 3\
$1843221\!+\!404021$ & GJ 4073 & M8.0 & 11.30 & 10.27 & 14 & 5 & $-3.51$ & $-4.11$ & $<48$ & $<-7.10$ & 2\
$1916576\!+\!050902$ & VB 10 & M8.0 & 9.95 & 8.81 & 6 & 6.5 & $-3.35$ & $<-5$ & $<81$ & $<-7.81$ & 4\
$2037071\!-\!113756$ & & M8.0 & 12.28 & 11.26 & 17 & $<3$ & $-3.74$ & $-5.02$ & $<33$ & $<-6.87$ & 2\
$0335020\!+\!234235$ & & M8.5 & 12.26 & 11.26 & 19 & & $-3.61$ & & $<69$ & $<-6.57$ & 2\
$1454290\!+\!160605$ & GJ 569Ba & M8.5 & 11.14 & 10.02 & 10 & & $-3.80$ & & $<30$ & $<-7.32$ & 2\
$1501081\!+\!225002$ & TVLM513-465 & M8.5 & 11.80 & 10.74 & 11 & 60 & $-3.59$ & & $190\pm 15$ & $-6.66$ & 5\
& & & & & & & $ $ & & $980\pm 40$ & $-5.95$ & 5\
$1835379\!+\!325954$ & LSR J1835+3 & M8.5 & 10.27 & 9.15 & 6 & 44 & $-3.93$ & $-4.85$ & $525\pm 15$ & $-6.42$ & 2\
$0140026\!+\!270150$ & & M8.5 & 12.49 & 11.43 & 19 & 6.5 & $-3.32$ & & $<20$ & $<-6.93$ & 6\
$0019457\!+\!521317$ & & M9.0 & 12.82 & 11.62 & 19 & 9 & $-3.95$ & $-4.29$ & $<42$ & $<-6.47$ & 2\
$0109511\!-\!034326$ & LP 647-13 & M9.0 & 11.70 & 10.42 & 11 & 13 & $-3.98$ & $-4.50$ & $<33$ & $<-7.00$ & 2\
$0339352\!-\!352544$ & LP 944-20 & M9.0 & 10.75 & 9.52 & 5 & 26 & $-3.79$ & $-5.30$ & $74\pm 13$ & $-7.53$ & 7\
& & & & & & & $ $ & & $2600\pm 200$ & $-5.99$ & 7\
$0434152\!+\!225031$ & & M9.0 & 13.74 & 11.87 & 140 & & $-2.53$ & & $<69$ & $<-5.92$ & 2\
$0436389\!+\!225812$ & & M9.0 & 13.70 & 12.34 & 140 & & $-2.59$ & & $<57$ & $<-5.95$ & 2\
$0537259\!-\!023432$ & & M9.0 & 18.22 & 17.00 & 352 & & $-3.56$ & & $<66$ & $<-4.11$ & 2\
$0810586\!+\!142039$ & & M9.0 & 12.77 & 11.59 & 20 & 11 & $-3.39$ & & $<39$ & $<-6.52$ & 6\
$0853362\!-\!032932$ & GJ 3517 & M9.0 & 11.18 & 9.97 & 9 & 13.5 & $-3.49$ & $-3.93$ & $<81$ & $<-7.33$ & 5\
$1454280\!+\!160605$ & GJ 569Bb & M9.0 & 11.65 & 10.43 & 10 & & $-4.04$ & & $<30$ & $<-7.08$ & 2\
$1627279\!+\!810507$ & & M9.0 & 13.03 & 11.88 & 21 & & $-3.45$ & & $<60$ & $<-6.23$ & 6\
$1707183\!+\!643933$ & & M9.0 & 12.54 & 11.38 & 17 & & $-3.44$ & & $<60$ & $<-6.43$ & 6\
$1707234\!-\!055824$ & & M9.0 & 12.06 & 10.71 & 15 & & $-3.87$ & & $<48$ & $<-6.68$ & 2\
$0024246\!-\!015819$ & BRI B0021-0 & M9.5 & 11.99 & 10.54 & 12 & 33 & $-3.50$ & $-6.12$ & $83\pm 18$ & $-7.18$ & 5\
$0027420\!+\!050341$ & PC 0025+044 & M9.5 & 16.08 & 14.87 & 72 & 13 & $-3.62$ & $-3.39$ & $<75$ & $<-5.37$ & 5\
$0109217\!+\!294925$ & & M9.5 & 12.91 & 11.68 & 19 & 7 & $-3.49$ & & $<54$ & $<-6.33$ & 6\
$0149089\!+\!295613$ & & M9.5 & 13.45 & 11.98 & 17 & 12 & $-3.74$ & & $<140$ & $<-5.76$ & 6\
$0345431\!+\!254023$ & & L0.0 & 13.92 & 12.67 & 27 & & $-3.56$ & & $<87$ & $<-6.22$ & 5\
$0746425\!+\!200032$ & & L0.5 & 11.78 & 10.47 & 12 & 31 & $-3.93$ & $-5.29$ & $224\pm 15$ & $-6.38$ & 8\
& & & & & & & & & $15000\pm 100$ & $-4.55$ & 8\
$1421314\!+\!182740$ & & L0.0 & 13.23 & 11.94 & 20 & & $-3.56$ & & $<42$ & $<-6.32$ & 6\
$0602304\!+\!391059$ & LSR 0602+39 & L1.0 & 12.30 & 10.86 & 11 & 9 & $-4.28$ & $-6.05$ & $<30$ & $<-6.78$ & 2\
$1300425\!+\!191235$ & & L1.0 & 12.72 & 11.62 & 14 & 10 & $-4.12$ & $-5.71$ & $<87$ & $<-6.23$ & 2\
$0213288\!+\!444445$ & & L1.5 & 13.49 & 12.21 & 19 & & $-4.24$ & & $<30$ & $<-6.32$ & 2\
$1807159\!+\!501531$ & & L1.5 & 12.93 & 11.60 & 15 & 76 & $-4.24$ & $-5.26$ & $<39$ & $<-6.42$ & 2\
$2057540\!-\!025230$ & & L1.5 & 13.12 & 11.72 & 16 & 62 & $-4.23$ & $-4.92$ & $<36$ & $<-6.37$ & 2\
$0109015\!-\!510049$ & & L2.0 & 12.23 & 11.09 & 10 & & $-3.89$ & & $<111$ & $<-6.65$ & 3\
$0445538\!-\!304820$ & & L2.0 & 13.41 & 11.98 & 17 & & $-4.33$ & & $<66$ & $<-5.99$ & 2\
$1305401\!-\!254110$ & Kelu-1 & L2.0 & 13.41 & 11.75 & 19 & 60 & $-3.57$ & $-5.69$ & $<27$ & $<-7.04$ & 4\
$0523382\!-\!140302$ & & L2.5 & 13.08 & 11.64 & 13 & 21 & $-4.39$ & $-6.52$ & $<39$ & $<-6.61$ & 2\
& & & & & & & & & $231\pm 14$ & $-5.84$ & 2\
$0251149\!-\!035245$ & & L3.0 & 13.06 & 11.66 & 12 & & $-4.42$ & & $<36$ & $<-6.12$ & 2\
$1721039\!+\!334416$ & & L3.0 & 13.62 & 12.49 & 15 & & $-4.46$ & & $<48$ & $<-6.32$ & 2\
$2104149\!-\!103736$ & & L3.0 & 13.84 & 12.37 & 17 & 27 & $-4.47$ & $-5.97$ & $<24$ & $<-6.26$ & 2\
$0036161\!+\!182110$ & & L3.5 & 12.47 & 11.06 & 9 & 45 & $-4.51$ & $-6.26$ & $134\pm 16$ & $ -6.06$ & 5\
& & & & & & & $ $ & & $720\pm 40$ & $ -5.33$ & 5\
$0045214\!+\!163444$ & & L3.5 & 13.06 & 11.37 & 10 & & $-4.58$ & & $<39$ & $<-6.41$ & 2\
$1424390\!+\!091710$ & & L4.0 & 15.69 & 14.17 & 32 & & $-4.04$ & & $<96$ & $<-5.56$ & 5\
$1705483\!-\!051646$ & & L4.0 & 13.31 & 12.03 & 11 & 26 & $-4.65$ & $-7.12$ & $<45$ & $<-6.22$ & 2\
$0141032\!+\!180450$ & & L4.5 & 13.88 & 12.49 & 13 & & $-4.76$ & & $<30$ & $<-6.15$ & 2\
$0652307\!+\!471034$ & & L4.5 & 13.54 & 11.69 & 11 & & $-4.66$ & & $<33$ & $<-6.31$ & 2\
$2224438\!-\!015852$ & & L4.5 & 14.07 & 12.02 & 11 & 32 & $-4.76$ & $-6.48$ & $<33$ & $<-6.19$ & 2\
$0004348\!-\!404405$ & GJ 1001BC & L5.0 & 13.11 & 11.40 & 10 & 42 & $-4.67$ & $-7.42$ & $<45$ & $<-6.30$ & 2\
$0144353\!-\!071614$ & & L5.0 & 14.19 & 12.27 & 13 & & $-4.73$ & & $<33$ & $<-6.08$ & 2\
$0205034\!+\!125142$ & & L5.0 & 15.68 & 13.67 & 27 & & $-4.67$ & & $<48$ & $<-5.37$ & 2\
$0835425\!-\!081923$ & & L5.0 & 13.17 & 11.14 & 9 & 23 & $-4.60$ & $-7.42$ & $<30$ & $<-6.58$ & 2\
$1228152\!-\!154734$ & & L5.0 & 14.38 & 12.77 & 20 & 22 & $-4.19$ & & $<87$ & $<-5.84$ & 5\
$1507476\!-\!162738$ & & L5.0 & 12.82 & 11.31 & 7 & 32 & $-4.23$ & $-8.18$ & $<57$ & $<-6.87$ & 5\
$1515008\!+\!484741$ & & L6.0 & 14.06 & 12.56 & 9 & & $-5.11$ & & $<27$ & $<-6.12$ & 2\
$0439010\!-\!235308$ & & L6.5 & 14.41 & 12.82 & 11 & & $-5.10$ & & $<42$ & $<-5.79$ & 2\
$0030300\!-\!145033$ & & L7.0 & 16.28 & 14.48 & 27 & & $-5.01$ & & $<57$ & $<-4.96$ & 2\
$0205294\!-\!115929$ & & L7.0 & 14.59 & 13.00 & 20 & 22 & $-4.65$ & & $<30$ & $<-5.87$ & 2\
$1728114\!+\!394859$ & & L7.0 & 15.99 & 13.91 & 24 & & $-4.86$ & & $<54$ & $<-5.23$ & 2\
$0423485\!-\!041403$ & & L7.5 & 14.46 & 12.93 & 15 & & $-4.83$ & & $<42$ & $<-5.77$ & 2\
$0825196\!+\!211552$ & & L7.5 & 15.10 & 13.03 & 11 & 19 & $-5.21$ & $-8.18$ & $<45$ & $<-5.66$ & 2\
$2252107\!-\!173013$ & & L7.5 & 14.31 & 12.90 & 8 & & $-5.29$ & & $<30$ & $<-5.98$ & 2\
$0929336\!+\!342952$ & & L8.0 & 16.60 & 14.64 & 22 & & $-5.25$ & & $<42$ & $<-5.03$ & 2\
$1523226\!+\!301456$ & & L8.0 & 16.06 & 14.35 & 19 & & $-5.27$ & & $<45$ & $<-5.12$ & 2\
$1632291\!+\!190441$ & & L8.0 & 15.87 & 14.00 & 15 & 30 & $-5.31$ & & $<54$ & $<-5.17$ & 2\
$0151415\!+\!124430$ & & T0.0 & 16.57 & 15.18 & 21 & & $-5.37$ & & $<51$ & $<-4.84$ & 2\
$2204105\!-\!564657$A & & T1.0 & 12.29 & 11.35 & 4 & & $-5.03$ & & $<72$ & $<-6.58$ & 2\
$0207428\!+\!000056$ & & T4.0 & 16.80 & 15.41 & 29 & & $-5.21$ & & $<39$ & $<-4.87$ & 2\
$0559191\!-\!140448$ & & T4.5 & 13.80 & 13.58 & 10 & & $-4.53$ & & $<27$ & $<-6.60$ & 2\
$1534498\!-\!295227$ & & T5.5 & 14.90 & 14.84 & 14 & & $-5.00$ & & $<63$ & $<-5.52$ & 2\
$1624144\!+\!002916$ & & T6.0 & 15.49 & 15.52 & 11 & & $-5.16$ & & $<36$ & $<-5.78$ & 2\
$2204105\!-\!564657$B & & T6.0 & 13.23 & 13.53 & 4 & & $-5.03$ & & $<72$ & $<-6.58$ & 2\
$1047539\!+\!212423$ & & T6.5 & 15.82 & 16.41 & 11 & & $-5.35$ & & $<45$ & $<-6.26$ & 2\
$1346464\!-\!003150$ & & T6.5 & 16.00 & 15.77 & 15 & & $-5.00$ & & $<105$ & $<-5.23$ & 5\
$0610351\!-\!215117$ & GJ 229B & T7.0 & 14.20 & 14.30 & 6 & & $-5.21$ & & $<69$ & $<-6.01$ & 4\
$1217111\!-\!031113$ & & T7.5 & 15.86 & 15.89 & 11 & & $-5.32$ & & $<111$ & $<-5.13$ & 2\
$0415195\!-\!093506$ & & T8.0 & 15.70 & 15.43 & 6 & & $-5.73$ & & $<45$ & $<-5.68$ & 2
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Through a stochastic control theoretic approach, we analyze reputation games where a strategic long-lived player acts in a sequential repeated game against a collection of short-lived players. The key assumption in our model is that the information of the short-lived players is nested in that of the long-lived player. This nested information structure is obtained through an appropriate monitoring structure. Under this monitoring structure, we show that, given mild assumptions, the set of Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium payoffs coincide with Markov Perfect Equilibrium payoffs, and hence a dynamic programming formulation can be obtained for the computation of equilibrium strategies of the strategic long-lived player in the discounted setup. We also consider the undiscounted setup where we obtain an optimal equilibrium strategy of the strategic long-lived player. We then use this optimal strategy in the undiscounted setup as a tool to obtain an upper payoff bound for the arbitrarily patient long-lived player in the discounted setup. Finally, by using measure concentration techniques, we obtain a refined lower payoff bound on the value of reputation in the discounted setup. We also establish the continuity of equilibrium payoffs in the prior beliefs.'
author:
- 'Nuh Aygün Dalkiran and Serdar Yüksel [^1]'
title: Stochastic Control Approach to Reputation Games
---
Introduction
============
Reputation plays an important role in long-run relationships. When one considers buying a product from a particular firm, his action (buy / not buy) depends on his belief about this firm, i.e., the firm’s reputation, which he has formed based on previous experiences (of himself and of others). Many interactions among rational agents are repeated and are in the form of long-run relationships. This is why, game theorists have been extensively studying the role of reputation in long-run relationships and repeated games [@MailathSamuelson]. By defining reputation as a conceptual as well as a mathematical quantitative variable, game theorists have been able to explain how reputation can rationalize intuitive equilibria, as in the expectation of cooperation in early rounds of a finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma [@krepsmilgromrobertswilson82], and entry deterrence in the early rounds of the chain store game [@krepswilson82], [@milgromroberts82].
Recently, there has been an emergence of use of tools from information and control theory in the reputations literature (see e.g., [@gossner11], [@ekmekcigossnerwilson12], [@faingold14]). Such tools have been proved to be useful in studying the bounds on the value of reputation.
In this paper, by adopting and generalizing recent results from stochastic control theory, we provide a new approach and establish refined results on reputation games. Before stating our contributions and the problem setup more explicitly, we provide a brief overview of the related literature in the following subsection.
Related Literature
------------------
Kreps, Milgrom, Roberts, and Wilson [@krepsmilgromrobertswilson82; @krepswilson82; @milgromroberts82] introduced the adverse selection approach to study reputations in finitely repeated games. Fudenberg and Levine [@fudenberglevine89; @fudenberglevine92] extended this approach to infinitely repeated games and showed that a patient long-lived player facing infinitely many short-lived players can guarantee himself a payoff close to his Stackelberg payoff when there is a slight probability that the long-lived player is a commitment type who always plays the stage game Stackelberg action. When compared to the [*folk theorem*]{} [@fudenbergmaskin86; @fudenberglevinemaskin94], their results imply an intuitive expectation: the equilibria with relatively high payoffs are more likely to arise due to reputation effects. Even though the results of Fudenberg and Levine [@fudenberglevine89; @fudenberglevine92] hold for both perfect and imperfect public monitoring, Cripps, Mailath, and Samuelson [@crippsmailathsamuelson04] showed that reputation effects are not sustainable in the long-run when there is imperfect public monitoring. In other words, under imperfect public monitoring it is impossible to maintain a permanent reputation for playing a strategy that does not play an equilibrium of the complete information game. There has been further literature which studies the possibility / impossibility of maintaining permanent reputations, we refer the reader to [@ekmekci11; @ekmekcigossnerwilson12; @atakanekmekci12; @atakanekmekci13; @atakanekmekci14; @ozdogan14; @liu11; @faingoldsannikov11; @hornerlovo09; @faingold14]. Sorin [@sorin99] unified and improved some of the results in reputations literature by using tools from Bayesian learning and merging due to Kalai and Lehrer [@KalaiLehrer1993; @KalaiLehrer1994]. Gossner [@gossner11] utilized relative entropy (that is, information divergence or Kullback-Leibler divergence) to obtain bounds on the value of reputations; these bounds coincide in the limit (as the strategic long-lived player becomes arbitrarily patient) with the bounds provided by Fudenberg and Levine [@fudenberglevine89; @fudenberglevine92]. Recently, there have been a number of related results in the information theory and control literature on real-time signaling which provide powerful structural, topological, and operational results that are in principle similar to the reputations models analyzed in game theory literature, despite the simplifications that come about due to the fact that in these fields, the players typically have a common utility function. Furthermore, such studies typically assume finitely repeated setups, whereas we also consider here infinitely repeated setups, which require non-trivial generalizations (see e.g., [@Witsenhausen; @WalrandVaraiya; @Teneketzis; @MahajanTeneketzisJSAC; @YukIT2010arXiv; @wood2016optimal; @YukLinZeroDelay; @BorkarMitterTatikonda] for various contexts but note that all of these studies except [@BorkarMitterTatikonda; @wood2016optimal; @YukLinZeroDelay] have focused on finite horizon problems).
Using such tools from stochastic control theory and zero-delay source coding, we provide new techniques to study reputations. These techniques not only result in a number of conclusions re-affirming certain results documented in the reputations literature, but also provide new results and interpretations as we briefly discuss in the following.
[**Contributions of the paper.**]{} Our findings contribute to the reputations literature by obtaining structural and computational results on the equilibrium behavior in finite-horizon, infinite-horizon, and undiscounted settings in sequential reputation games, as well as refined upper and lower bounds on the value of reputations: We analyze reputation games where a strategic long-lived player acts in a repeated sequential-move game against a collection of short-lived players each of whom plays the stage game only once but observes signals correlated with interactions of the previous short-lived players. The key assumption in our model is that the information of the short-lived players is nested in that of the long-lived player in a causal fashion. This nested information structure is obtained through an appropriate monitoring structure. Under this monitoring structure, we obtain stronger results than what currently exists in the literature in a number of directions: (i) Given mild assumptions, we show that the set of Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium payoffs coincide with Markov Perfect Equilibrium payoffs. (ii) A dynamic programming formulation is obtained for the computation of equilibrium strategies of the strategic long-lived player in the discounted setup. (iii) In the undiscounted setup, under an identifiability assumption, we obtain an optimal strategy for the strategic long-lived player. In particular, we provide new techniques to investigate the optimality of mimicking a Stackelberg commitment type in the undiscounted setup. (iv) The optimal strategy we obtain in the undiscounted setup also lets us obtain, through an Abelian inequality, an upper payoff bound for the arbitrarily patient long-lived player –in the discounted setup. We show that this achievable upper bound is identified with a stage game Stackelberg equilibrium payoff. (v) By using measure concentration techniques, we obtain a refined lower payoff bound on the value of reputation for a fixed discount factor. This lower bound coincides with the lower bounds identified by Fudenberg and Levine [@fudenberglevine92] and Gossner [@gossner11] as the long-lived player becomes arbitrarily patient, i.e., as the discount factor tends to 1. (vi) Finally, we establish the continuity of the equilibrium payoffs in the priors.
In the next section, we present preliminaries of our model as well as two motivating examples. Section III provides our structural results leading to the equivalence of Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium payoffs and Markov Perfect Equilibrium payoffs in the discounted setup. Section IV provides results characterizing the optimal behavior of the long-lived player for the undiscounted setup, which lead us to an upper bound for the equilibrium payoffs in the discounted setup when the long-lived player becomes arbitrarily patient. Section V provides, through an explicit measure concentration analysis, a refined lower bound for the equilibrium payoffs of the strategic long-lived player in the discounted setup. Section VI provides the continuity of the equilibrium payoffs in the priors.
The Model
=========
A long-lived player (Player 1) plays a repeated stage game with a sequence of different short-lived players (each of whom is referred as Player 2). Action sets of Player 1 and Player 2 in the stage game are assumed to be finite and denoted by $\mathbb{A}^1$ and $\mathbb{A}^2$, respectively. There is incomplete information regarding the type of the long-lived Player 1. The set of all possible types of Player 1 is given by $\Omega=\{\w^n\} \cup \hat{\Omega}$ where $\w^n$ is the strategic type (often referred as normal type as well) and $\hat{\Omega}$ is a finite set of commitment types. Each type $\hat{\w} \in \hat{\Omega}$ is a simple type committed to playing the corresponding (possibly mixed) action $\hat{\omega} \in \Delta(\mathbb{A}^1)$ at every stage of the interaction independent of the history of the play.[^2] The [*common knowledge*]{} initial prior over Player 1’s types, $\mu_0 \in \Delta(\Omega)$, is assumed to have full support.
The stage game is a *sequential-move* game: Player 1 moves first; when action $a^1$ is chosen by Player 1 in the stage game; a **public** signal $z^2 \in \mathbb{Z}^2$ is observed by Player 2 which is drawn according to the probability distribution $\rho^2(.|a^1) \in \Delta(\mathbb{Z}^2)$. Player 2, observing this public signal (and all preceding ones), moves second. At the end of the stage game, Player 1 observes a **private** signal $z^1 \in \mathbb{Z}^1$ which depends on actions of both players and is drawn according to the probability distribution $\rho^1(.|(a^1, a^2))$. Both the set of Player 1’s all possible private signals, $\mathbb{Z}^1$, and the set of (Player 2s’) all possible public signals, $\mathbb{Z}^2$, are assumed to be finite.
There is a **nested information structure** in the repeated game in the following sense: The signals observed by Player 2s are public, and hence available to all subsequent players, whereas Player 1’s signals are his private information. Therefore, the information of Player 2 at time $t-1$ is a subset of the information of Player 1 at time $t$. Formally, a generic history for Player 2 at time $t-1$ and a generic history for Player 1 at time $t$ are given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
h^2_{t-1}&=&(z^2_0,z^2_1,\cdots,z^2_{t-1}) \in H^2_{t-1} \\
h^1_{t}&=& (a^1_0, z^1_0,z^2_0,\cdots,a^1_{t-1},z^1_{t-1},z^2_{t-1}) \in H^1_t \label{P1hist}\end{aligned}$$
where $ H^2_{t-1}\label{P2hist} := {(\mathbb{Z}^2)}^t $ and $H^1_t \label{P1hist} := {(\mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{Z}^1 \times \mathbb{Z}^2)}^t$.
That is, each Player 2 observes, before he acts, a finite sequence of public signals which are correlated with Player 1’s action in each of his interaction with preceding Player 2s. On the other hand, Player 1 observes not only these public signals, but also a sequence of private signals for each particular interaction that happened in the past, and obviously his actions in the previous periods – but not necessarily the actions of preceding Player 2s.[^3]
Due to its importance for our results, we explicitly note this nested information structure as Remark \[RemarkA\].
\[RemarkA\] The signals observed by Player 2s are public and hence available to all subsequent players whereas Player 1’s signals are his private information.
We note also that having such a monitoring structure is not a strong assumption. In particular, it is weaker than the information structure in Fudenberg and Levine [@fudenberglevine92] where it is assumed that only the same sequence of public signals are observable by the long-lived and short-lived players, i.e., there is only public monitoring. Yet, it is stronger than the information structure in Gossner [@gossner11] which allows private monitoring for both the long-lived and short lived players. The stage game payoff function of the strategic (or normal) type long-lived Player 1 is given by $u^1$, and each short-lived Player 2’s payoff function is given by $u^2$, where $u^i :\mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{A}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. The set of all possible histories for Player 2 of stage $t$ is $H^2_{t} = H^2_{t-1} \times \mathbb{Z}^2$ where $H^2_{t-1} = {(\mathbb{Z}^2)}^t$. On the other hand, the set of all possible histories observable by the long-lived Player 1 prior to stage $t$ is $H^1_{t} ={(\mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{Z}^1 \times \mathbb{Z}^2)}^t $. It is assumed that $H^1_{0} := \emptyset$ and $H^2_{0} := \emptyset$, which is the usual convention. Let $\mathcal{H}^1 = \bigcup_{t\geq 0} H^1_{t} $ be the set of all possible histories of the long-lived Player 1.
A (behavioral) strategy for Player 1 is a map: $$\sigma^1 :\Omega \times \mathcal{H}^1\rightarrow \Delta(\mathbb{A}^1).$$ that satisfies $\sigma^1(\hat{\w},h^1_{t-1}) = \hat{\w}$ for any $\hat{\w} \in \hat{\Omega}$ and for every $h^1_{t-1} \in H^1_{t-1}$, since commitment types are required to play the corresponding (fixed) action of the stage game independent of the history. The set of all strategies for Player 1 is denoted by $\Sigma^1$.
A strategy for Player 2 of stage $t$ is a map: $$\sigma^2_{t}: H^2_{t-1} \times \mathbb{Z}^2 \rightarrow \Delta(\mathbb{A}^2).$$
We let $\Sigma^2_t$ be the set of all such strategies and let $\Sigma^2= \Pi_{t \geq 0}\Sigma^2_t$ denote the set of all sequences of all such strategies. A history (or path) $h_t$ of length $t$ is an element of $\Omega \times (\mathbb{A}^1\times \mathbb{A}^2 \times \mathbb{Z}^1 \times \mathbb{Z}^2)^t$ describing Player 1’s type, actions, and signals realized up to stage $t$. By standard arguments (e.g., Ionescu-Tulcea Theorem [@HernandezLermaMCP]), a strategy profile $\sigma =(\sigma^1, \sigma^2) \in \Sigma^1 \times \Sigma^2$ induces a unique probability distribution $P_{\sigma}$ over the set of all paths of play $H^\infty = \Omega \times (\mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{A}^2 \times \mathbb{Z}^1 \times \mathbb{Z}^2)^{\mathbb{N}}$ endowed with the product $\sigma$-algebra.
We let $a_t =(a^1_{t}, a^2_t)$ represent the action profile realized at stage $t$ and let $z_t =
(z^1_{t}, z^2_{t})$ denote the signal profile realized at stage $t$. Given $\omega \in \Omega$, $P_{\w, \sigma}(.)= P_{\sigma}(.|\w)$ represents the probability distribution over all paths of play conditional on Player 1 being type $\w$. Player 1’s discount factor is assumed to be $\delta \in (0,1)$ and hence, the expected discounted average payoff to the strategic (normal type) long-lived Player 1 is given by $\pi_1(\sigma)=\mathbb{E}_{P_{\w^n,\sigma}} (1-\delta) \sum_{t\geq 0} \delta^{t} u^1 (a_t)$.
In most of our results, we will assume that Player 2s are Bayesian rational.[^4] Hence, we will restrict attention to Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium: In any such equilibrium, the strategic Player 1 maximizes his expected discounted average payoff given that the short-lived players play a best response to their expectations according to their updated beliefs.[^5] Each Player 2, playing the stage game only once, will be best-responding to his expectation according to his beliefs which are updated according to the Bayes’ Rule.
A strategy of Player 2s, $\sigma^{2}$, is a best response to $\sigma^{1}$ if, for all $t$, $$\mathbb{E}_{P_{\sigma }}[u^{2}(a^1_{t},a^2_{t})|z^2_{[0,t]}]\geq \mathbb{E}_{P_{\sigma }}[u^{2}(a^1_{t},a^2)|z^2_{[0,t]}] \text{ for all } a^2\in A^2 \text{ }\ (P_{\sigma}-a.s.)$$ where $z^2_{[0,t]} =(z^2_0,z^2_1,\cdots,z^2_{t})$ denotes the information available to Player 2 at time $t$.
Next, we provide two examples to motivate our model.
Motivating Example I: The Product Choice Game
---------------------------------------------
Our first example is a simple product choice game which describes how a strategic player can build up reputation: There is a (long-lived) firm (Player 1) who faces an infinite sequence of different consumers (Player 2s) with identical preferences. There are two actions available to the firm: $A_{1}=\{H,L\}$, where $H$ and $L$ denote exerting *high-effort* and *low-effort* in the production of its output, respectively. Each consumer also has two possible actions: buying a *high-priced* product, $(h)$, or a *low-priced* product, $(l)$, i.e., $A_{2}=\{h,l\}$.
Each consumer prefers a high-priced product if the firm exerted high effort and a low-priced product if the firm exerted low effort. The firm is willing to commit to high effort only if the consumers purchase the high-priced product, i.e., the firm’s (pure) Stackelberg action –in the stage game– is exerting high level of effort. Therefore, if the level of effort of the firm were observable, each consumer would best reply to the Stackelberg action by buying a high priced product. However, the choice of effort level of the firm is not observable before consumers choose the product. Furthermore, exerting high effort is costly, and hence, for each type of product, the firm prefers to exert low effort rather than high effort. That is, there is a moral hazard problem.
The corresponding stage game and the preferences regarding the stage game can be illustrated as follows:
(PODN1) at (0,0); (PTDN1) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},{2}) $); (PTDN2) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},-{2}) $); (PTDN3) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},0.1*{2}- 0.9*{2}) $); (PTDN4) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},0.30*{2}- 0.70*{2}) $); (PTDN5) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},0.50*{2}- 0.50*{2}) $); (PTDN6) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},0.70*{2}- 0.30*{2}) $); (PTDN7) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},0.9*{2}- 0.1*{2}) $); (TN1) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},{2}) $); (TN2) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},-{2}) $); (TN3) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},0.1*{2}- 0.9*{2}) $ ); (TN4) at ($ (PTDN4) + ({3}, 0.1{2}- 0.7*{2}) $ ); (TN5) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},0.5*{2}- 0.5*{2}) $ ); (TN6) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},0.7*{2}- 0.3*{2}) $ ); (TN7) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},0.9*{2}- 0.1*{2}) $ ); (TN8) at ($ (PTDN5) + ({3},{2}) $ ); (TN9) at ($ (PTDN7) + ({3}, 0.75*{2}- 0.25*{2}) $ ); (TN10) at ($ (PTDN7) + ({3},0.25*{2}- 0.75*{2}) $ ); (TN11) at ($ (PTDN3) + ({3},0.75*{2}- 0.25*{2}) $ ); (TN12) at ($ (PTDN3) + ({3},0.25*{2}- 0.75*{2}) $ );
(PTDN3) – node \[left\] [$P_2$]{}(PTDN7);
(PODN1) node \[left\] [$P_1$]{} – node \[above right, sloped\][$H$]{} (PTDN7); (PODN1) – node \[below right, sloped\][$L$]{} (PTDN3); at ($(TN9) + (0.4,0)$) [$(2,3)$]{}; at ($(TN10) + (0.4,0)$) [$(0,2)$]{}; at ($(TN11) + (0.4,0)$) [$(3,0)$]{}; at ($(TN12) + (0.4,0)$) [$(1,1)$]{};
(PTDN7) – node \[above right, sloped\][$h$]{} (TN9); (PTDN7) – node \[below right, sloped\][$l$]{}(TN10);
(PTDN3) – node \[above right, sloped\][$h$]{} (TN11); (PTDN3) – node \[below right, sloped\][$l$]{}(TN12); (UL) at (current bounding box.north west); (LL) at (current bounding box.south west); (UR) at (current bounding box.north east); (LR) at (current bounding box.south east); \[[<\[scale=2.5,length=3,width=3\]]{}-[>\[scale=2.5,length=3,width=3\]]{}\] (\[yshift = -0.5cm\]LL) – node \[below\] [ **Figure 1**: The illustration of the stage game ]{}(\[yshift = -0.5cm\]LR) ;
[ccc]{} & $h$ & $l$\
$H$ & &\
$L$ & &\
Note that since the stage game is a sequential-move game where actions are not observable, it is strategically equivalent to a simultaneous-move game represented by the corresponding payoff matrix, which is given above. Furthermore, there is a *unique* Nash equilibrium of this stage-game, and in this equilibrium the firm (the row player) plays $L$ (exerts *low effort*) and the consumer (the column player) plays $l$ (buying a *low-priced* product).
Suppose that there is a small but positive probability $p_{0}>0$ that the firm is an honorable firm who always exerts *high effort*. That is, with $p_{0}>0$ probability, Player 1 is a *commitment type* who plays $H$ at every period of the repeated game independent of the history. Suppose further that consumers do not get to observe the effort level of the firm when its their turn, yet, they observe the outcomes of all previous periods.
Consider now a strategic (non-commitment or normal type) firm who has a discount factor $\delta <1$: Can the firm build up a reputation that he is (or acts as if he is) an honorable firm? The answer to this question is “Yes”–when he is patient enough.
To see this, observe that a rational consumer (Player 2) would play $h$ only if he anticipates that the firm (Player 1) plays $H$ with a probability of at least $\frac{1}{2}$. Let $p_t$ be the posterior belief that Player 1 is a commitment type after observing some public history $h_t$. Suppose Player 2 of period $t+1$ observes $(H,l)$ as the outcome of the preceding period $t$. This means the probability that Player 2 of period $t$ anticipated for $H$ was less than (or equal) to $\frac{1}{2}$. This probability is $p_t+\sigma^1(\omega^n, h_t)(H)$ where $\sigma^1(\omega^n, h_t)(H)$ is the probability that the strategic (or normal) type Player 1 assigns to playing $H$ at period $t$ after observing $h_t$. Therefore, we have $p_t+\sigma^1(\omega^n, h_t)(H)\leq \frac{1}{2}$. But, this implies that the posterior belief of Player 2 of period $t+1$ that Player 1 is a commitment type –after observing $(H,l)$– will be $p_{t+1}= \frac{p_t}{p_t+\sigma^1(\omega^n, h_t)(H)}\geq 2 p_t$. This means every time the strategic player plays $H$, he doubles his reputation, i.e., the belief that he is a commitment type doubles. Therefore, mimicking the commitment type finitely many rounds, the firm can increase the belief that he is an honorable firm (a commitment type) with more than probability $\frac{1}{2}$. In such a case, the short lived consumers (Player 2s) will start best replying by buying high-priced products. If the firm is patient enough – when $\delta$ is high– payoffs from those finitely many periods will be negligible. Furthermore, as $\delta \rightarrow 1 $, one can show that the strategic Player 1 can guarantee himself a discounted average payoff arbitrarily close to $2$ –which is his payoff under his (pure) Stackelberg action.
Motivating Example II: A Consultant with Reputational Concerns under Moral Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our second example is a more involved example with finer details regarding the nested information structure: A consultant is to advise different firms in different projects. In each of these projects, a supervisor from the particular firm is to inspect the consultant regarding his effort during the particular project. The consultant can either exert a (H)igh level of effort or a (L)ow level of effort while working on the project.
The effort of the consultant is not directly observable to the supervisor. Yet, after the consultant chooses his effort level, the supervisor gets to observe a public signal $z^2 \in \{h,l\}$ which is correlated with the effort level of the consultant according to the probability distribution $\rho^2(h|H)=\rho^2(l|L)= p >\frac{1}{2}$.
Observing this public signal, the supervisor recommends to the upper administration to give the consultant a (B)onus or (N)ot. The consultant does not observe the supervisor’s recommendation but a private signal $z^1 \in \{b, n\}$ which is correlated both with his effort level and the supervisor’s recommendation according to the following probability distribution: $\rho^1(b|(H,B)) = \rho^1(n|(L,N)) =q > \rho^1(b|(H,N)) = \rho^1(n|(L,B))= r > \frac{1}{2}$. That is, exerting (H)igh level of effort increases the chance of getting the bonus –for a fixed action of the supervisor, i.e., $\rho^1(b|(H, \cdot))>\rho^1(b|(L,\cdot)$. Similarly, the probability of getting the bonus is higher when the supervisor recommends the (B)onus –for a fixed action of the consultant, i.e., $\rho^1(b|(\cdot, B))>\rho^1(b|(\cdot, N)$.
The supervisor prefers to recommend a (B)onus when the consultant works hard (exerts (H)igh effort) and (N)ot to recommend a bonus when the consultant shirks (exerts (L)ow effort). For the consultant exerting a high level of effort is costly. Therefore, the stage game and the preferences regarding the stage game can be illustrated as follows:[^6]
(PODN1) at (0,0); (PTDN1) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},{2}) $); (PTDN2) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},-{2}) $); (PTDN3) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},0.10*{2}- 0.90*{2}) $); (PTDN4) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},0.30*{2}- 0.70*{2}) $); (PTDN5) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},0.50*{2}- 0.50*{2}) $); (PTDN6) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},0.70*{2}- 0.30*{2}) $); (PTDN7) at ($ (PODN1) + ({3},0.90*{2}- 0.10*{2}) $); (TN1) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},{2}) $); (TN2) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},-{2}) $); (TN3) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},0.1*{2}- 0.9*{2}) $ ); (TN4) at ($ (PTDN4) + ({3}, 0.1{2}- 0.7*{2}) $ ); (TN5) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},0.5*{2}- 0.5*{2}) $ ); (TN6) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},0.7*{2}- 0.3*{2}) $ ); (TN7) at ($ (PTDN2) + ({3},0.9*{2}- 0.1*{2}) $ ); (TN8) at ($ (PTDN5) + ({3},{2}) $ );
(PTDN1) – (PTDN2);
(PODN1) node \[left\] [$P_1$]{} – node \[above right, sloped\][$H$]{}(PTDN1); (PODN1) – node \[below right, sloped\][$L$]{} (PTDN2);
(PTDN5) node\[left\][$z^2 \in\{h,l\}$]{} node \[right\] [$P_2$]{} – node \[below right, sloped\][$N$]{} (TN4); (PTDN5) – node \[above right, sloped\][$B$]{}(TN8); (TN4) – node \[below right\][$z^1 \in \{b,n\}$]{}(TN8);
(UL) at (current bounding box.north west); (LL) at (current bounding box.south west); (UR) at (current bounding box.north east); (LR) at (current bounding box.south east); \[[<\[scale=2.5,length=3,width=3\]]{}-[>\[scale=2.5,length=3,width=3\]]{}\] (\[yshift = -0.5cm\]LL) – node \[below\] [ **Figure 2**: The illustration of the stage game ]{}(\[yshift = -0.5cm\]LR) ;
[ccc]{} & $B$ & $N$\
$H$ & &\
$L$ & &\
It is commonly known that there is a positive probability $p_{0}>0$ with which the consultant is an honorable consultant who always exerts (H)igh level of effort. That is, with $p_{0}>0$ probability the consultant is a *commitment type* who plays $H$ at every period of the repeated game independent of the history.
Consider the incentives of a strategic (non-commitment or normal type) consultant: Does such a consultant have an incentive to build a reputation by exerting a high level effort, if the game is repeated only finitely many times? What kind of equilibrium behavior would one expect from such a consultant if the game is repeated infinitely many times with discounting for [*a fixed discount factor*]{}? For example, if he is building a reputation, how often does he shirk (exert (L)ow level of effort)? Does there exist reputation cycles, i.e., does the consultant build a reputation by exerting high effort for a while and then milks it by exerting low effort until his reputation level falls under a particular threshold? What happens when the consultant becomes arbitrarily patient, i.e., his discount factor tends to 1? What can we say about the consultant’s optimal reputation building strategy when he does not discount the future but rather cares about his undiscounted average payoff?
The aim of this paper is to provide tractable techniques to answer similar questions in settings where agents have reputational concerns in repeated game setups described in our model.
Optimal Strategies and Equilibrium Behavior
===========================================
Our first set of results will be regarding the optimal strategies of the strategic long-lived Player 1.
Briefly, since each Player 2 plays the stage game only once, we show that when the information of Player 2 is nested in that of Player 1, under a plausible assumption, the strategic long-lived Player 1 can, without any loss in payoff performance, formulate his strategy as a controlled Markovian system optimization, and thus through dynamic programming. The discounted nature of the optimization problem then leads to the existence of a stationary solution. This implies that for any Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium, there exists a payoff-equivalent stationary Markov Perfect Equilibrium. Hence, we conclude that the Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium payoff set and Markov Perfect Equilibrium payoff set of the strategic long-lived Player 1 coincide with each other.
Below, we provide three results on optimal strategies following steps parallel to [@YukselBasarBook] which builds on Witsenhausen [@Witsenhausen], Walrand and Varaiya [@WalrandVaraiya], Teneketzis [@Teneketzis], and [@YukIT2010arXiv]. These structural results on optimal strategies will be the key for the following Markov chain construction as well as Theorem \[pbempef\] and Theorem \[pbempe\].
Optimal Strategies: Finite Horizon {#FiniteHorizon}
----------------------------------
We first consider the finitely repeated game setup where the stage game is to be repeated $T \in \mathbb{N}$ times. In such a case, the strategic long-lived Player 1 is to maximize $\pi_1(\sigma)$ given by $
\pi_1(\sigma)=\mathbb{E}_{P_{\w^n,\sigma}} (1-\delta) \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \delta^{t} u^1 (a_t)$.
Our first result, Lemma \[witRealCoding\], shows that, given any fixed sequence of strategies of the short-lived Player 2s, any optimal strategy of the strategic long-lived Player 1 can be replaced, without any loss in payoff performance, by another optimal strategy which only depends on the (public) information of Player 2s. More specifically, we show that for any private strategy of the long-lived Player 1 against an arbitrary sequence of strategies of Player 2s, there exists a public strategy of the long-lived Player 1 against the very same sequence of strategies of Player 2s which gives the strategic long-lived player a weakly better payoff.
To the best of our knowledge, this is a new result in the repeated games literature. What is different here from similar results in the repeated games literature is that this is true even when Player 2s strategies are non-Bayesian.[^7]
Before we state Lemma \[witRealCoding\], we note here that the signal $z^2_t$ that will be available to short-lived Player 2s after round $t$ only depends on the action of the long-lived Player 1 at round $t$ and that the following holds for all $t \geq 1$. $$\label{ChannelMemoryless}
P_\sigma(z^2_t| a^1_t; a^1_s, a^2_s, s \leq t-1) = P_\sigma(z^2_t|a^1_t).$$
Observation (\[ChannelMemoryless\]) plays an important role in the proof of our first result:
\[witRealCoding\] In the finitely repeated setup, given any sequence of strategies of short-lived Player 2s, for any (private) strategy of the strategic long-lived Player 1, there exists a (public) strategy that only conditions on $\{z^2_0,z^2_1,\cdots, z^2_{t-1}\}$ which yields the strategic long-lived Player 1 a weakly better payoff against the given sequence of strategies of Player 2s.
[**Proof.**]{} See the Appendix.
A brief word of caution is in order. The structural results of the type Lemma \[witRealCoding\], while extremely useful in team theory and zero-delay source coding [@YukselBasarBook], do not always apply to generic games unless one further restricts the setup. In particular, a generic (Nash) equilibrium may be lost once one alters the strategy structure of one of the players. However, we consider the Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium concept here which is of a leader-follower type (i.e., [*Stackelberg in the policy space*]{}): Player 2s respond in a Bayesian fashion to Player 1 who in turn is aware of Player 2s commitment to this policy. This subtle difference is crucial also in signalling games; the features that distinguish Nash equilibria from Stackelberg equilibria in signaling games are discussed in detail in [@saritacs2017quadratic Section 2].
Lemma \[witRealCoding\] implies that any private information of Player 1 is statistically irrelevant for optimal strategies: for any private strategy of the long-lived Player 1, there exists a public strategy which performs at least as good as the original one against a given sequence of strategies of Player 2s. That is, in the finitely repeated setup, the long-lived Player 1 can depend his strategy only on the public information and his type without any loss in payoff performance. We would like to note here once again that Lemma \[witRealCoding\] above holds for any sequence of strategies of Player 2s, even non-Bayesian ones.
On the other hand, when Player 2s are Bayesian rational, as is the norm in repeated games, we obtain a more refined structural result which we state below as Lemma \[walrandType0\]. As mentioned before, in a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium the short-lived Player 2 at time $t$, playing the stage game only once, seeks to maximize $ \sum_{a^1} P_{\sigma}(a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(a^1,a^2)$. However, it may be that his best response set, i.e. the maximizing action set $arg\max(\sum_{a^1} P_{\sigma}(a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(a^1,a^2))$, may not be unique.
To avoid such set-valued correspondence dynamics, we consider the following assumption, which requires that the best response of each Player 2 is essentially unique: Note that any strategy for Player 2 of time $t$ who chooses $\mathrm{arg}\max\big(\sum_{a^1} P_\sigma(a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(a^1,a^2)\big)$ in a measurable fashion does not have to be continuous in the conditional probability $\kappa(\cdot) = P_\sigma(a^1_t = \cdot |z^2_{[0,t]})$, since such a strategy partitions (or quantizes) the set of probability measures on $\mathbb{A}^1$. The set of $\kappa$ which borders these partitions is a subset of the set of probability measures ${\cal B}_e = \cup_{k,m \in \mathbb{A}^2} {\cal B}^{k,m}$, where for any pair $k,m \in \mathbb{A}^2$, the belief set $ {\cal B}^{k,m}$ is defined as $${\cal B}^{k,m} =\bigg\{ \kappa \in \Delta(\mathbb{A}^1): \sum_{a^1 \in \mathbb{A}^1} \kappa(a^1) u^2(a^1,k) = \sum_{a^1 \in \mathbb{A}^1} \kappa(a^1) u^2(a^1,m)\bigg\}.$$ These are the sets of probability measures where Player 2 is indifferent between multiple actions.
\[EssUnique\] Either of the following holds:
- $P_\sigma\bigg( P_\sigma(a^1_t = \cdot |z^2_{[0,t]}) \in {\cal B}_e \bigg) = 0$ for all $t \geq 0$. In particular, Player 2s have a unique best response so that the set of discontinuity, ${\cal B}_e$, is never visited (with probability $1$).
- Whenever Player 2s are indifferent between multiple actions they choose the action that is better for Player 1.
The following remarks are in order regarding Assumption \[EssUnique\].
- In the classical reputations literature, a standard result is that under mild conditions Bayesian rational short-lived players can be [*surprised*]{} at most finitely many times, e.g., [@fudenberglevine92 Theorem 4.1], [@sorin99 Lemma 2.4], implying that the jumps in the corresponding belief dynamics of Player 2s will be bounded away from zero in a transient phase until the optimal responses of Player 2s converge to a fixed action. In such cases, the payoff structure can be designed so that the set of discontinuity, ${\cal B}_e$, is visited with 0 probability, and hence Assumption \[EssUnique\](i) holds.
- Assumption \[EssUnique\](ii) is a standard assumption in the contract theory literature. In a principal-agent model, whenever an agent is indifferent between two actions he chooses the action that is better for the principal, e.g., when an incentive compatibility condition binds so that the agent is indifferent between exerting a high level of effort and exerting a low level effort, then the agent chooses to exert the high level of effort (see [@BoltonDewatripont] for further details). Assumption \[EssUnique\](ii) trivially holds also when the stage game payoff functions are identical for both players (as in [*team*]{} setups) or are aligned (as in a [*potential game*]{}).
\[walrandType0\] In the finitely repeated setup, under Assumption \[EssUnique\], given any arbitrary sequence of strategies of Bayesian rational short-lived Player 2s, for any (private) strategy of the strategic long-lived Player 1, there exists a (public) strategy that only conditions on $P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,t-1]}) \in \Delta(\Omega)$ and $t$ which yields the strategic long-lived Player 1 a weakly better payoff against the given sequence of strategies of Player 2s.
[**Proof.**]{} See the Appendix.
Controlled Markov Chain Construction {#MarkovChain}
------------------------------------
The proof of Lemma \[walrandType0\] reveals the construction of a controlled Markov chain. Building on this proof, we will explicitly construct the dynamic programming problem as a controlled Markov chain optimization problem (that is, a [*Markov Decision Process*]{}). Under Assumption \[EssUnique\], given any sequence of strategies of Bayesian rational Player 2s, the solution to this optimization problem characterizes the equilibrium behavior of the strategic long-lived player in an associated Markov Perfect Equilibrium. The state space, the action set, the transition kernel, and the per-stage reward function of the controlled Markov chain metioned above are given as follows:
- [**The state space**]{} is $\Delta(\Omega)$; $\mu_t \in \Delta(\Omega)$ is often called the [*belief*]{}-state. We endow this space with the weak convergence topology, and we note that since $\Omega$ is finite, the set of probability measures on $\Omega$ is a compact space.
- [**The action set**]{} is the set of all maps $\Gamma^1:= \{\gamma^1: \Omega \to \mathbb{A}^1\}.$ We note that since the commitment type policies are given a priori, one could also regard the action set to be the set $\mathbb{A}^1$ itself.[^8]
- [**The transition kernel**]{} is given by $P: \Delta(\Omega)\times \Gamma^1 \rightarrow {\cal B}(\Delta(\Omega))$[^9] so that for all $B \in {\cal B}(\Delta(\Omega))$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{walvarRecursion}
&&P\bigg( P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,t-1]}) \in B \bigg| P_\sigma(\omega|z^2_{[0,s-1]}), \gamma^1_{s}, s \leq t-1 \bigg) \nonumber \\
&&=P\bigg( \bigg\{ { \sum_{a^1_{t-1}} P_\sigma(z^2_{t-1}|a^1_{t-1}) P_\sigma(a^1_{t-1} | \omega, z^2_{[0,t-2]}) P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,t-2]}) \over \sum_{a^1_{t-1},\omega} P_\sigma(z^2_{t-1}|a^1_{t-1}) P_\sigma(a^1_{t-1} | \omega, z^2_{[0,t-2]}) P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,t-2]}) } \bigg\} \in B \nonumber \\
&& \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad\quad \quad\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \bigg| P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,s-1]}), \gamma^1_{s}, s \leq t-1 \bigg) \nonumber \\
&&=P\bigg( \bigg\{ { \sum_{a^1_{t-1}} P_\sigma(z^2_{t-1}|a^1_{t-1}) P_\sigma(a^1_{t-1} | \omega, z^2_{[0,t-2]}) P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,t-2]}) \over \sum_{a^1_{t-1},\omega} P_\sigma(z^2_{t-1}|a^1_{t-1}) P_\sigma(a^1_{t-1} | \omega, z^2_{[0,t-2]}) P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,t-2]}) } \bigg\} \in B \nonumber \\
&&\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad\quad \quad\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \bigg| P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,t-2]}), \gamma^1_{t-1} \bigg)
\end{aligned}$$
In the above derivation, we use the fact that the term $P_\sigma(a^1_{t-1}|\omega, z^2_{[0,t-2]})$ is uniquely identified by $P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,{t-2}]})$ and $\gamma^1_{t-1}$. Here, $\gamma^1_{t-1}$ is the [*control action*]{}.
- [**The per-stage reward function**]{}, given $\gamma^2_t$, is $U(\mu_t,\gamma^{1}): \Delta(\Omega)\times \Gamma^1 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ which is defined as follows $$U(\mu_t,\gamma^{1}) := \sum_{\omega} P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,t-1]}) \sum_{\mathbb{A}^1} \bigg( {1}_{\{a^1_t=\gamma^{1}(\omega)\}} u^1(a^1_t,\gamma^2_t(P_\sigma(a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t-1]}),z^2_t)) \bigg) \label{CostFn2}$$ where $\mu_t=P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,t-1]})$. Here, $\gamma^2_t$ is a given measurable function of the posterior $P_\sigma(a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t]})$. We note again that for each Bayesian rational short-lived Player 2 we have $$\gamma^2_t(P_\sigma(a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t-1]}),z^2_t)) \in arg\max \bigg(\sum_{a^1} P_\sigma(a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(a^1,a^2)\bigg).$$
Lemma \[walrandType0\] implies that in the finitely repeated setup, under Assumption \[EssUnique\], when Player 2s are Bayesian rational, the long-lived strategic Player 1 can depend his strategy only on Player 2s’ posterior belief and time without any loss in payoff performance.
Consider now any Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium where the strategic long-lived Player 1 plays a private strategy, since the strategic long-lived Player 1 cannot have a profitable deviation, the public strategy identified in Lemma \[walrandType0\] must also give him the same payoff against the given sequence of strategies of Player 2s. Hence, in the finitely repeated setup, under Assumption \[EssUnique\], any [**Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium**]{} payoff of the normal type Player 1, is also a [**Perfect Public Equilibrium**]{} payoff.[^10] Therefore, given our Markov chain construction:
\[pbempef\] In the finitely repeated game, under Assumption \[EssUnique\], the set of Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium payoffs of the strategic long-lived Player 1 is equal to the set of Markov Perfect Equilibrium payoffs.
[**Proof.**]{} Markov Perfect Equilibrium payoff set is a subset of Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium payoff set. Hence, it is enough to show that for each Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium there exists a properly defined Markov Perfect Equilibrium which is payoff equivalent for the strategic long-lived Player 1. This follows from Lemma \[walrandType0\] and our Markov chain construction.
Lemma \[witRealCoding\] and Lemma \[walrandType0\] above have a coding theoretic flavor: The classic works by Witsenhausen [@Witsenhausen] and Walrand and Varaiya [@WalrandVaraiya], are of particular relevance; Teneketzis [@Teneketzis] extended these approaches to the more general setting of non-feedback communication and [@YukIT2010arXiv] and [@YukselBasarBook] extended these results to more general state spaces (including $\mathbb{R}^d$). Extensions to infinite horizon stages have been studied in [@YukLinZeroDelay]. In particular, Lemma \[witRealCoding\] can be viewed as a generalization of Witsenhausen [@Witsenhausen]. On the other hand, Lemma \[walrandType0\] can be viewed as a generalization of Walrand and Varaiya [@WalrandVaraiya] and [@YukLinZeroDelay]. The proofs build on [@YukIT2010arXiv]. However, these results are different from the above contributions due to the fact that the utility functions do not depend explicitly on the type of Player 1, but depend explicitly on the actions $a^1_t$ and that these actions are not available to Player 2 unlike the setup in [@YukIT2010arXiv]. Next, we consider the infinitely repeated setup in the following.
Infinite Horizon and Equilibrium Strategies {#InfiniteHorizon}
-------------------------------------------
We proceed with Lemma \[walrandType\] which is the extension of Lemma \[walrandType0\] to the infinitely repeated setup. Lemma \[walrandType\] will be the key result that gives us a similar controlled Markov chain construction for the infinitely repeated game, hence a payoff-equivalent stationary Markov Perfect Equilibrium for each Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium.
\[walrandType\] In the infinitely repeated game, under Assumption \[EssUnique\], given any arbitrary sequence of strategies of Bayesian rational short-lived Player 2s, for any (private) strategy of the strategic long-lived Player 1, there exists a (public) strategy that only conditions on $P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,t-1]}) \in \Delta(\Omega)$ and $t$ which yields the strategic long-lived Player 1 a weakly better payoff against the given sequence of strategies of Player 2s.
Furthermore, the strategic long-lived Player 1’s optimal stationary strategy against this given sequence of strategies of Player 2s can be characterized by solving an infinite horizon discounted dynamic programming problem.
[**Proof.**]{} See the Appendix.
Therefore, in the infinitely repeated setup as well, under Assumption \[EssUnique\], any private strategy of the normal type Player 1 can be replaced, without any loss in payoff performance, with a public strategy which only depends on $P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,t-1]})$ and $t$. Hence, for any [**Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium**]{} there exists a [**Perfect Public Equilibrium**]{} which is payoff-equivalent for the strategic long-lived Player 1 in the infinitely repeated game as well.
Furthermore, since there is a stationary optimal public strategy for the strategic long-lived Player 1 against any given sequence of strategies of Bayesian rational Player 2s, any payoff the strategic long-lived Player 1 obtains in a [**Perfect Bayesian Perfect Equilibrium**]{}, he can also obtain in a [**Markov Perfect Equilibrium**]{}.[^11]
\[pbempe\] In the infinitely repeated game, under Assumption \[EssUnique\], the set of Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium payoffs of the strategic long-lived Player 1 is equal to the set of Markov Perfect Equilibrium payoffs.
[**Proof.**]{} The proof follows from Lemma \[walrandType\] and our Markov chain construction as in the proof of Theorem \[pbempef\].
Undiscounted Average Payoff Case and An Upper Payoff Bound for the Arbitrarily Patient Long-lived Player {#AverageSection}
========================================================================================================
We next analyze the setup where the strategic long-lived Player 1 were to maximize his [**undiscounted**]{} average payoff instead of his discounted average payoff. Not only we identify an optimal strategy for the strategic long-lived Player 1 in this setup, but also we establish an [**upper payoff bound**]{} for the arbitrarily patient strategic long-lived Player 1 in the standard [**discounted**]{} average payoff case – through an Abelian inequality.[^12] The only difference from our original setup is that the strategic long-lived Player 1 now wishes to maximize $ \liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0} [\sum_{t=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_t,a^2_t)]$. Therefore, in any Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium, same as before, the short-lived (Bayesian rational) Player 2s will continue to be best replying to their updated beliefs. On the other hand, the strategic long-lived Player 1 will be playing a strategy which maximizes his undiscounted average payoff given that each Player 2 will be best replying to their updated beliefs.
The main problem in analyzing the undiscounted setup is that most of the structural coding/signaling results that we have for finite horizon or infinite horizon discounted optimal control problems do not generalize for the undiscounted case, see [@YukLinZeroDelay]. Therefore, we will arrive at the following results using an indirect approach which is based on more intricate arguments. Observe that $\{\mu_t(\bar{\omega}) = \mathbb{E}[1_{\omega = \bar{\omega}} | z^2_{[0,t]}]\}$, for every fixed $\bar{\omega}$, is a bounded martingale sequence adapted to the information at Player 2, and as a result as $t \to \infty$, by the submartingale convergence theorem [@BorkarBook] there exists $\bar{\mu}$ such that $\mu_t \to \bar{\mu}$ almost surely.
Let us re-visit the standard discounted setup: Let $\bar{\mu}$ be an [**invariant posterior**]{}, that is, a limit of the $\mu_t$ process which exists by the discussion with regard to the submartingale convergence theorem. Equation (\[DP\]) leads to the following fixed point equation:[^13] $$V^1(\omega,\mu) = \max_{a^1 = \gamma^1_t(\mu,\omega)}( \mathbb{E}[u^1(a^1_t,\gamma^2(\mu)) + \delta \mathbb{E}[V^1[(\omega,\mu)] )$$ Therefore, $V^1(\omega,\mu) = {1 \over 1 - \delta} \max_{\gamma^1_t} \mathbb{E}[u^1(a^1_t,a^2_t(\mu))]$, and since the solution is asymptotically stationary, the optimal strategy of the strategic long-lived Player 1 when $\mu_0=\mu$ has to be a Stackelberg solution for a Bayesian game with prior $\mu$; thus, [*a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium strategy for the strategic long-lived Player 1 has to be mimicking the stage game Stackelberg type forever*]{}.
Thus, every optimal strategy should be such that if Player 2’s belief has converged, then the equilibrium behaviour must be of Stackelberg type. Note also that, by the analysis in the previous section, Player 2 behaves as if his strategy is optimal once his opinion is within a neighbourhood of the limit belief. Once Player 2s start best replying to the limit belief, Player 1’s optimal strategy becomes the Stackelberg action which is maximized according to the limit belief of Player 2s.
We state the following identifiability assumption.
\[unifIdentifiability\] Uniformly over all stationary optimal (for some discount parameter) strategies $\tilde{\sigma}^1,\tilde{\sigma}^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\lim_{\delta \to 1} \sup_{\tilde{\sigma}^1,\tilde{\sigma}^2} \bigg| \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{\sigma}^1,\tilde{\sigma}^2}(1 - \delta) \bigg[\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \delta^t u^1(a^1_t,a^2_t)\bigg] \nonumber \\
&& \quad \quad \quad \quad - \limsup_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{\sigma}^1,\tilde{\sigma}^2} \bigg[ \sum_{t=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_t,a^2_t)\bigg] \bigg| = 0 \label{unifS}
\end{aligned}$$
Assumption \[unifIdentifiability\] may seem to be a strict assumption at first look. We note that a sufficient condition for Assumption \[unifIdentifiability\] is the following.
\[unifIdentifiabilityI\] Whenever the strategic long-lived Player 1 adopts a stationary strategy, for any initial commitment prior, there exists a stopping time $\tau$ such that for $t \geq \tau$, Player 2s’ posterior beliefs become so that his best response does not change (that is, his best-response to his beliefs leads to a constant action). Furthermore, $\mathbb{E}[\tau] < \infty$, uniformly over any stationary strategy $\sigma^1$.
Furthermore, Proposition \[IdenCon\] below shows that Assumption \[unifIdentifiability\] is indeed implied by one of the most standard identifiability assumptions in the repeated games literature:
\[IdenCon\] Consider the matrix $A$ whose rows consist of the vectors: $$\begin{bmatrix} P_\sigma(z^2_t=k | a^1_t=1) & P_\sigma(z^2_t=k | a^1_t=2) & \cdots & P_\sigma(z^2_t=k | a^1_t=|\mathbb{A}^1|) \end{bmatrix}$$ where $ k \in \{1,2,\cdots, |{\bf Z}^2|\}$ If $rank(A)= |\mathbb{A}^1|$, then Assumption \[unifIdentifiability\] holds.
[**Proof.**]{} See the Appendix.
The sufficient condition described in Proposition \[IdenCon\] is a standard identifiability assumption, sometimes referred as the full-rank monitoring assumption in the reputations literature, see for example [@crippsmailathsamuelson04 Assumption 2]. Under Assumption \[unifIdentifiability\], we establish that mimicking a Stackelberg commitment type forever is an optimal strategy for the strategic long-lived Player 1 in the undiscounted setup:
\[ACOE\] In the undiscounted setup, under Assumption \[unifIdentifiability\], an optimal strategy for the strategic long-lived Player 1 in the infinitely repeated game is the stationary strategy “mimicking the Stackelberg commitment type forever.”
[**Proof.**]{} See the Appendix.
As an implication of Theorem \[ACOE\], we next state the aforementioned upper bound for Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium payoffs of the arbitrarily patient strategic long-lived Player 1 in the discounted setup as Theorem \[upperbound\].
\[upperbound\] Under Assumption \[unifIdentifiability\], $\limsup_{\delta \to 1} V^1_{\delta}(\omega,\mu^0)$ $\leq \max_{\alpha_1\in \Delta(A_1), \alpha_2 \in BR(\alpha_1)}u_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$. That is, an upperbound for the value of the reputation for an arbitrarily patient strategic long-lived Player 1 in any Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium of the discounted setup is his stage game Stackelberg equilibrium payoff.
**Proof of Theorem \[upperbound\].** Note the following Abelian theorem: Let $a_n$ be a sequence of non-negative numbers and $\beta \in (0,1)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Tauberian} \index{TauberienTheorem}
&&\liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} a_m \leq \liminf_{\beta \uparrow 1} (1 - \beta) \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \beta^m a_m \nonumber \\
&&\leq \limsup_{\beta \uparrow 1} (1 - \beta) \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \beta^m a_m \leq \limsup_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} a_m\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for any $\delta$, an upper bound is obtained by the corresponding undiscounted average payoff problem. Since for every $\delta$, an optimal strategy is stationary, and under the stationary strategy the average payoff converges to the one achieved by the case where the type of Player 1 is correctly identified by Player 2s, the result follows from Theorem \[ACOE\].
Theorem \[upperbound\] provides an upper bound on the value of reputation for the strategic long-lived Player 1 in the discounted setup. That is, in the discounted setup, an arbitrarily patient strategic long-lived Player 1 cannot do any better than his best Stackelberg payoff under reputational concerns as well. This upperbound coincides with those provided before by Fudenberg and Levine [@fudenberglevine92] and Gossner [@gossner11].
A Lower Payoff Bound on Reputation through Measure Concentration {#lowerBSection}
================================================================
We next identify a lower payoff bound for the value of reputation through an explicit measure concentration analysis. As mentioned before, it was Fudenberg and Levine [@fudenberglevine89], [@fudenberglevine92] who provided such a lower payoff bound for the first time. They constructed a lower bound for any equilibrium payoff of the strategic long-lived player by showing that Bayesian rational short-lived players can be surprised at most finitely many times when a strategic long-lived Player mimics a commitment type forever.
Gossner [@gossner11], on the other hand, used information theoretic ideas to obtain a more concise lower payoff bound: Using the chain rule property of the concept of relative entropy, [@gossner11] obtained a lower bound for any equilibrium payoff of the strategic long-lived player by showing that any equilibrium payoff of the strategic long-lived player is bounded from below (and above) by a function of the average discounted divergence between the prediction of the short-lived players conditional on the long-lived player’s type and its marginal. Our analysis below provides a sharper lower payoff bound for the value of reputation through a refined measure concentration analysis. To obtain this lower bound, as in [@fudenberglevine92] as well as [@gossner11], we let the strategic long-lived Player 1 mimic (forever) a commitment type, $\hat{\omega}=m$, to investigate the best responses of the short-lived Player 2s. In any Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium, such a deviation, i.e. deviating to mimicking a particular commitment type forever, is always possible for the strategic long-lived Player 1.
Let $|\Omega|=M$ be the number of all possible types of the long-lived Player 1. With $m$ being the type mimicked forever by Player 1, we will identify a function $f$ below such that for any $\hat{\omega} \in \hat{\Omega}$ when criterion (\[criterion\]) below holds, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{criterion}
{P_\sigma(\omega = m | z^2_{[0,t]}) \over P_\sigma(\omega=\hat{\omega} | z^2_{[0,t]}) } \geq f(M),\end{aligned}$$ Player 2 of time $t$ will act as if he knew the type of the long-lived Player 1 is $m$. This will follow from the fact that $\max_{a^2} \sum P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}| z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(a^1,a^2)$ is continuous in $P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}| z^2_{[0,t]})$ and that $P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}| z^2_{[0,t]})$ concentrates around the true type under a mild informativeness condition on the observable variables.
Let $$\tau_{m} = \min\{T \geq 0: \max_{a^2} \sum_{a^1} P_\sigma(a^1| z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(a^1,a^2) = \max_{a^2} \sum_{a^1} P_\sigma(a^1| \omega=m) u^2(a^1,a^2) \quad \forall t \geq T\}, \nonumber$$ Intuitively, $\tau_{m}$ is the time when Player 2s start to behave as if the type of the long-lived Player 1 is $m$ as far as their optimal strategies are concerned.
The following lemma provides an upper bound for $\tau_{m}$ regarding the aforementioned criterion (\[criterion\]).
\[boundLearning\] Let $\epsilon > 0$ be such that for any $\bar{a}^1 \in \mathbb{A}^1$ and $\tilde{a}^2, \hat{a}^2 \in \mathbb{A}^2$ $$|u^2(\bar{a}^1,\tilde{a}^2) - u^2(\bar{a}^1, \hat{a}^2)|\geq {\epsilon \over 1 - \epsilon} \bigg(\max_{a^1,a^2} |u^2(a^1,a^2)| \bigg)$$ If (\[criterion\]) holds at time $t$ when $f(M)= { (1 - \epsilon) \over \epsilon}M$, then $\tau_{m} \leq t$.
[**Proof.**]{} See the Appendix.
Lemma \[boundLearning\] implies that when criterion (\[criterion\]) holds to be true for $f(M)= { (1 - \epsilon) \over \epsilon}M$, at time $t$ any Player 2 of time $t$ and onwards will be best responding to the commitment type $m$. This can be interpreted as the long-lived Player [**having a reputation to behave like type $m$**]{} when criterion (\[criterion\]) is satisfied.
We next provide Theorem \[geometricBound\], which shows that as a stopping time $\tau_{m}$ is dominated by a geometric random variable.
\[geometricBound\] Suppose that $0 < {P_\sigma(z^2|\omega=m) \over P_\sigma(z^2|\omega=\hat{\omega})} < \infty$ for all $\hat{\omega} \in \hat{\Omega}$ and $z^2 \in \mathbb{Z}^2$. For all $k \in \mathbb{N}$, $P_\sigma(\tau_{m} \geq k) \leq R \rho^{k}$ for some $\rho \in (0,1)$ and $R \in \mathbb{R}$.
[**Proof.**]{} See the Appendix.
We are now ready to provide our lower bound for Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium payoffs of the strategic long-lived Player 1, for a fixed discount factor $\delta \in(0,1)$.
\[theorembound\] A lower bound for the expected payoff of the strategic long-lived Player 1 in any Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium (in the discounted setup) is given by $\max_{m \in \hat{\Omega}} L(m)$ where $$L(m) = \mathbb{E}_{\{\omega= m\}}\bigg[\sum_{k=1}^{\tau_{m}} \delta^k u^1(a^1_t,a^2_t)\bigg] + \mathbb{E}_{\{\omega= m\}} \bigg[\sum_{k=\tau_{m}+1}^{\infty} \delta^k {\underline{u}_s^1}^*(m)\bigg]$$ where $ {\underline{u}_s^1}^*(m):=\min_{a^2 \in BR^2(m)} u^1(m,a^2) $ and $BR^2(m):=arg \max_{a^2 \in \mathbb{A}^2} u^2(m,a^2)$.
[**Proof.**]{} It follows from Theorem \[geometricBound\] that the stopping time $\tau_m$ is dominated by a geometric random variable. Therefore the discounted average payoff can be lower bounded by the sum of the following two terms: $$\mathbb{E}_{\{\omega= m\}}\bigg[\sum_{k=1}^{\tau_{m}} \delta^k u^1(a^1_t,a^2_t)\bigg] + \mathbb{E}_{\{\omega= m\}} \bigg[\sum_{k=\tau_{m}+1}^{\infty} \delta^k {\underline{u}_s^1(m)}^*\bigg]$$ where $ {\underline{u}_s^1}^*(m):=\min_{a^2 \in BR^2(m)} u^1(m,a^2) $ and $BR^2(m):=arg \max_{a^2 \in \mathbb{A}^2} u^2(m,a^2)$. Since a deviation to mimicking any of the commitment types forever is available to the strategic long-lived Player 1 in any Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium, taking the maximum of the lower bound above for all commitment types gives the desired result.
Observe that when $m$ is a Stackelberg type, i.e., a commitment type who is committed to play the stage game Stackelberg action $
arg\max_{\alpha_1\in \Delta(A_1)}u_1(\alpha_1,BR^2(\alpha^1))$ for which Player 2s have a unique best reply then $${\underline{u}_s^1}^*(m)= \max_{\alpha_1\in \Delta(A_1), \alpha_2 \in BR(\alpha_1)} u_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$$ becomes the stage game Stackelberg payoff.
We next turn to the case of the arbitrarily patient strategic long-lived Player 1. That is, what happens when $\delta \rightarrow 1$.
\[ReputationStackelberg\] $$\lim_{\delta \to 1} L(m) \geq {\underline{u}_s^1}^*(m)$$
**Proof of Theorem \[ReputationStackelberg\].** The proof follows from Theorem \[theorembound\] by taking the limit $\delta \to 1$. Since until time $\tau_m$, we can bound the payoff to strategic long-lived Player 1 below by the worst possible payoff, and after $\tau_m$ the strategic long-lived Player 1 guarantees the associated Stackelberg payoff, we obtain $$\lim_{\delta \to 1} L(m) \geq \lim_{\delta \to 1} \mathbb{E}[1-{\delta^{\tau_m}}] \min_{a^1,a^2} u^1(a^1,a^2) + \lim_{\delta \to 1} \mathbb{E}[\delta^{\tau_m} {\underline{u}_s^1}^*(m)] ={\underline{u}_s^1}^*(m).$$ That $\lim_{\delta \to 1} \mathbb{E}[{\delta^{\tau_m} - 1}]=0$ and $\lim_{\delta \to 1} \mathbb{E}[{\delta^{\tau}}]=1$ follow from the dominated convergence theorem and the fact that $\tau_m$ is finite with probability 1.
Theorem \[ReputationStackelberg\] implies that the lower payoff bound that we provided in Theorem \[theorembound\] coincides in the limit as $\delta \rightarrow 1$ with those of Fudenberg and Levine [@fudenberglevine92] and Gossner [@gossner11]. That is, if there exists a Stackelberg commitment type, an arbitrarily patient strategic long-lived Player 1 can guarantee himself a payoff arbitrarily close to the associated Stackelberg payoff in every Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium in the discounted setup.
Continuity of payoff values
===========================
Next, we consider the continuity of the payoff values of the strategic long-lived Player 1 in the prior beliefs of Player 2s for any Markov Perfect Equilibrium obtained through the aforementioned dynamic programming. In this section, we assume the following.
\[AssCont\] Either Assumption \[EssUnique\](i) holds or the stage game payoff functions are identical for both players.
We note that, as in [@YukLinZeroDelay] if the game is an identical interest game, the continuity results would follow.
\[weakContKernel\] Under Assumption \[AssCont\], the transition kernel of the aforementioned Markov chain is weakly continuous in the (belief) state and action.
[**Proof.**]{} See the Appendix.
By Assumption \[AssCont\], the per-stage reward function, $U(\mu_t,\gamma^{1})$, is continuous in $\mu_t$. The continuity of the transition kernel and per-stage reward function together with the compactness of the action space leads to the following continuity result.
\[contOptimalPolicy\] Under Assumption \[AssCont\], the value function $V^1_t$ of the dynamic program given in (\[DP\]) is continuous in $\mu_t$ for all $t\geq 0$.[^14]
**Proof of Theorem \[contOptimalPolicy\].** Given Lemma \[weakContKernel\] and Assumption \[EssUnique\](i), the proof follows from an inductive argument and the measurable selection hypothesis. In this case, the discounted optimality operator becomes a contraction mapping from the Banach space of continuous functions on $\Delta(\Omega)$ to itself, leading to a fixed point in this space.
Theorem \[contOptimalPolicy\] implies that, any Markov Perfect Equilibrium payoff of the strategic long-lived Player 1 obtained through the dynamic program in (\[DP\]) is robust to small perturbations in the prior beliefs of Player 2s under Assumption \[EssUnique\]. This further implies that the following conjecture made by Cripps, Mailath, and Samuelson [@crippsmailathsamuelson04] is indeed true in our setup: There exists a particular equilibrium in the complete information game and a bound such that for *any* commitment type prior (of Player 2s) less than this bound, there exists an equilibrium of the incomplete information game where the strategic long-lived Player 1’s payoff is arbitrarily close to his payoff from the particular equilibrium in the complete information game.[^15] This is also in line with the findings of [@Dalkiran16], which uses the methods of [@abpest90] to show a similar upper semi continuity result.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we studied the reputations problem of an informed long-lived player who controls his reputation against a sequence of uninformed short-lived players by employing tools from stochastic control theory. The main assumption in our model was that the information of the short-lived players is nested in that of the long-lived player. Our findings contribute to the reputations literature by obtaining new results on the structure of equilibrium behavior in finite-horizon, infinite-horizon, and undiscounted settings, as well as continuity results in the prior probabilities, and improved upper and lower bounds on the value of reputations. In particular, we exhibited that a control theoretic formulation can be utilized to characterize the equilibrium behavior. It is our hope that the machinery we provide in this paper will open a new avenue for applied work studying reputations in different frameworks.
Appendix
========
Proof of Lemma \[witRealCoding\].
---------------------------------
At time $t=T$, the payoff function can be written as follows, where $\gamma^2_t$ denotes a given fixed strategy for Player 2: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{costCompactForm}
\mathbb{E}[u^1(a^1_{t},\gamma^2_{t}(z^2_{[0,t]})) | z^2_{[0,t-1]}] = \mathbb{E}[F(a^1_t,z^2_{[0,t-1]},z^2_t) | z^2_{[0,t-1]}] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where, $F(a^1_t,z^2_{[0,t-1]},z^2_t) = u^1(a^1_{t},\gamma^2_{t}(z^2_{[0,t]})) $.
Now, by a stochastic realization argument (see Borkar [@BorkarRealization]), we can write $z^2_t = R(a^1_t,v_t)$ for some independent noise process $v_t$. As a result, the expected payoff conditioned on $z^2_{[0,t-1]}$ is equal to, by the smoothing property of conditional expectation, the following: $$\mathbb{E}\bigg[\mathbb{E} [G(a^1_t,z^2_{[0,t-1]},v_t) | \omega, a^1_t,z^2_{[0,t-1]}] \bigg| z^2_{[0,t-1]}\bigg],$$ for some $G$. Since $v_t$ is independent of all the other variables at times $s \leq t$, it follows that there exists $H$ so that $\mathbb{E} [G(a^1_t,z^2_{[0,t-1]},v_t) | \omega, a^1_t,z^2_{[0,t-1]}] =: H(\omega, a^1_t,z^2_{[0,t-1]})$. Note that when $\omega$ is a commitment type, $a^1_t$ is fixed quantity or a fixed random variable.
Now, we will apply Witsenhausen’s two stage lemma [@Witsenhausen], to show that we can obtain a lower bound for the double expectation by picking $a^1_t$ as a result of a measurable function of $\omega,z^2_{[0,t-1]}$. Thus, we will find a strategy which only uses $(\omega,z^2_{[0,t-1]})$ which performs as well as one which uses the entire memory available at Player 1. To make this precise, let us fix $\gamma^2_t$ and define for every $k \in \mathbb{A}^1$: $$\label{Witsenconstruct12}
\beta_{k} := \bigg\{\omega,z^2_{[0,t-1]} : G(\omega,z^2_{[0,t-1]},k) \leq G(\omega,z^2_{[0,t-1]},q), \forall q \neq k \bigg\}. \nonumber$$ Such a construction covers the domain set consisting of $(x_t,q_{[0,t-1]})$ but possibly with overlaps. It covers the elements in $\Omega \times \prod_{t=0}^{T-1} \mathbb{Z}^2$, since for every element in this product set, there is a maximizing $k \in \mathbb{A}^1$. To avoid the overlap, define a function $\gamma^{*,1}_t$ as: $$q_t = \gamma^{*,1}_t(\omega,z^2_{[0,t-1]})= k, \quad \rm{if} (\omega,z^2_{[0,t-1]}) \in \beta_{k} \setminus \cup_{i=1}^{k-1} \beta_{i},$$ with $\beta_0=\emptyset$. The new strategy performs at least as well as the original strategy even though it has a restricted structure.
The same discussion applies for earlier time stages as we discuss below. We iteratively proceed to study the other time stages. For a three-stage problem, the payoff at time $t=2$ can be written as: $$\mathbb{E}\bigg[ u^1(a^1_2,\gamma^2_2(z^2_1,z^2_2)) + \mathbb{E}[u^1(\gamma^{*,1}_3(\omega,z^2_{[1,2]}),\gamma^2_3\bigg(z^2_1, z^2_2,R(\gamma^{*,1}_3(\omega,z^2_{[1,2]}),v_3)\bigg) | \omega, z^2_1, z^2_2] \bigg| z^2_1 \bigg] \nonumber$$ The expression inside the expectation is equal to for some measurable $F_2$, $F_2(\omega, a^1_2, z^2_1, z^2_{2})$. Now, once again expressing $z^2_2=R(a^1_2,v_2)$, by a similar argument as above, a strategy at time $2$ which uses $\omega$ and $z^1_2$ and which performs at least as good as the original strategy can be constructed. By similar arguments, a strategy at time $t$, $1 \leq t\leq T$ only uses $(\omega,z^2_{[1,t-1]})$ can be constructed. The strategy at time $t=0$ uses $\omega$.
Proof of Lemma \[walrandType0\].
--------------------------------
The proof follows from a similar argument as that for Lemma \[witRealCoding\], except that the information at Player 2 is replaced by the sufficient statistic that Player 2 uses: his posterior information. At time $t=T-1$, an optimal Player 2 will use $P_\sigma(a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t]})$ as a sufficient statistic for an optimal decision. Let us fix a strategy for Player 2 at time t, $\gamma^2_t$ which only uses the posterior $P_\sigma(a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t]})$ as its sufficient statistic. Let us further note that: $$P_\sigma(a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t]}) = { P_\sigma(z^2_t,a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t-1]}) \over \sum_{a^1_t} P_\sigma(z^2_t,a^1_t|z^2_{[0,t-1]}) } = { \sum_{\omega} P_\sigma(z^2_t|a^1_t )P_\sigma(a^1_t | \omega,z^2_{[0,t-1]}) P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,t-1]}) \over \sum_{\omega} \sum_{a^1_t} P_\sigma(z^2_t|a^1_t )P_\sigma(a^1_t | \omega,z^2_{[0,t-1]}) P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,t-1]})} \label{whySeparationHolds11}
$$ The term $P_\sigma(a^1_t | \omega, z^2_{[0,t-1]})$ is determined by the strategy of Player 1 (this follows from Lemma \[witRealCoding\]), $\gamma^1_t$.
As in [@YukselBasarBook], this implies that the payoff at the last stage conditioned on $z^2_{[0,t-1]}$ is given by $$\label{costCompactForm}
\mathbb{E}\bigg[u^1\bigg(a^1_{t},\gamma^2_{t}(P_\sigma(a^1_t = \cdot |z^2_{[0,t]}) )\bigg) | z^2_{[0,t-1]}\bigg] = \mathbb{E}\bigg[F\bigg(a^1_t,\gamma^1_t,P_\sigma(\omega= \cdot | z^2_{[0,t-1]})\bigg) | z^2_{[0,t-1]}\bigg] \nonumber$$ where, as earlier, we use the fact that $z^2_t$ is conditionally independent of all the other variables at times $s \leq t$ given $a^1_t$. Let $\gamma^{1,z^2_{[0,t-1]}}_t$ denote the strategy of Player 1. The above state is then equivalent to, by the smoothing property of conditional expectation, the following: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathbb{E}\bigg[\mathbb{E} \bigg[ F\bigg(a^1_t,\gamma^1_t,P_\sigma(\omega= \cdot | z^2_{[0,t-1]})\bigg) | \omega, \gamma^{1,z^2_{[0,t-1]}}_t, P_\sigma(\omega= \cdot | z^2_{[0,t-1]}),z^2_{[0,t-1]} \bigg] \bigg| z^2_{[0,t-1]}\bigg] \nonumber \\
&& = \mathbb{E}\bigg[\mathbb{E} \bigg[ F\bigg(a^1_t,\gamma^1_t,P_\sigma(\omega= \cdot | z^2_{[0,t-1]})\bigg) | \omega, \gamma^{1,z^2_{[0,t-1]}}, P_\sigma(\omega= \cdot | z^2_{[0,t-1]})\bigg] \bigg| z^2_{[0,t-1]}\bigg] \label{BayesianBoth}\end{aligned}$$ The second line follows since once one picks the strategy $ \gamma^{1,z^2_{[0,t-1]}}$, the dependence on $z^2_{[0,t-1]}$ is redundant given\
$P_\sigma(\omega= \cdot | z^2_{[0,t-1]})$. Now, one can construct an equivalence class among the past $z^2_{[0,t-1]}$ sequences which induce the same $\mu_t(\cdot)= P_\sigma(\omega \in \cdot | z^2_{[0,t-1]})$, and can replace the strategy in this class with one, which induces a higher payoff among the finitely many elements in each class for the final time stage. An optimal output thus may be generated using $\mu_t$ and $\omega$ and $t$, by extending Witsenhausen’s argument used earlier in the proof of Lemma \[witRealCoding\] for the terminal time stage. Since there are only finitely many past sequences and finitely many $\mu_t$, this leads to a (Borel measurable) selection of $\omega$ for every $\mu_t$, leading to a measurable strategy in $\mu_t, \omega$. Hence, the final stage payoff can be expressed as $F_{t}(\mu_t)$ for some $F_t$, without any performance loss.
The same argument applies for all time stages. To show this, we will apply induction as in [@YukIT2010arXiv]. At time $t=T-1$, the sufficient statistic both for the immediate payoff, and the [*continuation payoff*]{} is $P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,t-1]})$, and thus for the payoff impacting the time stage $t=T$, as a result of the optimality result for $\gamma^1_{T}$. To show that the separation result generalizes to all time stages, it suffices to prove that $\{(\mu_{t},\gamma^1_t)\}$ has a controlled Markov chain form, if the players use the structure above.
Now, for $t \geq 1$, for all $B \in {\cal B}(\Delta(\Omega))$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{walvarRecursion}
&&P\bigg( P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,t-1]}) \in B \bigg| P_\sigma(\omega|z^2_{[0,s-1]}), \gamma^1_{s}, s \leq t-1 \bigg) \nonumber \\
&&=P\bigg( \bigg\{ { \sum_{a^1_{t-1}} P_\sigma(z^2_{t-1}|a^1_{t-1}) P_\sigma(a^1_{t-1} | \omega, z^2_{[0,t-2]}) P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,t-2]}) \over \sum_{a^1_{t-1},\omega} P_\sigma(z^2_{t-1}|a^1_{t-1}) P_\sigma(a^1_{t-1} | \omega, z^2_{[0,t-2]}) P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,t-2]}) } \bigg\} \in B \nonumber \\
&& \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad\quad \quad\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \bigg| P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,s-1]}), \gamma^1_{s}, s \leq t-1 \bigg) \nonumber \\
&& =P\bigg( \bigg\{ { \sum_{a^1_{t-1}} P_\sigma(z^2_{t-1}|a^1_{t-1}) P_\sigma(a^1_{t-1} | \omega, z^2_{[0,t-2]}) P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,t-2]}) \over \sum_{a^1_{t-1},\omega} P_\sigma(z^2_{t-1}|a^1_{t-1}) P_\sigma(a^1_{t-1} | \omega, z^2_{[0,t-2]}) P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,t-2]}) } \bigg\} \in B \nonumber \\
&& \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad\quad \quad\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \bigg| P_\sigma(\omega | z^2_{[0,s-1]}), \gamma^1_{s}, s = t-1 \bigg)\end{aligned}$$ In the above derivation, we use the fact that the term\
$P_\sigma(a^1_{t-1}|\omega, z^2_{[0,t-2]})$ is uniquely identified by $P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,{t-2}]})$ and $\gamma^1_{t-1}$.
Proof of Lemma \[walrandType\].
-------------------------------
First, going from a finite horizon to an infinite horizon follows from a change of order of limit and infimum as we discuss in the following. Observe that for any strategy $\{\gamma^1_t\}$ and any $T \in \mathbb{N}$: $$\mathbb{E}[ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \delta^t u^1(a^1_t, a^2_t)] \geq \inf_{\{\gamma^1_t\}} \mathbb{E}[\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \delta^t u^1(a^1_t, a^2_t)]$$ and thus $$\lim_{T \to \infty} \mathbb{E}[ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \delta^t u^1(a^1_t, a^2_t)] \geq \limsup_{T \to \infty} \inf_{\{\gamma^1_t\}} \mathbb{E}[\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \delta^t u^1(a^1_t, a^2_t)]$$ Since the above holds for an arbitrary strategy, it follows then that $$\inf_{\{\gamma^1_t\}} \lim_{T \to \infty} \mathbb{E}[ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \delta^t u^1(a^1_t, a^2_t)] \geq \limsup_{T \to \infty} \inf_{\{\gamma^1_t\}} \mathbb{E}[\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \delta^t u^1(a^1_t, a^2_t)]$$ On the other hand, due to the discounted nature of the problem, the right hand side can be studied through the dynamic programming (Bellman) iteration algorithms: The following dynamic program holds: Let $\mu_t(w) = P_\sigma(\omega = w| z^2_{[0,t-1]})$.
$$\label{DP}
V^1(\omega,\mu_t) = \max_{\gamma^1_t}\bigg( \mathbb{E}\bigg[u^1(a^1_t,a^2_t) + \delta \mathbb{E}[V^1(\omega,\mu_{t+1}) | \mu_t, \gamma^1_t \bigg] \bigg) =:\mathbb{T}(V^1)(\omega,\mu_t)$$
where $\mathbb{T}$ is an operator defined by: $$\mathbb{T}(f)(\omega,\mu_t)= \max_{\gamma^1_t}\bigg( \mathbb{E}\bigg[u^1(a^1_t,a^2_t) + \delta \mathbb{E}[f(\omega,\mu_{t+1}) | \mu_t, \gamma^1_t \bigg] \bigg) \nonumber$$ A value iteration sequence with $V^1_0=0$ and $V_{t+1}=\mathbb{T}(V_t)$ leads to a stationary solution. This is an infinite horizon discounted payoff optimal dynamic programming equation with a compact (belief) state space and a finite action spaces (where the strategy is now the [*action*]{} $\gamma^1_t$). Since the action set is finite in our formulation, it follows that there is a stationary solution as $t \to \infty$. Thus, the sequence of maximizations\
$\sup_{\gamma^1} \mathbb{E}[\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \delta^t u^1(a^1_t, a^2_t)]$ leads to a stationary solution as $T \to \infty$, and this sequence of policies admit the structure stated in the statement of the theorem. As a result, we can state that such strategies are optimal also for the infinite horizon setup, and the dependence on $t$ is eliminated.
Proof of Proposition \[IdenCon\].
---------------------------------
Following Gossner [@gossner11], we know that the conditional relative entropy $$\mathbb{E}\bigg[D\bigg( P_\sigma(z^2_t \in \cdot | h^2_t,\omega) || P_\sigma(z^2_t \in \cdot | h^2_t)| \bigg)\bigg] \to 0$$ and Pinsker’s inequality that convergence in total variation is implied by convergence in relative entropy; it follows that for every $z \in \mathbb{Z}^2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conver}
\mathbb{E}[|P_\sigma(z^2_t =z | h^2_t) - P_\sigma(z^2_t =z | h^2_t, \omega)|] \to 0\end{aligned}$$ But, $$P_\sigma(z^2_t =z | h^2_t) = \sum_{a^1} P_\sigma(z^2_t=z | a^1_t=a^1) P_\sigma(a^1_t=a^1 | h^2_t)$$ Thus, all we need to ensure is that Player 2’s belief on $P_\sigma(a^1_t | h^2_t)$ is sufficiently close to a terminal value. Suppose that the conditions of the theorem holds, but $|P_\sigma(a^1_t | h^2_t) - P_\sigma(a^1_t | h^2_t, \omega)| > \delta$ for some subsequence of time values. If the rank of $A$ is $|\mathbb{A}^1|$, then, $|P_\sigma(a^1_t | h^2_t) - P_\sigma(a^1_t | h^2_t, \omega)| > \delta$ would imply that $|P_\sigma(z^2_t | h^2_t) - P_\sigma(z^2_t | h^2_t, \omega)| > \epsilon$ for some positive $\epsilon$, which would be a contradiction (to see this, observe that the vector $P_\sigma(a^1_t | h^2_t) - P_\sigma(a^1_t | h^2_t, \omega)$ cannot be orthogonal to each of the rows of $A$, due to the rank condition). In particular, (\[conver\]) implies the convergence of $P_\sigma(a^1_t | h^2_t)$ to a limit. Furthermore, Jensen’s inequality implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conver2}
|\mathbb{E}[P_\sigma(z^2_t =z | h^2_t) - P_\sigma(z^2_t =z | h^2_t, \omega)]| \leq \mathbb{E}[|P_\sigma(z^2_t =z | h^2_t) - P_\sigma(z^2_t =z | h^2_t, \omega)|] \to 0\end{aligned}$$ and thus in finite expected time the deviation in the conditional probabilities will be less than a prescribed amount and Assumption \[unifIdentifiability\] holds.
Proof of Theorem \[ACOE\]
-------------------------
Note the following [*Abelian*]{} inequalities (see, e.g., Lemma 5.3.1 in Hernandez-Lerma and Lasserre [@HernandezLermaMCP]): Let $a_n$ be a sequence of non-negative numbers and $\beta \in (0,1)$. Then, $$\label{Tauberian} \index{TauberienTheorem}
\liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} a_m \leq \liminf_{\beta \uparrow 1} (1 - \beta) \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \beta^m a_m
\leq \limsup_{\beta \uparrow 1} (1 - \beta) \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \beta^m a_m \leq \limsup_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} a_m$$
Thus, for every strategy pair $\sigma^1, \sigma^2$, and $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta_{\epsilon}$ (depending possibly on the strategies) so that $$\mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0} (1 - \delta_{\epsilon}) \bigg[\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \beta_{\epsilon}^m u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg] + \epsilon \geq \liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0} \bigg[ \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg]$$
Now, let $\sigma^1_n, \sigma^2_n$ be a sequence of strategies which converge to the supremum for the average payoff. Let $\tilde{\sigma}^1_n$, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_n$ be one which comes within $\epsilon/2$ of the supremum so that $$\sup_{\sigma^1,\sigma^2} \limsup_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1,\sigma^2} \bigg[ \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg] \leq \limsup_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{\sigma}^1_n,\tilde{\sigma}^2_n} \bigg[ \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg] + \epsilon/2$$
Let now $\delta_{\epsilon}$ close to 1 be a discount factor whose optimal comes within $\epsilon/2$ of the limit when $\delta=1$. For this parameter, under $\tilde{\sigma}^1_n,\tilde{\sigma}^2_n$ one obtains an upper bound on this payoff, which can be further upper bounded by optimizing over all possible strategies for this $\delta_{\epsilon}$ value. This leads to a stationary strategy. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sup_{\sigma^1,\sigma^2} \limsup_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1,\sigma^2} \bigg[ \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg] -\epsilon/2 \leq \limsup_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{\sigma}^1_n,\tilde{\sigma}^2_n} \bigg[ \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg] \bigg] \nonumber\\
&& \leq \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{\sigma}^1_n,\tilde{\sigma}^2_n} (1 - \delta_{\epsilon}) \bigg[\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \delta_{\epsilon}^m u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg] + \epsilon/2 \leq \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{\sigma}^1,\tilde{\sigma}^2}(1 - \delta_{\epsilon}) \bigg[\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \delta_{\epsilon}^m u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg] + \epsilon/2 \nonumber \\
&& \leq \limsup_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{\sigma}^1,\tilde{\sigma}^2} \bigg[ \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg] + \epsilon/2 + \epsilon' \label{bound'}
$$ where $\epsilon'$ is a consequence of the following analysis. Under any stationary optimal strategy $\tilde{\sigma}^1,\tilde{\sigma}^2$ for a discounted problem, $$\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{\sigma}^1,\tilde{\sigma}^2}(1 - \delta_{\epsilon}) \bigg[\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \delta_{\epsilon}^m u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg] - \limsup_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{\sigma}^1,\tilde{\sigma}^2} \bigg[ \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\bigg] \label{unifS}$$ is uniformly bounded over all stationary policies under Assumption \[unifIdentifiability\]. Thus, one can select $\epsilon'$ and then $\epsilon$ arbitrarily small so that the result holds in the following fashion: First pick $\epsilon' > 0$, find a corresponding $\delta_{\epsilon'}$ with the understanding that for all $\delta_{\epsilon} \in [\delta_{\epsilon'},1)$, (\[bound’\]) holds. Now select $\delta_{\epsilon} \geq \delta_{\epsilon'}$ to satisfy the second inequality, such a $\delta_{\epsilon}$ is guaranteed to exist since there are infinitely many such $\delta$ values up to $1$ that satisfies this inequality. Here the uniformity of the convergence in (\[unifS\]) over all stationary policies is crucial.
In the above analysis, $\tilde{\sigma}^1, \tilde{\sigma}^2$ are stationary and with this stationary strategy, $$\lim_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}^{\mu^1, \mu^2}_{\mu_0}[\sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)] \to \int \nu^*(d\mu,\gamma) G(\mu,\gamma)$$ by the convergence of the expected empirical occupation measures, where $\nu^*$ is the invariant probability measure which has full support on the Stackelberg strategies.
This leads to the following result which says that the infimum over all strategies is equal to the infimum over strategies which satisfy the structure given in Lemma \[walrandType\], let us call such strategies $\Sigma_M$ : $$\inf_{\sigma^1} \liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m) = \inf_{\sigma^1 \in \Sigma_M} \liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0 = \mu^*} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)$$
Finally, we establish the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{\sigma^1} \liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m) = \inf_{\sigma^1 \in \Sigma_M} \liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)\end{aligned}$$
This follows from the fact that, $$\inf_{\sigma^1} \liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m) \geq \inf_{\sigma^1 \in \Sigma_M} \liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0 = \mu^*} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m)$$ and that by the identifiability condition through using the Stackelberg strategies optimal for $\mu_0 = \mu^*$ to an arbitrary $\mu_0$, one obtains that $$\inf_{\sigma^1} \liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m) - \inf_{\sigma^1 \in \Sigma_M} \liminf_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \mathbb{E}_{\sigma^1, \sigma^2}^{\mu_0 = \mu^*} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} u^1(a^1_m,a^2_m) = 0$$
On the other hand, once a strategy is given in $\Sigma_M$, due to the identifiability assumption, any optimal strategy will need to be infinite repetition of a stage game Stackelberg action.\
Proof of Lemma \[boundLearning\].
---------------------------------
Suppose that $\max_x u^2(a^1,x)=u^2(a^1,x^*)$. Let\
$P_\sigma(a^1|z^2_{[0,t]}) \geq 1 - \epsilon$. Let the maximum of $P_\sigma(a^1|z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(a^1,x) + \sum_{\bar{a}^1_j \neq a^1} P_\sigma(\bar{a}^1_j|z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(\bar{a}^1_j, x)$ be achieved by $x^*$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
P_\sigma(a^1|z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(a^1,x') +\sum_{\bar{a}^1_j \neq a^1} P_\sigma(\bar{a}^1_j|z^2_{[0,t]})u^2(\bar{a}^1_j, x') \nonumber \\
\leq P_\sigma(a^1|z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(a^1,x^*) + \sum_{\bar{a}^1_j \neq a^1} P_\sigma(\bar{a}^1_j|z^2_{[0,t]}) u^2(\bar{a}^1_j,x^*) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for any $x'$. For this to hold it suffices that $$P_\sigma(a^1|z^2_{[0,t]}) (u^2(a^1,x^*) - u^2(a^1,x')) \geq \max_{s,t} \epsilon u^2(s,t)$$ and since $P_\sigma(a^1|z^2_{[0,t]}) \geq 1 - \epsilon$, $$(u^2(a^1,x^*) - u^2(a^1,x')) \geq {\max_{s,t} \epsilon u^2(s,t) \over 1-\epsilon}.$$ If $P_\sigma(a^1|z^2_{[0,t]}) \geq 1 - \epsilon$ and for all $\bar{a}^1_j \neq a^1$ we have $P_\sigma(\bar{a}^1_j|z^2_{[0,t]}) \leq \epsilon/n$, (\[criterion\]) holds.
Proof of Theorem \[geometricBound\].
------------------------------------
(\[criterion\]) is equivalent to, by Bayes’ rule: $${P_\sigma(z^2_{[0,t]} | \hat{\omega} = m) \over P_\sigma(z^2_{[0,t]} | \hat{\omega} = k)} \geq {P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=k) f(n) \over P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=m)}$$ and $$\sum_{j=0}^n \log{(P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=m) \over (P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=k)} \geq \log\bigg( {P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=k) f(n) \over P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=m)} \bigg)$$ Note now that (\[criterion\]) implies that $\tau^{\omega}_N \leq t$. Thus, we can now apply a measure concentration result through McDiarmid’s inequality (see Raginsky and Sason [@raginsky2012concentration]) to deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
&& P_\sigma(\tau_N \geq t) \nonumber \\
&& \leq P\bigg( \sum_{j=0}^t \log({P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=m) \over P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=k)}) \leq \log({P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=k) f(n) \over P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=m)}) \bigg) \nonumber \\
&&\leq P\bigg({1 \over t+1} \sum_{j=0}^t \log({P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=m) \over P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=k)}) - \mathbb{E}[\log{(P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=m) \over (P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=k)}] \nonumber \\
&& \quad \quad \quad \quad \leq {1 \over t+1} \log({P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=k) f(n) \over P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=m)}) - \mathbb{E}[\log{(P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=m) \over (P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=k)}] \bigg) \nonumber \\
&& \leq P\bigg( \bigg| {1 \over t+1} \sum_{j=0}^t \log({P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=m) \over P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=k)}) - \mathbb{E}[\log{(P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=m) \over (P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=k)}] \bigg| \nonumber \\
&& \quad \quad \quad \quad \geq | \mathbb{E}[\log{(P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=m) \over (P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=k)}] - {1 \over t+1} \log({P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=k) f(n) \over P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=m)}) | \bigg) \nonumber \\
&& \leq 2 e^{-n \bigg(\mathbb{E}[\log{(P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=m) \over (P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=k)}] - {1 \over t+1} \log({P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=k) f(n) \over P_\sigma(\hat{\omega}=m)}) \bigg)^2/(b-a)}\end{aligned}$$ where $a \leq \mathbb{Z}^j \leq b$ with $\mathbb{Z}^j = {P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=m) \over P_\sigma(z^2_j|\hat{\omega}=k)}$. This implies, since $\log(n)/n \to 0$ and $f(n) = n (1-\epsilon)/\epsilon$ and by Lemma \[boundLearning\], that the probability of $\tau_N \geq t$ is upper bounded asymptotically by a geometric random variable, that is, there exists $R < \infty$ and $\rho \in (0,1)$ so that for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$, $P_\sigma(\tau_{m} \geq t) \leq R \rho^{t}$.
Proof of Lemma \[weakContKernel\].
----------------------------------
From (\[walvarRecursion\]), we observe the following. Let $f$ be a continuous function on $\Delta(\Omega)$. Then\
$E[f(\mu_{t+1})|\mu_t,\gamma^1_t]$ is continuous in $(\mu_t, \gamma^1_t)$ if $\sum_{z^2_t} f(H(\mu_t,z^2_t,\gamma^1_t)) P_\sigma(z^2_t|\gamma^1_t)$ is continuous in $\mu_t, \gamma^1_t$ where $\mu_{t+1} = H(\mu_t,z^2_t,\gamma^1_t)$ defined by (\[walvarRecursion\]) with the variables $$1_{\{\gamma^1_t(\omega,z^2_{[0,t-1]}) = a^1_{t}\}} = P_\sigma(a^1_{t} | \omega, z^2_{[0,t-1]}), \quad \mu_t(\omega)= P_\sigma(\omega |z^2_{[0,t-1]}) \nonumber$$ Instead of considering continuous functions on $\Delta(\Omega)$, we can also consider continuity of $\mu_{t+1}(\omega)$ for every $\omega$ since pointwise convergence implies convergence in total variation and which in turn implies convergence under weak convergence by Scheffé’s Theorem. Now, for every fixed $z^2_t=z$, $\mu_{t+1}(\omega)$ is continuous in $\mu_t$ for every $\omega$, and hence $H(\mu_t,z^2_t,\gamma^1_t)$ is continuous in total variation since pointwise convergence implies convergence in total variation. Furthermore, $P_\sigma(z^2_t|\gamma^1_t,\mu_t)$ is continuous in $\mu_t$ for a given $\gamma^1_t$; thus, weak continuity follows.
[10]{}
D. Abreu, D. Pearce, and E. Stacchetti. Toward a theory of discounted repeated games with imperfect monitoring. , 58(5):1041–1063, 1990.
A. Atakan and M. Ekmekci. Reputation in long-run relationships. , 79(2):451–480, 2012.
A. Atakan and M. Ekmekci. A two-sided reputation result with long-run players. , 148(1):376–392, 2013.
A. Atakan and M. Ekmekci. Reputation in the long-run with imperfect monitoring. forthcoming [*Journal of Economic Theory*]{}.
P. Bolton and M. Dewatripont. . MIT Press, 2005.
V. S. Borkar. . Springer, 2012.
V. S. Borkar. White-noise representations in stochastic realization theory. , 31:1093–1102, 1993.
V. S. Borkar, S. K. Mitter, and S. Tatikonda. Optimal sequential vector quantization of [M]{}arkov sources. , 40:135–148, 2001.
M.W. Cripps, G.J. Mailath, and L. Samuelson. Imperfect monitoring and impermanent reputations. , 72(2):407–432, 2004.
M.W. Cripps and J.P. Thomas. Reputation and commitment in two-person repeated games without discounting. , 63(6): 1401–1419, 1995.
N.A. Dalkiran. Order of limits in reputations. , 81(3): 393– 411, 2016.
L. Epstein, J. Noor, and A. Sandroni. Non-Bayesian Learning. , 10(1):Article 3, 2010.
M. Ekmekci. Sustainable reputations with rating systems. , 146(2):479–503, 2011.
M. Ekmekci, O. Gossner, and A. Wilson. Impermanent types and permanent reputation. , 147(1):162–178, 2012.
E. Faingold. Reputation and the flow of information in repeated games. mimeo, 2017.
E. Faingold and Y. Sannikov. Reputation in continuous-time games. , 79(3):773–876, 2011.
D. Fudenberg, D. M. Kreps, and E. Maskin. Repeated games with long-run and short-run players. , 57:555–573, 1990.
D. Fudenberg and D.K. Levine. Reputation and equilibrium selection in games with a patient player. , 57(4):759–778, 1989.
D. Fudenberg and D.K. Levine. Maintaining a reputation when strategies are imperfectly observed. , 59(3):561–579, 1992.
D. Fudenberg and D.K. Levine. Efficiency and observability with long-run and short-run players. , 62(1):103–135, 1994.
D. Fudenberg, D.K. Levine, and E. Maskin. The folk theorem with imperfect public information. , 62(5):997–1039, 1994.
D. Fudenberg and E. Maskin. The folk theorem in repeated games with discounting or with incomplete information. , 54(3):533–554, 1986.
O. Gossner. Simple bounds on the value of a reputation. , 79:1627–1641, 2011.
O. Hernandez-Lerma and J. Lasserre. . Springer, 1996.
O. Hernández-Lerma and J.B. Lasserre. . Springer, 1999.
J. Hörner and S. Lovo. Belief-free equilibria in games with incomplete information. , 77(2):453–487, 2009.
E. Kalai and E. Lehrer. Rational learning leads to nash equilibrium. , 61(5):1019–1045, 1993.
E. Kalai and E. Lehrer. Weak and strong merging of opinions. , 23(1):73–86, 1994.
D. M. Kreps, P. Milgrom, D. Roberts, and R. Wilson. Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma. , 27(2):245–252, 1982.
D. M. Kreps and R. Wilson. Reputation and imperfect information. , 27(2):253–279, 1982.
T. Linder and S. Yüksel. On optimal zero-delay quantization of vector [M]{}arkov sources. , 60:2975–5991, October 2014.
Q. Liu. Information acquisition and reputation dynamics. , 78(4):1400–1425, 2011.
Q. Liu and A. Skrzypacz. Limited records and reputation bubbles. , 151:2–29, 2014.
A. Mahajan and D. Teneketzis. On the design of globally optimal communication strategies for real-time noisy communication with noisy feedback. , 26:580–595, May 2008.
G.J. Mailath and L. Samuelson. . Oxford University Press, 2006.
P. Milgrom and D. Roberts. Predation, reputation and entry deterrence. , 27(2):280–312, 1982.
A. Özdogan. Disappearance of reputations in two-sided incomplete-information games. , 88:211–220, 2014.
M. Raginsky and I. Sason. Concentration of measure inequalities in information theory, communications and coding. , 2012.
S. Saritas, S. Yüksel, and S. Gezici. Quadratic multi-dimensional signaling games and affine equilibria. , vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 605–619, Feb. 2017.
S. Sorin. Merging, reputation, and repeated games with incomplete information. , 29:274–308, 1999.
D. Teneketzis. On the structure of optimal real-time encoders and decoders in noisy communication. , 52:4017–4035, September 2006.
J. C. Walrand and P. Varaiya. Optimal causal coding-decoding problems. , 19:814–820, November 1983.
H. S. Witsenhausen. On the structure of real-time source coders. , 58:1437–1451, July/August 1979.
R. G. Wood, T. Linder, and S. Y[ü]{}ksel. Optimal Zero Delay Coding of Markov Sources: Stationary and Finite Memory Codes. , 63:5968–5980, April 2017.
S. Yüksel. On optimal causal coding of partially observed [M]{}arkov sources in single and multi-terminal settings. , 59:424–437, January 2013.
S. Yüksel and T. Başar. . Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 2013.
[**Nuh Aygün Dalkiran**]{} received his B.Sc. degrees in Economics and Mathematics from Middle East Technical University in 2004, his M.A. degree in Economics from Sabanci Univesity in 2006, and his Ph.D. degree in Managerial Economics and Strategy from Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University in 2012. He started working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at Bilkent University in 2012. His research interests are on game theory, repeated games and reputations, economics of information, and decision theory.
[**Serdar Yüksel**]{} (S’02, M’11) received his B.Sc. degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Bilkent University in 2001; M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign in 2003 and 2006, respectively. He was a post-doctoral researcher at Yale University for a year before joining Queen’s University as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics and Engineering in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, where he is now an Associate Professor. He has been awarded the 2013 CAIMS/PIMS Early Career Award in Applied Mathematics. His research interests are on stochastic control, decentralized control, information theory, and applied probability. He is an Associate Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL and Automatica.
[^1]: N.A. Dalkiran is with the Department of Economics, Bilkent University, Çankaya, Ankara, 06800, Turkey; email: [email protected]. S. Yüksel is with the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada; email: [email protected]. This paper was presented in part at the 2nd Occasional Workshop in Economic Theory at University of Graz, the 69th European Meeting of the Econometric Society, Geneva, Switzerland, and the 11th World Congress of the Econometric Society, Montreal, Canada. This research was partially supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
[^2]: $\Delta(\mathbb{A}^i)$ denotes the set of all probability measures on $\mathbb{A}^i$ for both $i=1,2$.
[^3]: Note that Player 1 gets to observe the realizations of his earlier mixed actions.
[^4]: A Bayesian rational Player 2 tries to maximize his expected payoff after updating his beliefs according to the Bayes’ rule whenever possible. Some of our structural results on equilibrium behavior does not require Bayesian rationality and holds for non-Bayesian Player 2s who might underreact or overreact to new (or recent) information as in [@epsteinnoorsandroni10] as well.
[^5]: This will be appropriately modified when we consider the undiscounted setup.
[^6]: Note that the stage game is a sequential-move game, the payoffs are summarized in a payoff matrix just for illustrative purposes.
[^7]: A relevant result appears in [@fudenberglevine94], which shows that sequential equilibrium payoffs and perfect public equilibrium payoffs coincide (See the Appendix B of [@fudenberglevine94]) in a similar infinitely repeated game setup.
[^8]: We note that randomized strategies may also be considered by adding a randomization variable.
[^9]: ${\cal B}(\Delta(\Omega))$ is the set of all Borel sets on $\Delta(\Omega)$.
[^10]: A Perfect Public Equilibrium is a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium where each player uses a public strategy, i.e., a strategy that only depends on the information which is available to both players.
[^11]: A Markov Perfect Equilibrium is a Perfect Bayesian equilibrium where there is a payoff-relevant state space and both players are playing Markov strategies that only depend on the state variable.
[^12]: Even though there is a large literature on repeated games with incomplete information in the undiscounted setup, the only papers that we know of that study the reputation games explicitly in the this setup are [@CrippsThomas95] and [@sorin99]. As opposed to our model, [@CrippsThomas95] analyzes a two-person reputation game where both of the players are long-lived. On the other hand, [@sorin99] unifies results from merging of probabilities, reputation, and repeated games with incomplete information in both discounted and undiscounted setups.
[^13]: Equation (\[DP\]) appears in the proof of Lemma \[walrandType\] in the Appendix.
[^14]: The dynamic program (\[DP\]) appears in the proof of Lemma \[walrandType\] in the Appendix.
[^15]: This conjecture appears as a presumption of [@crippsmailathsamuelson04 Theorem 3]. They write “We conjecture this hypothesis is redundant, given the other conditions of the theorem, but have not been able to prove it”.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the linear water-wave problem in a periodic channel which consists of infinitely many identical containers connected with apertures of width $\epsilon$. Motivated by applications to surface wave propagation phenomena, we study the band-gap structure of the continuous spectrum. We show that for small apertures there exists a large number of gaps and also find asymptotic formulas for the position of the gaps as $\epsilon \to 0$: the endpoints are determined within corrections of order $\epsilon^{3/2}$. The width of the first bands is shown to be $O(\epsilon)$. Finally, we give a sufficient condition which guarantees that the spectral bands do not degenerate into eigenvalues of infinite multiplicity.'
author:
- 'F.L. Bakharev , K. Ruotsalainen, J. Taskinen'
title: Spectral gaps for the linear surface wave model in periodic channels
---
*Chebyshev Laboratory, St. Petersburg State University, 14th Line, 29b, Saint Petersburg, 199178 Russia[^1]*
University of Oulu, Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, Mathematics Division, P.O. Box 4500, FI-90401 Oulu, Finland
University of Helsinki, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P.O. Box 68, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland.
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Overview of the results {#sec:1.1}
-----------------------
Research on wave propagation phenomena in periodic media has been very active during many decades. The topics and applications include for example photonic crystals, meta-materials, Bragg gratings of surface plasmon polariton waveguides, energy harvesting in piezoelectric materials as well as surface wave propagation in periodic channels, which is the subject of this paper. A standard mathematical approach consists of linearisation and posing a spectral problem for an elliptic, hopefully self-adjoint, equation or system.
Early on it was noticed that waves propagating in periodic media have spectra with allowed bands separated by forbidden frequency gaps. This phenomenon was first discussed by Lord Rayleigh [@LordRa]. It has also attracted some interest in coastal engineering because it provides a possible means of protection against wave damages [@Mat; @Mei], for example by varying the bottom topography by periodic arrangements of sandbars. The existence of forbidden frequencies is conventionally related to Bragg reflection of water waves by periodic structures. Here, Bragg reflection is an enhanced reflection which occurs when the wavelength of an incident surface wave is approximately twice the wavelength of the periodic structure. This mechanism works, if the waves are relatively long so that the depth changes can effect them [@Mei].
A similar phenomenon may also happen, when waves are propagating along a channel with periodically varying width. In [@Liu], and later [@McKee], the authors studied a channel, the wall of which had a periodic stepped structure. Using resonant interaction theory they were able to verify that significant wave reflection could occur. These results are based on the assumption of small wall irregularities.
Gaps in the continuous spectrum for equations or systems in unbounded waveguides have been studied in many papers, and we refer to [@Kuch] for an introduction to the topic. In [@NaRuTa] the authors studied the linear elasticity system and proved the existence of arbitrarily (though still finitely) many gaps, the number of them depending on a small geometric parameter; the approach is similar to Section 3.1, below, and the result is analogous to Corollary \[cor3.2\]. In the setting of the linear water-wave problem, spectral gaps have been studied in [@lin], [@McI], [@na460] and [@CaMI], though the point of view is different from the present work.
In this paper we consider surface wave propagation using the linear water wave equation with spectral Steklov boundary condition on the free water surface, see the equations –, which are called the original problem here. The water-filled domain $\Pi^\epsilon$ forms an unbounded periodic channel consisting of infinitely many identical bounded containers connected by apertures of width $\epsilon >0$, see Figure \[fig1\]. The first results, Theorem \[th3.1\] and Corollary \[cor3.2\] show that the essential spectrum $\sigma$ of the original problem (which is expected to be non-empty due to the unboundedness of the domain) has gaps, and the number of them can be made arbitrarily large depending on the parameter $\epsilon$. An explanation of this phenomenon can be outlined rather simply using the Floquet-Bloch theory, though a lot of technicalities will eventually be involved. Namely, if $\epsilon = 0$, the domain becomes a disjoint union of infinitely many bounded containers, and the water-wave problem reduces to a problem on a bounded domain (we call it the limit problem), hence it has a discrete spectrum consisting of an increasing sequence of eigenvalues $(\Lambda_k^0)_{k=1}^\infty$. On the other hand, for $\epsilon > 0$, one can use the Gelfand transform to render the original problem into another bounded domain problem depending on the additional parameter $\eta \in [0, 2\pi)$. For each fixed $\eta$ this problem again has a sequence of eigenvalues $(\Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta))_{k=1}^\infty$. Moreover, by results of [@na17], [@NaPl], Theorem 3.4.6, and [@NaSpec], Theorem 2.1, the essential spectrum $\sigma$ of the problem – equals $$\sigma = \bigcup_{k=1}^\infty \Upsilon_k^\epsilon \ , \ \
\Upsilon_k^\epsilon = \{ \Lambda_k^\epsilon (\eta) \, : \,
\eta \in [0,2 \pi) \} ,
\label{eq1.1}$$ where the sets $\Upsilon_k^\epsilon$ are subintervals of the positive real axis, or bands of the spectrum. (For the use of this so called Bloch spectrum in other problems, see for example [@FG], or [@AC].) In general, those bands may overlap making $\sigma$ connected, but in Theorem \[th3.1\] we obtain asymptotic estimates for the lower and upper endpoints of $\Upsilon_k^\epsilon$: we show that $\Lambda_k^0 \leq \Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta) \leq \Lambda_k^0 + C_k \epsilon$ for all $k$ and $\eta$ and for some constants $C_k >0$. In view of this implies the existence of a spectral gap between $\Upsilon_k^\epsilon$ and $\Upsilon_{k+1}$ for small $\epsilon $ and $k$ such that $\Lambda_k^0 \not= \Lambda_{k+1}^0$. However, since the estimates depend also on $k$, we can only open a gap for finitely many $k$, though the number of gaps tends to infinity as $\epsilon \to 0$.
The asymptotic position (as $\epsilon \to 0$) of the gaps is determined more accurately in Theorems \[th4.5\] and \[cor4.6\]: those main results state that $$\Upsilon_k^\epsilon=(\Lambda_k^0+A_k\epsilon+O(\epsilon^{3/2}), \Lambda_k^0+B_k\epsilon+O(\epsilon^{3/2}))$$ where the numbers $A_k \leq B_k$ depend linearly on the three dimensional capacity of the set $\theta$. This result also ensures that in case $A_k \not= B_k$ the bands $\Upsilon_k^\epsilon$ do not degenerate into single points, which means that the spectrum of the original problem indeed has a genuine band-gap structure. Facts concerning the numbers $A_k$, $B_k$ are discussed after Theorem \[cor4.6\].
As for the structure of this paper, we recall in Section \[sec:1.2\] the exact formulation of the linear water-wave problem, its variational formulation as well as the parameter dependent problem arising from the Gelfand transform, and the limit problem. Section \[sec:3\] contains the formal asymptotic analysis which relates the spectral properties of the original problem with the limit problem and which is rigorously justified in Secion \[sec:4\]. The main results, Theorems \[th3.1\], \[th4.5\] and \[cor4.6\] as well as Corollary \[cor3.2\] are also given in Section \[sec:4\]. The proofs are based on the max-min principle and construction of suitable test functions adjusted to the geometric characteristics of the domains under study.
Acknowledgement. The authors want to thank Prof. Sergey A. Nazarov for many discussions on the topic of this work.
Formulation of the problem, operator theoretic tools {#sec:1.2}
----------------------------------------------------
Let us proceed with the exact formulation of the problem. We consider an infinite periodic channel $\Pi^\epsilon$ (see ), consisting of water containers connected by small apertures of diameter $O(\epsilon)$. The coordinates of the points in the channel are denoted by $x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(y_1,y_2,z) = (y,z) $, and $x'=(x_2,x_3)$ stands for the projection of $x$ to the plane $\{x_1=0\}$. We choose the coordinate system in such a way that the axis of the channel is in $x_1$-direction and the free surface is in the plane $\{x_3=0\}$.
![Side view of the waveguide (a) and of the periodicity cell (b)[]{data-label="fig1"}](BaRuTa1_new.eps){width="10cm"}
We describe the geometric assumptions on the periodicity cell in detail, as well as some related technical tools including the cut-off funcions. Let us denote by $\varpi_\bullet\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ a domain with a Lipschitz boundary and compact closure such that its intersections with $\{x_1=0\}$- and $\{x_1=1\}$-planes are simply connected planar domains with positive area and contain the points ${P^0}=(0,P_2,P_3)$ and ${P^1}=(1,P_2,P_3)$ with $P_3 < 0$, respectively; these points are fixed throughout the paper. Then the periodicity cell and its translates are defined by setting (see Figure \[fig1\]) $$\label{baths}
\varpi=\{x\in \varpi_\bullet: x_3<0, x_1\in (0,1)\},\quad
\varpi_j=\{x: (x_1-j,x_2,x_3)\in \varpi\}, \ j \in {\mathbb Z}.$$ Furthermore, we assume that the set $\theta\subset {\mathbb R^2}$ is a bounded planar domain containing the origin $(0,0)$ and that the boundary $\partial \theta$ is at least $C^2$-smooth. We assume that $\theta$ is so small that the set $\{ 0 \} \times \overline{ \big( 2 \theta +(P_2, P_3) \big) }$ is contained in $\partial \varpi$ and $\sup \limits_{(x_2,x_3) \in \theta} (x_3 + P_3) =: d_\theta < 0$. We define the apertures between the container walls as the sets $$\label{apertures}
\theta_j^\epsilon=\big\{x=(j,x'):\, \epsilon^{-1} \big(x'-(P_2,P_3)\big)\in \theta\big\},
\ j \in {\mathbb Z}.$$ It is plain that $x_3 < 0$ for $x \in \theta_j^\epsilon$ for all $0 < \epsilon \leq 1$, by the choice of $d_\theta$. We shall need at several places a cut-off function $$\label{1.11}
\chi_\theta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb{R}^3) ,$$ which is equal to one in a neighbourhood of the set $\{ 0 \} \times \overline{\theta}$ and vanishes outside another compact neighbourhood of $\{ 0 \} \times \overline{\theta}$. More precisely, we require that $$\begin{aligned}
& & \big( {\rm supp}\, (\chi_\theta ) + (0,P_2,P_3) \big) \cap
\{ x_1 = 0\} \subset \partial \varpi , \nonumber \\
& & \big( {\rm supp}\, (\chi_\theta ) + (0,P_2,P_3) \big) \ \cap \{ x_1 > 0\} \subset \varpi
\label{1.11ab}\end{aligned}$$ (this is possible by the specifications made on $\theta$) and $\chi_\theta(x)$ vanishes, if $|x_1| \geq 1/4 $ or $ x_3 + P_3 \geq d_\theta/2$. We also assume that $\partial_{x_1} \chi_\theta= 0$, when $x_1 = 0 $. Furthermore, denoting $\chi_j (x) = \chi_\theta (x- P^j )$, it follows from the above specifications that $\chi_j(x) = 0$, if $x_3 \geq d_\theta/2$; in particular $\chi_j$ vanishes on the free water surface $\gamma$. Finally, we shall need the scaled cut-off functions $$\label{defex}
X^\epsilon_j = \chi_\theta( \epsilon^{-1}(x-P^j)) .$$ It is plain that also $X^\epsilon_j$ vanishes on $\gamma$ for $0 < \epsilon \leq 1$ and that $X^\epsilon_j(x) = 1$ for $x \in \theta_j^\epsilon$, $j=0,1$.
The periodic water channel is defined by $$\label{channel}
\Pi^\epsilon=\bigcup_{j\in{\mathbb Z}} ({\varpi_j\cup \theta_j^\epsilon}) ,$$ and it will be the main object of our investigation. The free surface of the channel is denoted by $\Gamma^{\epsilon}=\partial \Pi^{\epsilon}\cap \{x_3=0\}$, and the wall and bottom part of the boundary is $\Sigma^\epsilon=\partial \Pi^\epsilon\setminus \overline{\Gamma^\epsilon}$. The boundary of the isolated container $\varpi$, the periodicity cell, consists of the free surface $\gamma$ and the wall and bottom $\sigma^\epsilon$ with two apertures $\theta_0^\epsilon$ and $\theta_1^\epsilon$.
\[rem1.1\] We shall use the following general notation. Given a domain $\Xi $, the symbol $(\cdot,\cdot)_\Xi$ stands for the natural scalar product in $L^2(\Xi)$, and $H^k(\Xi)$, $k\in \mathbb{N}$, for the standard Sobolev space of order $k$ on $\Xi$. The norm of a function $f$ belonging to a Banach function space $X$ is denoted by $\Vert f ; X \Vert$. For $r >0$ and $a \in \mathbb{R}^N$, $B_r (a)$ (respectively, $S_r(a)$ ) stands for the Euclidean ball (resp. ball surface) with centre $a$ and radius $r$. By $C,c$ (respectively, $C_k$, $c_k$, $C(k)$ etc.) we mean positive constans (resp. constants depending on a parameter $k$) which do not depend on functions or variables appearing in the inequalities, but which may still vary from place to place. The gradient and Laplace operators $\nabla$ and $\Delta$ act in variable $x$, unless otherwise indicated.
In the framework of the linear water-wave theory we consider the spectral Steklov problem in the channel $\Pi^{\epsilon}$, $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta u^\epsilon(x) =0 &\quad &\mbox{for all} \ x\in \Pi^\epsilon, \label{problem} \\
\label{b-cond-1}
\partial_nu^{\epsilon}(x)=0 &\quad &\mbox{for a.e.} \ x\in\Sigma^\epsilon,\\
\label{b-cond}
\partial_z u^\epsilon(x)=\lambda^\epsilon u^\epsilon(x) &\quad &\mbox{for a.e.} \
x\in\Gamma^\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Here $u^\epsilon$ is the velocity potential, $\lambda^\epsilon=g^{-1}\omega^2$ is a spectral parameter related to the frequency of harmonic oscillations $\omega>0$ and the acceleration of gravity $g$. By the geometric assumptions made above, the outward normal derivative $\partial_n$ is defined almost everywhere on $\Sigma^\epsilon$. It coincides with $\partial_z=\partial/\partial_z$ on the free surface $\Gamma^\epsilon$.
The rest of this section is devoted to presenting the operator theoretic tools which will be needed later to prove our results: Gelfand transform, variational formulation of the boundary value problems, and max-min-formulas for eigenvalues. The spectral problem (\[problem\])–(\[b-cond\]) can be transformed into a family of spectral problems in the periodicity cell using the Gelfand transform. We briefly recall its definition: $$\label{Gelfand}
v(y,z)\mapsto\ V(y,z,\eta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}
\exp(-i\eta(z+j))v(y,z+j),$$ where $(y,z)\in \Pi^\epsilon$ on the left while $\eta\in[0,2\pi)$ and $(y,z)\in\varpi$ on the right. As is well known, the Gelfand transform establishes an isometric isomorphism between the Lebesgue spaces, $$L^2(\Pi^\epsilon)\simeq L^2(0,2\pi; L^2(\varpi)),$$ where $L^2(0,2\pi;B)$ is the Lebesgue space of functions with values in the Banach space $B$ endowed with the norm $$\|V;L^2(0,2\pi; B)\|=\left(\int_0^{2\pi}\|V(\eta);B\|^2d\eta\right)^{1/2}\,.$$ The Gelfand transform is also an isomorphism from the Sobolev space $H^l(\Pi^\epsilon)$ onto $L^2(0,2\pi; H^l_{\epsilon,\eta}(\varpi))$ for $l=1,2$. The space $H^2_{\epsilon,\eta}(\varpi)$ consists of Sobolev functions $u$ which satisfy the quasi-periodicity conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qua-1}
u(0,x')=e^{-i\eta}u(1,x'), &\quad& (0,x')\in \theta_0^\epsilon, \\
\label{qua-2}
\partial_{x_1}u(0,x')=e^{-i\eta}\partial_{x_1}u(1,x'), &\quad& (0,x')\in \theta_0^\epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ whereas $H^1_{\epsilon,\eta}(\varpi)$ is the Sobolev space with the condition only.
Applying the Gelfand transform to the differential equation and to the boundary conditions –, we obtain a family of model problems in the periodicity cell $\varpi$ parametrized by the dual variable $\eta$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{model}
-\Delta U^\epsilon(x;\eta)=0, &\quad& x\in \varpi, \\
\label{model-b-cond-1}
\partial_nU^\epsilon(x;\eta)=0, &\quad& x\in \sigma^\epsilon,\\
\label{model-b-cond-2}
\partial_zU^\epsilon(x;\eta)=\Lambda^\epsilon (\eta) U^\epsilon(x; \eta), &\quad& x\in \gamma, \\
\label{quasiperiodic-1}
U^\epsilon(0,x';\eta)=e^{-i\eta}U^\epsilon (1,x';\eta),
&\quad& x\in \theta_0^\epsilon, \\
\label{quasiperiodic-2}
\partial_{x_1}U^\epsilon(0,x';\eta)=e^{-i\eta}\partial_{x_1}U^\epsilon (1,x';\eta),
&\quad& x\in \theta_0^\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Lambda^\epsilon = \Lambda^\epsilon (\eta)$ is a new notation for the spectral parameter $\lambda^\epsilon$. More details on the use of the Gelfand-transform can be found e.g. in [@NaRuTa], Section 2.
The apertures disappear at $\epsilon=0$ so in that case the also quasi-periodicity conditions cease to exist. Hence, we can consider the problem – as a singular perturbation of the limit spectral problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{model-0}
-\Delta U^0(x)=0, &\quad& x\in \varpi, \\
\label{model-0-b-cond-1}
\partial_nU^0(x)=0, &\quad& x\in \sigma,\\
\label{model-0-b-cond-2}
\partial_zU^0(x)=\Lambda^0 U^0(x), &\quad& x\in \gamma\end{aligned}$$ with $\Lambda^0$ as a spectral parameter.
Our approach to the spectral properties of model and limit problems is similar to [@NaTa], Sections 1.2, 1.3.. We first write the variational form of the problem (\[model\])–(\[quasiperiodic-2\]) for the unknown function $U^\epsilon \in H_{\epsilon,\eta}^1(\varpi)$ as $$\label{spectralvar}
(\nabla U^\epsilon,\nabla
V)_{\varpi}=\Lambda^\epsilon
(U^\epsilon,V)_\gamma \, , \ V\in H^1_{\epsilon,\eta}(\varpi) ,$$ and the corresponding variational formulation of the limit problem for $U\in H^1(\varpi)$ reads as $$\label{var_limit}
(\nabla U,\nabla V)_{\varpi}=\Lambda (U,V)_\gamma \, , \ V\in H^1(\varpi) .$$ We denote by ${\mathcal{H}}^\epsilon$ the space $H_{\epsilon,\eta}^1 (\varpi)$ endowed with the new scalar product $$(u,v)_\epsilon = (\nabla u , \nabla v)_{\varpi}
+ (u,v)_\gamma , \label{1.25}$$ and define a self-adjoint, positive and compact operator ${\mathcal{B}}^{\epsilon}(\eta):
{\mathcal{H}}^\epsilon \to {\mathcal{H}}^\epsilon$ using $$({\mathcal{B}}^{\epsilon}(\eta) u,v)_\epsilon = (u,v)_\gamma .\label{1.26}$$ The problem is then equivalent to the standard spectral problem $${\mathcal{B}}^{\epsilon}( \eta) u = M^\epsilon u \label{1.28}$$ with another spectral parameter $$M^\epsilon = (1 + \Lambda^\epsilon)^{-1}.\label{1.35}$$ Clearly, the spectrum of ${\mathcal{B}}^{\epsilon}(\eta)$ consist of 0 and a decreasing sequence $(M_k^{\epsilon}(\eta))_{k=1}^\infty$ of eigenvalues, which moreover can be calculated from the usual min-max formula $$M_k^\epsilon (\eta) = \min\limits_{E_k} \max\limits_{v \in E_k} \frac{({\mathcal{B}}^{\epsilon}(\eta) v,v)_\epsilon }{(v,v)_\epsilon} ,$$ where the minimum is taken over all subspaces $E_k \subset {\mathcal{H}}^\epsilon$ of co-dimension $k-1$. Using and , we can write a max-min formula for the eigenvalues of the problem : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{max-min-2}
& & \Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta) = \frac1{M_k^\epsilon(\eta)} -1
= \max\limits_{E_k} \min\limits_{v \in E_k}\frac{(\nabla v , \nabla v)_{\varpi}
+ (v,v)_\gamma }{(v,v)_\gamma }-1 \nonumber \\
& = & \max\limits_{E_k} \min\limits_{v \in E_k} \frac{ \Vert \nabla v ; L^2(\varpi) \Vert^2 }{\Vert v ;L^2(\gamma) \Vert^2 } \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the connection and the properties of the sequence $(M_k^{\epsilon}(\eta))_{k=1}^\infty$ mean that the eigenvalues form an unbounded sequence $$\label{seq}
0 \leq \Lambda_1^\epsilon(\eta) \le \Lambda_2^\epsilon(\eta) \le \ldots\le\Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta)\le\ldots\to+\infty .$$ The eigenfunctions can be assumed to form an orthonormal basis in the space $L^2(\varpi)$. The functions $\eta\mapsto\Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta)$ are continuous and $2\pi$-periodic (see for example [@Kato], Ch.9). Hence the sets $$\label{sets}
\Upsilon_k^\epsilon=\{\Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta):\eta\in [0,2\pi)\}$$ are closed connected segments, which may degenerate into single points; their relation to the original problem was already mentioned in .
The spectral concepts of the limit problem – can be treated in the same way as in –. Since the quasi-periodicity conditions vanish for $\varepsilon=0$, the space ${\mathcal{H}}^\epsilon$ is replaced by $H^1(\varpi)$; the norm induced by is now equivalent to the original Sobolev norm of $H^1(\varpi)$. We denote by $\mathcal{B} : H^1(\varpi) \to
H^1(\varpi)$ the operator defined as in –. The limit problem has an eigenvalue sequence $ (\Lambda^0_k)_{k=1}^\infty $ like , however, neither the eigenvalues nor the operator $\mathcal{B}$ depend on $\eta$ (cf. [@NaRuTa], Section 3). The first eigenvalue $\Lambda_1^{0}$ equals $0$, and the first eigenfunction is the constant function. Analogously to we can write $$\label{max-min-1}
\Lambda^0_k=\max_{F_k}\min_{v\in F_k}
\frac{\|\nabla v ;L^2(\varpi)\|^2}{\|v;L^2(\gamma)\|^2},$$ where again $F_k \subset H^1(\varpi)$ is running over all subspaces of codimension $k-1$. We denote by $$\label{1.45}
( U^0_k)_{k = 1}^\infty$$ an $L^2(\gamma)$-orthonormal sequence of eigenfunctions corresponding to the eigenvalues .
\[rem1.6\] For all $k$ there exists a constant $C_k > 0$ such that $$|U_k^0 (x)| \leq C_k \ , \ |\nabla U_k^0 (x)| \leq C_k$$ for all $x \in {\rm supp}\, (\chi_j)\cap \varpi$, $j=0,1$ (and hence for all $x \in {\rm supp}\, (X^\epsilon_j)\cap \varpi$, $0 < \epsilon \leq 1$).
Let for example $j=0$ (the other case is treated similarly), and define the domains $G_1, G_2 \subset {\mathbb{R}^3} $ with $C^\infty$ boundary such that $\overline{G_0 } := {\rm supp}\, (\chi_j)
\subset G_1 \subset \overline{ G_1 } \subset G_2 \subset \{ x_3 < 0\}$ and $G_2$ still so small that $$\label{1.45a}
G_2 \cap \{x_1 = 0\} \subset \partial \varpi \ \ {\rm and} \ \
\overline{G_2} \cap \{x_1 > 0\} \subset \varpi .$$ As a consequence, these domains are smooth enough so that we can use the local elliptic estimates [@ADN], Theorem 15.2, to the solutions $U_k^0$ of the equation : this yields for every $l= 1,2,\ldots$, a constant $C_{l,k} >0$ such that $$\Vert U_k^0 ; H^{l+1}(G_n \cap \varpi) \Vert \leq C_{l,k} \big( \Vert U_k^0 ; H^{l-1}(G_{n+1} \cap \varpi) \Vert
+ \Vert U_k^0 ; L^2 (G_{n+1} \cap \varpi) \Vert \big) \nonumber$$ for $n=0,1$. Applying this first with $n=1$ and $l=1$ we get a bound for $\Vert U_k^0 ; H^{2}(G_1 \cap \varpi) \Vert $ and then, with $n=0$ and $l=2$, for $\Vert U_k^0 ; H^{3}(G_0 \cap \varpi) \Vert $. The standard embeddings $H^2( G_1 \cap \varpi) \subset C_B (G_0 \cap \varpi)$ and $H^3(G_0\cap \varpi) \subset C_B^1 (G_0\cap \varpi)$ imply the result. $\Box$
The formal asymptotic procedure {#sec:3}
===============================
The case of a simple eigenvalue {#sec:3.1}
-------------------------------
To describe the asymptotic behaviour (as $\epsilon \to 0$) of the eigenvalues $\Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta)$ of the problem - we consider first the case $\Lambda_k^0$ is a simple eigenvalue of the problem - for some fixed $k$. Let us make the following *ansatz*: $$\label{ansatz1}
\Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta)=\Lambda_k^0+\epsilon\Lambda_k'(\eta)+
\widetilde{\Lambda}_k^\epsilon(\eta),$$ where $\Lambda_k'(\eta)$ is a correction term and $\widetilde{\Lambda}_k^\epsilon(\eta)$ a small remainder to be evaluated and estimated. In this section we derive the expression for $\Lambda_k'(\eta)$, cf. also and , and the remainder will be treated in Section \[sec:4.2\]
The corresponding asymptotic ansatz for the eigenfunction reads as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ansatz2}
U_k^{\epsilon}(x;\eta)&=&U_k^0(x)\\
&+& \chi_0(x)w_{k0}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^0}))+ \chi_1(x)w_{k1}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^1}))\nonumber\\
&+& \epsilon U_k'(x;\eta)+\widetilde{U}_k^\epsilon(x;\eta),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $ ( U^0_k)_{k = 1}^\infty$ is as in . The functions $w_{k0}$ and $w_{k1}$ are of boundary layer type, and $\chi_j$ is given above .
The boundary layers $w_{kj}$ depend on the “fast” variables (“stretched” coordinates) $$\xi^{j}=(\xi^j_1,\xi^j_2,\xi^j_3)=\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^j}),\quad j=0,1.$$ They are needed to compensate the fact that the leading term $U^0_k$ in the expansion does not satisfy the quasi-periodicity conditions –. By Lemma \[rem1.6\] and the mean value theorem, the eigenfunction $U_k^0(x)$ has the representation $$U_k^0(x)=U_k^0({P^j})+O(\epsilon), \quad x\in \theta_j^\epsilon$$ near the points ${P^j},\,j=0,1$. We look for $w_{k0}$ and $w_{k1}$ as the solutions of the problems $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\xi^0} w_{k0}(\xi^{0})=0, &\quad& \xi^0_1>0,\\
\partial_{\xi^0_1} w_{k0} (\xi^0)=0, &\quad&
\xi^0\in \{0\}\times ({\mathbb R}^2\setminus \overline{\theta}), \\
w_{k0}(\xi^0)=a_{k0}, &\quad& \xi^0\in\{0\}\times \theta,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\xi^1} w_{k1}(\xi^1)=0, &\quad& \xi^1_1<0,\\
\partial_{\xi^1_1} w_{k1} (\xi^1)=0, &\quad&
\xi^1\in \{0\}\times ({\mathbb R}^2\setminus \overline{\theta}), \\
w_{k1}(\xi^1)=a_{k1}, &\quad& \xi^1\in\{0\}\times \theta\,\end{aligned}$$ in the half spaces $\{\xi^0_1>0\}$ and $\{\xi^1_1<0\}$, respectively; the meaning of the numbers $a_{kj}$ will be explained below. Both of the functions $w_{kj},\,j=0,1,$ can be extended to even harmonic functions in the exterior of the set $\{0\}\times\theta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{harmonic}
\Delta_{\xi^j} w_{kj}(\xi^j)=0, &\quad& \xi^j\in {\mathbb R}^3\setminus (\{0\}\times\overline{\theta}),\\
w_{kj}(\xi^j)=a_{kj}, &\quad& \xi^j\in \partial (\{0\}\times\overline{\theta}) \,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the problem (\[harmonic\]) admits a solution (see [@PolyaSzego]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{layer0}
& & w_{kj}(\xi^j)=a_{kj}\frac{{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3 \theta}{|\xi^j|}+\widetilde{w}_{kj}(\xi^j), \\
\label{new2}
& & \widetilde{w}_{kj}(\xi^j)= O(|\xi^j|^{-2})\ ,
\ \nabla_{\xi^j} \widetilde{w}_{kj}(\xi^j)= O(|\xi^j|^{-3}),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3 (\theta)$ is the 3-dimensional capacity of the set $\{0\}\times\theta$ and concerns large $\xi^j$-behaviour. Moreover, the solution has a finite Dirichlet integral: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int_{{\mathbb R}^3} \big| \nabla_{\xi^j } w_{kj} (\xi^j) \big|^2 d\xi^j
\leq C
\label{new1} \end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C>0$.
We aim to choose the coefficients $a_{kj}$ such that $U_k^\epsilon$ satisfies the quasi-periodicity conditions – . Clearly, for each $\epsilon>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
U_k^\epsilon({P^0}; \eta)&=&e^{-i\eta}U_k^\epsilon({P^1}; \eta),\\
\partial_{x_1}U_k^\epsilon({P^0};\eta)&=&e^{-i\eta}\partial_{x_1}U_k^\epsilon({P^1};\eta),\end{aligned}$$ which together with the asymptotic expansion yield the relations $$U_k^0({P^0})+a_{k0}=e^{-i\eta}(U_k^0({P^1})+a_{k1}) \mbox{ and } a_{k0}=-e^{-i\eta}a_{k1}$$ for the coefficients. Hence, $$\label{ab}
a_{k1}=-e^{i\eta} a_{k0}, \quad
a_{k0}=\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{-i\eta}U_k^0({P^1})-U_k^0({P^0})\right).$$
Now we can write a model problem for the main asymptotic correction term $U_k'$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U'-eq}
-\Delta U_k' (x;\eta)= \Delta
W_k(x)
&\quad& x\in \varpi, \\
\label{U'-b-cond-1}
(\partial_z-\Lambda_k^0)U_k'(x;\eta)=\Lambda_k'(\eta)U_k^0(x), &\quad& x\in\gamma,\\
\label{U'-b-cond-2}
\partial_n U_k'(x ; \eta)=0, &\quad& x\in \sigma\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where we denote $$W_k(x) = \left(\sum_{j=0}^1 \chi_j(x)\frac{a_{kj}{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta)}{|x-{P^j}|}\right)
, \quad x\in \varpi,. \label{2.19ce}$$ In addition to $U_k'$, the problem – will also determine the number $\Lambda_k'(\eta)$ in a unique way for every $k$ and $\eta$. This will follow by requiring the solvability condition to hold in the Fredholm alternative, see Lemma \[lem2.1\] and its proof, below. Indeed, using the Green formula and the normalization in we write ($ds $ is the surface measure): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Lambda_k'(\eta)=\Lambda_k'(\eta)\|U_k^0;L^2(\gamma)\|^2 =
\nonumber \\
&=&\int_\gamma\left( \partial_z U_k'(x ;\eta)-
\Lambda_k^0 U_k'(x;\eta)\right)\overline{U_k^0(x)}\,ds(x)=
\nonumber \\
&=&\int_{\partial\varpi}
\left( \overline{U_k^0(x)}
\partial_n U_k'(x;\eta) -
U_k'(x;\eta)\overline{\partial_n U_k^0(x) }
\right)\,ds(x)=
\nonumber \\
&=&\int_\varpi \overline{U_k^0(x)} \Delta U_k'(x;\eta)=
- \int_\varpi \overline{U_k^0(x)} \Delta W_k(x)
\,dx\,.
\label{2.19cd}\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account that the last integral converges absolutely and using the Green formula again yield $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_k'(\eta)
&=&\lim_{r\to 0}
\sum_{j=0}^1\int_{S_r({P^j})\cap\varpi}\overline{U_k^0(x)}
\partial_n\left(-\frac{a_{kj}{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta)}{|x-{P^j}|}\right)\,ds(x)\\
&=& -2\pi{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta)\left(a_{k0}\overline{U_k^0({P^0})}+
a_{k1}\overline{U_k^0({P^1})}\right);\end{aligned}$$ see and Remark \[rem1.1\] for notation. According to we finally obtain $$\Lambda'_k(\eta)=
\pi{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta) |U_k^0({P^0})-e^{-i\eta}U_k^0({P^1})|^2\,.
\label{2.20}$$
\[lem2.1\] Choosing $\Lambda_k'(\eta)$ as in , the problem – has a solution $U_k' \in H^1(\varpi)$.
The variational formulation of the problem – reads as $$\label{2.20ac}
(\nabla U_k' , \nabla V)_\varpi - \Lambda_k^0(U_k', V)_\gamma
= (\nabla W_k , \nabla V)_\varpi - \Lambda_k' (U_k^0, V)_\gamma .$$ We remark that the function $1/|x-P^j|$ is harmonic in $\varpi$, and since $\chi_j$ equals constant one in a neighbourhood of $P^j$, the function $\Delta W_k$ vanishes there, hence, $W_k$ and $\nabla W_k$ are smooth as well as uniformly bounded everywhere in $\varpi$. Moreover, $U_k^0 \in L^2 (\gamma)$.
Using the definition of the operator $\mathcal{B}: H^1(\varpi) \to
H^1(\varpi) $ (cf. , and the remarks above ) we can rewrite as follows: $$(U_k',V)_{0}-(\Lambda^0_k+1)(\mathcal{B}U_k',V)_0
=(W_k,V)_0-\Lambda_k'(\mathcal{B}U_k^0,V)_0
-(\mathcal{B}W_k,V)_0$$ which means that $U'_k$ must be a solution of the equation $$(\mathcal{B}-M_k^0)U'_k=-M_k^0(W_k-\mathcal{B}W_k-\Lambda'_k\mathcal{B}U^0_k).
\label{2.20xx}$$ Notice that $U_k^0$ is the solution of the homogeneous problem , so, by the Fredholm alternative, is solvable, if and only if the right hand side of it is orthogonal to the function $U_k^0$. This condition is satisfied by choosing $\Lambda_k'(\eta)$ as above, since $$(W_k-\mathcal{B}W_k-\Lambda'_k\mathcal{B}U^0_k,U^0_k)_0=
(\nabla W_k,\nabla U_k^0)_{\varpi}-\Lambda'_k\|U^0_k;L^2(\gamma)\|^2=0\, ,$$ by and $(\nabla W_k,\nabla U_k^0)_{\varpi}
= - (\Delta W_k, U_k^0)_{\varpi}$. This last identity follows from the first Green formula, because the normal derivative of $W_k$ vanishes on $\partial \varpi$ due to the properties of the function $\chi_j$, see below . $\Box$
The case of a multiple eigenvalue {#sec:3.2}
---------------------------------
In this section we complete the asymptotic analysis by studying the behaviour of eigenvalues $\Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta)$ in the case some $\Lambda_k^0$ has multiplicity $m $ greater than one: we have $$\Lambda_{k-1}^0 < \Lambda_{k}^0 = \ldots = \Lambda_{k + m-1}^0 < \Lambda_{k+m}^0 .$$ The ansatz is used again. Furthermore, as in we denote by $(U_{k+j}^0)_{0\leq j\leq m-1} \subset L^2(\gamma)$ an orthonormal system of eigenfunctions associated with the eigenvalue $\Lambda_k^0$. Any eigenfunction $U^0$ corresponding to $\Lambda^0_k$ can be presented as a linear combination $$U^0(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\alpha_j U_{k+j}^0(x).$$ Analogously to we introduce the asymptotic ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ansatz20}
U^{\epsilon}(x;\eta)&=&U^0(x)\\
&+& \chi_0(x)w_{k0}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^0}))+ \chi_1(x)w_{k1}(\epsilon^{-1}(x - P^1))\nonumber\\
&+& \epsilon U'(x;\eta)+\widetilde{U}^\epsilon(x;\eta).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Using the same argumentation as in the previous section we construct the boundary layers $w_{kj}$, $j=0,1$, which satisfy the conditions $$\label{layer00}
w_{kj}(\xi^j)=a_{kj}\frac{{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3 \theta}{|\xi^j|}+O(|\xi^j|^{-2}) ;$$ here the coefficients $a_{kj}$ come from the equations , where $U_k^0$ is replaced by $U^0$. The main asymptotic term $U'$ is also treated in the same way as in Section \[sec:3.1\]. To use the Fredholm alternative for finding $\Lambda_{k+j}'(\eta)$, $j=0, \ldots , m-1$, we write $$\Lambda_{k+j}'(\eta)\alpha_j = \Lambda_{k+j}'(\eta)(U^0,U_{k+j}^0)_{\gamma} ,$$ and making use of the Green formula as above we get $$\Lambda_{k+j}'(\eta)\alpha_j =\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} \beta_{lj}\alpha_j,$$ where $$\beta_{lj}=\pi{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta)(U_{k+l}^0({P^0})-e^{-i\eta}U_{k+l}^0({P^1}))\overline{(U_{k+j}^0({P^0})-e^{-i\eta}
U_{k+j}^0({P^1}))}.$$ Hence, $\Lambda_{k+j}'(\eta)$ is an eigenvalue of the matrix $B=(\beta_{lj})_{l,j=0}^{m-1}$. This matrix has rank one, because it can be represented in the form $B=\overline{v} v^\top $, where $v$ is a vector with components $v_{j+1}=U_{k+j}^0({P^0})-e^{-i\eta}U_{k+j}^0({P^1})$, $j= 0, \ldots , m-1$. This means that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L-mult-1}
\Lambda'_k(\eta)&=&\pi{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta)\sum_{l=0}^{m-1} |U_{k+l}^0({P^0})-e^{-i\eta}U_{k+l}^0({P^1})|^2,\\
\label{L-mult-2}
\Lambda'_{k+j}(\eta)&=&0, \quad 1\leq j\leq m -1\,.\end{aligned}$$
Existence and position of spectral gaps {#sec:4}
=======================================
Existence of gaps {#sec:4.1}
-----------------
The first estimate on the eigenvalues of the problem can now be stated as follows.
\[th3.1\] For any $k\in\mathbb{N}$ there are numbers $\epsilon_k>0$ and $C_k>0$ such that for every $\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_k) $ and any dual variable $\eta\in [0,2\pi)$, the eigenvalues of the problem and the eigenvalues of the limit problem are related as follows: $$\label{eigenbound}
\Lambda^0_k\leq\Lambda^\epsilon_k(\eta)\leq\Lambda^0_k+C_k\epsilon.$$
As mentioned in the introduction (see the explanations around and ), this result implies the existence of any prescribed number of gaps in the essential spectrum $\sigma$, since also establishes an estimate for the endpoints of the intervals $\Upsilon_k^\epsilon$. To prove that result one needs to take enough many distinct eigenvalues $\Lambda_k^0$ and a small enough $\epsilon$.
\[cor3.2\] Given any number $N \in \mathbb{N}$, the essential spectrum $\sigma$ of the problem – on $\Pi^\epsilon$ has at least $N$ gaps, if $\epsilon $ is small enough.
[*Proof of Theorem \[th3.1\].*]{} We apply the max-min-principle described in Section \[sec:1.2\] and first prove the estimate $$\label{max-min}
\Lambda_k^\epsilon (\eta) \geq \Lambda_k^0 .$$ Indeed, we recall that in the equations and both $F_k \subset H^1(\varpi)$ and $E_k \subset {\mathcal{H}}^\epsilon = H^1_{\epsilon,\eta}(\varpi)$ are arbitrary subspaces of co-dimension $k-1$. Since $H^1_{\epsilon,\eta}(\varpi)\subset H^1(\varpi)$, each $E_k$ is contained in some $F_k$, and thus the infimum in is smaller than that in .
So we turn to the upper estimate in and fix a $k \in \mathbb{N} $. Let the eigenfunctions $U^0_j$ be as in and let $H_k\subset{\mathcal{H}}^{\epsilon}(\varpi)$ be a subspace spanned by the functions $Y^\epsilon U_j^0$, where $j=1, \ldots,k$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Y^\epsilon = 1 - X^\epsilon_0 - X^\epsilon_1 \in C^\infty(\varpi) \label{3.111}\end{aligned}$$ and $X^\epsilon_j$ are as in . We remark that the functions $Y^\epsilon U_j^0$ satisfy the quasi-periodicity condition in the definition of the space ${\mathcal{H}}^\epsilon$, since $Y^\epsilon$ vanishes in a neighbourhood of the apertures, see the remarks around . Moreover, the sequence $\big( Y^\epsilon U_1^0$, $Y^\epsilon U_2^0$, …, $Y^\epsilon U_k^0 \big)$ is still linearly independent, due to the $L^2(\gamma)$-orthogonality in and the fact that $Y^\epsilon$ equals 1 in the set $\gamma$. Hence, the dimension of $H_k$ is $k$.
If $E_k$ is an arbitrary subspace of ${\mathcal{H}}^\epsilon$ of co-dimension $k-1$ (cf.), the intersection $E_k \cap H_k$ contains a non-trivial linear combination $$U(x)=Y^\epsilon(x)\sum_{j=1}^k a_j U^0_j(x), \quad \sum_{j=1}^k |a_j|^2=1 .
\label{3.35}$$ By the remarks just above we have $
\Vert U ; L^2(\gamma)\Vert = 1 .
$ Hence, from and we infer that $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^\epsilon_k(\eta)&\leq& \frac{\left\|\nabla U;L^2(\varpi)\right\|^2}{\|U;L^2(\gamma)\|^2}
=\|\nabla U;L^2(\varpi)\|^2 \nonumber \\
&=& \Big\|\nabla \Big( (Y^\epsilon - 1)\sum_{j=1}^ka_j U_j^0 \Big)
+ \nabla \Big( \sum_{j=1}^k a_j U_j^0\Big) ;L^2(\varpi)\Big\|^2
\nonumber \\
& = & \Big\| \nabla \Big( \sum_{j=1}^k a_j U_j^0\Big) ; L^2(\varpi)\Big\|^2+
2\Big( \nabla \Big( (-X^\epsilon_0 -X^\epsilon_1)\sum_{j=1}^ka_j U_j^0 \Big) ,
\nabla \Big( \sum_{j=1}^k a_j U_j^0\Big) \Big)_\varpi \nonumber \\
&+&
\Big\|\nabla \Big( (X^\epsilon_0 + X^\epsilon_1)\sum_{j=1}^ka_j U_j^0 \Big) ;L^2(\varpi)\Big\|^2
\label{3.38}\end{aligned}$$ To evaluate the first term on the right hand side notice that the functions $U_j^0$ satisfy so that the $L^2(\gamma)$-orthogonality of implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.40}
& & \Big\|\nabla \Big( \sum_{j=1}^k a_j U_j^0 \Big); L^2(\varpi)\Big\|^2
= \sum_{j,l=1}^k a_j a_l (\nabla U_j^0 ,\nabla U_l^0)_\varpi \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{j,l=1}^k a_j a_l \Lambda_j^0 ( U_j^0 , U_l^0)_\gamma
= \sum_{j=1}^k a_j^2 \Lambda_j^0 \leq \Lambda_k^0 , \end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from and the fact that the eigenvalues $\Lambda_j^0$ are indexed in increasing order. Furthermore, we use Lemma \[rem1.6\] as well as the facts that the supports of $X^\epsilon_l$, $l=0,1$, have measure of order $\epsilon^3$, $|\nabla X^\epsilon_l|$ are of order $\epsilon^{-1}$, and $| a_j| \leq 1$ to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
& & \Big\vert \Big( \nabla \Big( (X^\epsilon_0 + X^\epsilon_1)\sum_{j=1}^ka_j U_j^0 \Big) ,
\nabla \Big( \sum_{j=1}^k a_j U_j^0\Big) \Big)_\varpi
\Big\vert \nonumber \\
& \leq & k^2
\Big( \sup\limits_{ x \in S } \big(1, |U_j^0(x)|, |\nabla U_j^0(x) |\big)\Big)^2 \ \sup\limits_{ x \in S } \big(1, | \nabla X^\epsilon_l(x)| \big)
\int_{ S } dx
\leq C_k \epsilon^{2} , \nonumber \\
& & \Big\| \nabla \Big( (X^\epsilon_0+X^\epsilon_1)\sum_{j=1}^ka_j U_j^0 \Big)
;L^2(\varpi)\Big\|^2
\nonumber \\
\label{3.39}
& \leq & k^2 \Big(
\sup\limits_{ x \in S } \big(1, |U_j^0(x)|, |\nabla U_j^0(x) |\big) \Big)^2
\Big( \sup\limits_{ x \in S } \big(1, | \nabla X^\epsilon_l(x)| \big)
\Big)^2 \int_{ S } dx
\leq C_k \epsilon ,\end{aligned}$$ where $S = {\rm supp} (X^\epsilon_0+X^\epsilon_1)$. Combining this with and yields the result. $\Box$
Asymptotic position of spectral bands {#sec:4.2}
-------------------------------------
In this section we shall prove the validity of the asymptotic ansatz , see Theorem \[th4.5\]. This yields our main result concerning the asymptotic position of the spectral bands, Theorem \[cor4.6\].
We start the proof by recalling a classical lemma on near eigenvalues and eigenvectors (see [@ViLu] and also, e.g., [@BiSo]).
\[nearEig\] Let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be a selfadjoint, positive, and compact operator in a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. If a number $\mu>0$ and an element ${\mathcal{V}}\in {\mathcal{H}}$ satisfy $\|{\mathcal{V}} ; {\mathcal{H}}\|=1$ and $\|{\mathcal{T}\mathcal{V}}-\mu {\mathcal{V}}; {\mathcal{H}}
\|=\tau\in(0,\mu)$, then the segment $[\mu -\tau,\mu+\tau]$ contains at least one eigenvalue of ${\mathcal{T}}$.
To apply Lemma \[nearEig\] to the operator ${\mathcal{B}}^\epsilon(\eta)$ of , we fix an arbitrary $k$ and, keeping in mind the formula , define the approximate $k$:th eigenvalue and eigenvector of ${\mathcal{B}}^\epsilon(\eta)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{use lemma}
\mu_k &=&(1+\Lambda_k^0+\epsilon\Lambda'_k(\eta))^{-1}, \\
{\mathcal{V}}_k(x)&=&\|{\mathcal{U}}_k; {{\mathcal{H}}}^\epsilon \|^{-1} {\mathcal{U}}_k(x), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{calU}
&&{\mathcal{U}}_k(x)= (1-X^\epsilon_0(x)-X^\epsilon_1(x)) U_k^0(x)\\
&+&X^\epsilon_0(x) U_k^0({P^0}) + X^\epsilon_1(x) U_k^0({P^1}) \nonumber\\
&+&\chi_0 (x) w_{k0}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^0})) +
\chi_1(x) w_{k1}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^1})) \nonumber\\
&+& \epsilon (1-X^\epsilon_0(x)-X^\epsilon_1(x)) U'_k(x,\eta) , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $U_k^0$ is as in , $X^\epsilon_j(x)=\chi_\theta(\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^j}))$ and $\chi_j$ are as in .
We need a lower bound for the norm of ${{\mathcal{U}}}_k$.
For all $k$ there exists a constant $C_k>0$ such that $$\label{lem1}
\Bigl|\|{\mathcal{U}}_k; {{\mathcal{H}}}^{\epsilon}\|^2 -1 - \Lambda^0_k \Bigr|\leq C_k \epsilon^{1/2}\,.$$
Recall that the expression for ${{\mathcal{U}}}_k$, , contains the term $U_k^0$; let us denote $\widetilde {{\mathcal{U}}}_k := {{\mathcal{U}}}_k - U_k^0$. By , –, , we have $\Vert U_k^0 ; {{\mathcal{H}}}^\epsilon \Vert^2 = \|U^0_k;L^2(\gamma)\|^2 + \|\nabla U^0_k; L^2(\varpi)\|^2
= 1 + \Lambda^0_k$. Hence, by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.85}
& & \Big| \|{\mathcal{U}}_k; {{\mathcal{H}}}^{\epsilon}\|^2 -1 - \Lambda^0_k \Big| =
\Big| 2 (U_k^0 , \widetilde {{\mathcal{U}}}_k )_\epsilon + \Vert \widetilde {{\mathcal{U}}}_k; {{\mathcal{H}}}^\epsilon \Vert^2 \Big|
\nonumber \\
& \leq &
2\sqrt{1 + \Lambda_k^0} \Vert \widetilde {{\mathcal{U}}}_k; {{\mathcal{H}}}^\epsilon \Vert +
\Vert \widetilde {{\mathcal{U}}}_k; {{\mathcal{H}}}^\epsilon \Vert^2 .\end{aligned}$$
Taking into account the definition of the norm of ${{\mathcal{H}}}^\epsilon$, the formula and the fact that the functions $\chi_j$ and $X^\epsilon_{j}$ vanish on $\gamma$ we find that $\Vert \widetilde {{\mathcal{U}}}_k; {{\mathcal{H}}}^\epsilon \Vert$ is bounded by the sum of the expressions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{first}
&&\big\|\nabla \big( X^\epsilon_j(U^0_k-U^0_k({P^j}))\big);L^2(\varpi)
\big\| \, , \ j = 0,1,
\\
\label{second}
&&\big\|\nabla\big( \chi_j w_{kj} (\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^j}))\big);L^2(\varpi)\big\| \, \ j=0,1,
\\
\label{third}
&&\|\epsilon (1-X^\epsilon_0-X^\epsilon_1)U_k'; H^1(\varpi)\|.\end{aligned}$$
First we use the observation that the supports of the functions $ X^\epsilon_{j}$ and $\nabla X^\epsilon_{j}$ are contained in balls of radius $O(\epsilon)$ and that $|U_k^0(x)|$ and $|\nabla U_k^0 (x)|$ are uniformly bounded in these balls (Lemma \[rem1.6\]), hence $U^0_k(x)-U^0_k({P^j})=O(\epsilon)$ there. So, can be bounded by a constant times $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.46}
& & \int_\varpi |U_k^0 -U_k^0 (P_j)|^2 \, |\nabla X^\epsilon_j|^2 dx
+ \int_\varpi |\nabla U_k^0 |^2 \, |X^\epsilon_j|^2 dx \nonumber \\
&\leq &
C \Big( \int_{{\rm supp} X^\epsilon_j } \epsilon^2 \epsilon^{-2} dx
+ \int_{{\rm supp} X^\epsilon_j }dx \Big)^{1/2} \leq C \epsilon^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$
We estimate the terms using the fact that the support of the function $\nabla \chi_j$ is contained in a set $\{ c \leq |x - P^j| \leq C\} =: {\mathcal S}_j$ for some constants $0 < c < C$ (see above ), hence, by the estimate –, $$\label{3.03}
\big| {w}_{kj}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-P^j)) \big|
\leq C \epsilon |x - P^j|^{-1}
\ \ {\rm for} \ x \in {\mathcal S}_j .$$ Applying yields $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_\varpi \big|\nabla \big(\chi_j(x) w_{kj}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^j}))
\big)\big|^2dx \\
&\leq &
\int_{{\mathcal S}_j} |w_{kj}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^j}))|^2dx
+ \int_{\varpi} \big| \nabla \big(w_{kj} (\epsilon^{-1}(x-{P^j}))\big)\big|^2dx
\\
&\leq &\int_{{\mathcal S}_j} C \epsilon^2 |x - P^j|^{-2} dx + \epsilon^{3}
\epsilon^{-2} \int_{{\mathbb R}^3 } \big| \nabla_{\xi^j} w_{kj} (\xi^j) \big|^2
d \xi^j
\\
&\leq & C_1 \epsilon .\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by Lemma \[lem2.1\], $U_k'$ belongs to the space $H^1(\varpi)$. For the terms we thus get the bound $$\begin{aligned}
& & \|\epsilon (1-X^\epsilon_0-X^\epsilon_1)U_k'; H^1(\varpi)\| \nonumber \\
& \leq & C \epsilon \|U_k'; H^1(\varpi)\|
+ C \epsilon \max\limits_{j=0,1}
\Vert \nabla X^\epsilon_{j} ; L^2(\varpi) \Vert^{1/2}
\Vert U_k' ; L^2(\varpi) \Vert^{1/2}
\leq C' \epsilon , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ since $\Vert \nabla X^\epsilon_{j} ; L^2(\varpi) \Vert \leq C \epsilon^{1/2}$, due to the measure of the support of $\nabla X^\epsilon_{j}$. $\Box$
As a corollary of this lemma, if $\epsilon\in (0, \epsilon_0]$, then the bounds $$\label{1.52}
0 < \mu_k \leq c_\mu \quad \|{\mathcal{U}}; {{\mathcal{H}}}^{\epsilon} \|\geq c_{\mathcal{U}}>0,$$ hold true with some positive constants $c_\mu$ and $c_{\mathcal{U}}$ depending on $\varpi$ and $\theta$ only.
The next theorem provides quite accurate asymptotic information on the eigenvalues of the model problem and in particular justifies the ansatz .
\[th4.5\] For every $k\geq 1$ there exists a constant $C_k$ such that, for each $\eta\in[0,2\pi)$, $$\label{3.101}
|\Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta)-\Lambda_k^0-\epsilon \Lambda_k'(\eta)|<C_k\epsilon^{3/2}\,,$$ where $\Lambda'_k(\eta)=\pi {\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta)|U_k^0({P^0})-e^{-i\eta}U_k^0({P^1})|^2$ (cf.) in the case the eigenvalue $\Lambda_k^0$ is simple and $\Lambda'_k(\eta) $ is given by the formulas – in the case $\Lambda_k^0$ is a multiple eigenvalue.
We apply Lemma \[nearEig\] to the operator ${\mathcal{B}}^\epsilon (\eta)$ with $\mu = \mu_k $ and ${\mathcal{V}} = {\mathcal{V}}_k$ as in . Our aim is to show that $\tau$ of the lemma can be chosen as small as $C_k \epsilon^{3/2}$. The lemma then gives an eigenvalue $M (\epsilon,\eta)$ of ${\mathcal{B}}^\epsilon (\eta)$ with the estimate $$|M(\epsilon,\eta) - \mu_k | \leq C_k \epsilon^{3/2} . \nonumber$$ Using and this turns into an eigenvalue $\lambda(\epsilon , \eta)$ (of –) satisfying in the place of $\Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta)$. However, if $\epsilon$ is small enough, Theorem \[th3.1\] guarantees that in a neighbourhood of $\Lambda_k^0$ there is only one eigenvalue of the model problem, namely $\Lambda_k^\epsilon(\eta)$. So $\lambda(\epsilon , \eta)$ must coincide with it, and the estimate follows.
We are thus left with the task of proving $$\tau=\|{\mathcal{B}}^\epsilon(\eta){\mathcal{V}}_k- \mu_k {\mathcal{V}}_k; {{\mathcal{H}}}^\epsilon\|\,
\leq C_k \epsilon^{3/2}.$$ To this end we write, using ${\mathcal{V}}_k = c_{{{\mathcal{U}}}}^{-1} {{\mathcal{U}}}_k $, , , , , $$\begin{aligned}
\tau& =& \sup_Z
\big|({\mathcal{B}}^\epsilon(\eta){\mathcal{V}}_k- \mu_k {\mathcal{V}}_k, Z)_{\epsilon} \big| \nonumber \\
& = & c_{{{\mathcal{U}}}_k}^{-1} \sup_Z \big| ( {{\mathcal{U}}}_k , Z)_\gamma - \mu_k ({\mathcal{U}}_k, Z)_{\gamma}
- \mu_k ( \nabla {{\mathcal{U}}}_k , \nabla Z)_\varpi \big| \nonumber \\
& \leq & c_\mu c_{\mathcal{U}}^{-1}
\sup_Z \big| (\Lambda^0_k +
\epsilon \Lambda'_k)({\mathcal{U}}_k, Z)_{\gamma} -(\nabla {\mathcal{U}}_k, \nabla Z)_{\varpi} \big| =: c_\mu c_{\mathcal{U}}^{-1}
\sup_{Z}|T(Z)|\, .\end{aligned}$$ The supremum is calculated here over all functions $Z\in {{\mathcal{H}}}^{\epsilon}$ with unit norm. The expression $T(Z)$ can be represented as a sum of the terms $$\begin{aligned}
S_1(Z)&=&-(\nabla U^0_k,\nabla Z)_\varpi + \Lambda^0_k (U^0_k, Z)_\gamma, \\
S_{2j}(Z)&=& -\left(\nabla (X^\epsilon_j (U_k^0({P^j})-U_k^0)), \nabla Z\right)_\varpi, \\
S_3(Z)&=& - \big(\nabla \big(\chi_0 w_{k0}(\epsilon^{-1}(x -P^0))+\chi_1 w_{k1}(\epsilon^{-1}(x -P^0))\big),\nabla Z \big)_\varpi \\
& + & \epsilon(\nabla w_k, \nabla Z)_\varpi,\\
S_4(Z)&=& -\epsilon(\nabla U'_k,\nabla Z)_\varpi -\epsilon(\nabla w_k, \nabla Z)_\varpi \\
&+& \epsilon \Lambda'_k (U^0_k, Z)_\gamma+\epsilon \Lambda^0_k (U'_k, Z)_\gamma, \nonumber \\
S_5(Z)&=&-\epsilon(\nabla ((X^\epsilon_0+X^\epsilon_1) U'_k),\nabla Z)_\varpi+\epsilon^2\Lambda'_k(U'_k,Z)_\gamma.\end{aligned}$$ where $w_k$ is given by $$\label{3.33}
w_k(x)=\chi_0(x) \frac{a_{k0}{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta)}{|x-{P^0}|}
+ \chi_1(x)\frac{a_{k1}{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta)}{|x-{P^1}|}\,.$$
First we note that $S_1(Z)=S_4(Z)=0$, because $U_k^0$ and $U_k'$ are the solutions of the problems – and –, respectively; see also .
To estimate $S_{2j}(Z)$ we use the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \big| \big(\nabla (X^\epsilon_j (U_k^0({P^j})-U_k^0)), \nabla Z \big)_\varpi \big|
\\
& \leq&
\big\|\nabla(X^\epsilon_j(U_k^0({P^j})-U_k^0)); L^2(\varpi) \big\| \|Z; H^1(\varpi)\| \leq C_k\epsilon^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the last inequality follows from an estimate already made for (see ) and the assumption on the norm of $Z$.
The first term in $S_5(Z)$ can also be treated using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, the properties of the cut-off functions $X^\epsilon_j$ (once again as in ) and Lemma \[lem2.1\] $$\begin{aligned}
& & \epsilon \big| \big(\nabla ((X^\epsilon_0+X^\epsilon_1 )U_k' ), \nabla Z \big)_\varpi \big|
\\
& \leq& \epsilon
\big\|\nabla((X^\epsilon_0+X^\epsilon_1 )U_k' ); L^2(\varpi) \big\| \|Z; H^1(\varpi)\| \\
& \leq & \epsilon
\big\|\nabla(X^\epsilon_0+X^\epsilon_1 ); L^2(\varpi) \big\|
\big\|U_k' ; L^2(\varpi) \big\| \\
& \ \ +& \epsilon
\big\|X^\epsilon_0+X^\epsilon_1 ; L^2(\varpi) \big\|
\big\|\nabla U_k' ; L^2(\varpi) \big\|
\leq C_k\epsilon^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$ The surface integral in $S_5(Z)$ can be estimated simply by the trace inequality.
To provide an upper bound for $S_3(Z)$ we notice that by , $$\label{3.37}
w_{kj} (\epsilon^{-1}(x-P^j))
= \epsilon \frac{a_{kj}{\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta)}{|x-{P^j}|}
+ \widetilde w_{kj}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-P^j)) \, , \ j=0,1,$$ hence, using we can write $$S_3(Z) =-\sum_{j=0}^1 \big( \nabla \big(\chi_j \widetilde{w}_{kj}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-P^j) )\big), \nabla Z\big)_\varpi.$$ After integrating by parts and taking into account that $\widetilde{w}_{kj}$ are harmonic functions we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
S_3(Z)& = & \sum_{j=0}^1 \big( \widetilde{w}_{kj}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-P^j))\Delta\chi_j , Z \big)_\varpi \nonumber \\
\label{3.68}
& + & 2 \big( (\nabla\chi_j )\nabla \big( \widetilde{w}_{kj} (\epsilon^{-1}(x-P^j))\big), Z \big)_\varpi. \end{aligned}$$
In the second term, the support of the function $\nabla \chi_j$ is contained in a set $\{ c \leq |x - P^j| \leq C\} =: {\mathcal S}_j$ for some constants $0 < c < C$, hence, by the estimate , $$\label{3.57a}
\big| \nabla \big( \widetilde{w}_{kj}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-P^j)) \big) \big|
\leq C \epsilon^{-1} \big( \epsilon^{-1} |x - P^j| \big)^{-3}
= C\epsilon^{2} |x - P^j|^{-3}
\ \ {\rm for} \ x \in {\mathcal S}_j .$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \Big| \big( (\nabla\chi_j )\nabla \big( \widetilde{w}_{kj} (\epsilon^{-1}
(x-P^j))\big), Z \big)_\varpi \Big| \nonumber \\
& \leq & \Big( \int_{{\mathcal S}_j} \big| \nabla \big( \widetilde{w}_{kj}
(\epsilon^{-1}(x-P^j) \big)
\big|^{2} dx \Big)^{1/2} \Vert Z ; L^2(\varpi)\Vert
\leq C' \epsilon^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The first term in is treated with a similar argument, since ${\mathcal S}_j$ still contains the support of $\Delta \chi_j$ and the estimate $$\big| \widetilde{w}_{kj}(\epsilon^{-1}(x-P^j)) \big|
\leq C\epsilon^{2} |x - P^j|^{-3}
\ \ {\rm for} \ x \in {\mathcal S}_j$$ again holds, by .
We thus get the bound $$\tau\leq C_k(\theta) \epsilon^{3/2} . \ \ \Box$$
As a consequence we can now provide the asymptotic widths and positions of the spectral bands.
\[cor4.6\] Let the index $k$ be such that the eigenvalue $\Lambda_k^0$ is simple. Then, the band $\Upsilon_k^\epsilon$ of the continuous spectrum of the problem – has the asymptotic form $$\Upsilon_k^\epsilon= [\Lambda_k^0+A_k\epsilon+O(\epsilon^{3/2}), \Lambda_k^0+B_k\epsilon+O(\epsilon^{3/2})]$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A_k=\pi {\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta) \min\{|U_k^0({P^0})-U_k^0({P^1})|^2, |U_k^0({P^0})+U_k^0({P^1})|^2\}, \\
B_k=\pi {\mathop{\rm cap}\nolimits}_3(\theta) \max\{|U_k^0({P^0})-U_k^0({P^1})|^2, |U_k^0({P^0})+U_k^0({P^1})|^2\}. \end{aligned}$$
Returning to the band-gap structure of the Bloch spectrum , in general it may happen that a spectral band, closed interval, degenerates into a single point. In this case the band consists of a single eigenvalue of infinite multiplicity, and the band is thus contained in the essential but not in the continuous spectrum. However, by Theorem \[cor4.6\], if $k$ is such that both $U_k^0({P^0})$ and $U_k^0({P^1})$ are nonzero and $\epsilon$ is small enough, the numbers $A_k$ and $B_k$ are distinct, and in this case the spectral band $\Upsilon_k^\epsilon$ is indeed an interval with positive length. This obviously provides a way to construct examples where the spectrum of the linear water-wave problem has a genuine band-gap structure with proper intervals as bands and with at least a given number of spectral gaps, cf. Theorem \[cor3.2\].
[99]{}
Agmon, S., Douglis, A., Nirenberg, L., Estimates near the boundary for solutions of elliptic differential equations satisfying general boundary conditions. I., Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 12, 623–727, 1959.
Allaire, G., Conca, C., Bloch wave homogenization and spectral asymptotic analysis, J. Math. Pures Appl., 77, 153–208, 1998.
Birman, M.S., Solomyak, M.Z., Spectral Theory of Self-Adjoint Operators in Hilbert Space, Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1986.
Carter, B.G., McIver, P., Water-wave propagation through an infinite array of floating structures. Journal of Engineering Mathematics, 2012
Kato, T., Perturbation theory for linear operators. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 132 Springer-Verlag New York, 1966.
Kozlov, V.A., Mazja, V.G., Rossmann, J., Elliptic boundary value problems in domains with point singularities, American Mathematical Soc., Providence, 1997
Kuchment, P., Floquet theory for partial differential equations. Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, 60, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1993.
Linton, C. M., Water waves over arrays of horizontal cylinders: band gaps and Bragg resonance. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 670, 504-526, 2011.
Liu, P.L.-F., Resonant reflection of water waves in a long channel with corrugated boundaries, J. Fluid. Mech., 245, 371-381, 1987.
Mazya V. G., Nazarov S. A. and Plamenevskii B. A., Asymptotic theory of elliptic boundary value problems in singularly perturbed domains, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2000.
Mattioli, F., Resonant reflection of a series of submerged breakwaters, Il Nuovo Cimento C **13** C, pp. 823-833, 1990.
McIver, P., Water-wave propagation through an infinite array of cylindrical structures. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 424, 101-125, 2000. McKee, W.D., The propagation of water waves along a channel of variable width, Applied Ocean Research, 21, 145-156, 1999.
Mei, C.C., Resonant reflection of surface water waves by periodic sandbars, J. Fluid Mech., 152, 315-335, 1985.
Nazarov S.A., Elliptic boundary value problems with periodic coefficients in a cylinder, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR. Ser. Mat. 45 (1) 101-112, 1981. (English transl.: Math. USSR. Izvestija. 18 (1), 89-98, 1982)
Nazarov, S.A., Properties of spectra of boundary value problems in cylindrical and quasicylindrical domains, Sobolev Spaces in Mathematics, vol. II (Maz’ya V., Ed.) International Mathematical Series 9, 261–309, 2008.
Nazarov S.A., Opening gaps in the spectrum of the water-wave problem in a periodic channel, Zh. Vychisl. Mat. i Mat. Fiz., 50, 6, 1092–1108, 2010 (English transl.: Comput. Math. and Math. Physics 50, 6, 1038–1054, 2010).
Nazarov, S.A, Plamenevskii, B.A, Elliptic problems in domains with piecewise smooth boundaries, Walter be Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1994.
Nazarov, S.A., Ruotsalainen, K., Taskinen, J., Essential spectrum of a periodic elastic waveguide may contain arbitrarily many gaps, Appl. Anal. 89,1, 109-124, 2010.
Nazarov, S.A., Taskinen, J., On essential and continuous spectra of the linearized water-wave problem in a finite pond, Math. Scand. 106, 1, 141-160, 2010.
Pólya G. and Szegö G.; Isoperimetric inequalities in mathematical physics, Princeton University Press, N.J., 1951.
Lord Rayleigh; On the maintenance of vibrations by forces of double frequency, and on the propagation of waves through a medium endowed with a periodic structure, Philos. Mag., 24, 145-159, 1887.
Visik M. I. and Ljusternik L. A.; Regular degeneration and boundary layer of linear differential equations with small parameter, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. 20, 239-364, 1962.
[^1]: The first named author was supported by the St. Petersburg State University grant 6.38.64.2012 as well as by the Chebyshev Laboratory - RF Government grant 11.G34.31.0026 and by JSC “Gazprom Neft”. The first and third named authors were also supported by the Academy of Finland project “Functional analysis and applications”.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Here we describe a story behind the discovery of Kepler-46, which was the first exoplanetary system detected and characterized from a method known as the transit timing variations (TTVs). The TTV method relies on the gravitational interaction between planets orbiting the same star. If transits of at least one of the planets are detected, precise measurements of its transit times can be used, at least in principle, to detect and characterize other non-transiting planets in the system. Kepler-46 was the first case for which this method was shown to work in practice. Other detections and characterizations followed (e.g., Kepler-88). The TTV method plays an important role in addressing the incompleteness of planetary systems detected from transits.'
author:
- David Nesvorný
title: How to Find a Planet from Transit Variations
---
My background is in dynamical astronomy. This is a branch of astronomy that is concerned with the motion of planets, stars and galaxies. Somehow, something clicked while I was attending lectures about dynamical astronomy as an undergraduate at the Charles University in Prague. I remember really enjoying the mathematical methods that we were asked to master. In other astronomy courses, we learned key equations with many variables. Their derivation was standard, they expressed interesting relations, but they left me unsatisfied. I think I really wanted to use advanced mathematics that we have just learned in other courses, and operating ratios of astrophysical variables was not exactly that.
Now, the field of dynamical astronomy has a very long history, going back to Kepler, Newton, Laplace, Le Verrier, Poincaré and Brouwer, to mention just a few names. The mathematical methods these guys developed are fantastic. They include Hamiltonians, perturbation theories, resonances, chaos. Finally, I had the satisfactory feeling of actually using mathematics to understand fragments of the physical world. My colleagues got discouraged for exactly the same reason, and moved to other research, as far from the Hamiltonians as they could. The subject of my Master thesis was an obscure topic of orbital dynamics of asteroids near resonances with Jupiter, the scope of my doctorate was only inches broader. Still, these early days gave a good dose of useful scientific background.
The exoplanet discoveries in the past two decades were one of two revolutions that I witnessed at close range (the other one being the Velvet Revolution of 1989). New exoplanets are announced every month. The smallest, the one with the shortest orbital period, the most distant one, a system of three, four or even more planets. I remember watching these inspiring discoveries and wondering about how to make sense of the diversity that was emerging from observations. I still wonder about that now.
The lack of data bothered me quite a bit in the early days, when exoplanet science was essentially an observational endeavor. Sure, one could start developing theories of this and that, but where is the assurance, given the paucity of constraints, that they could be correct. To this day, I still think that the detection and characterization of exoplanets is the top priority. That could be a dead end for a theorist like me, but back in 2007, after reading a few papers published a couple of years earlier, I got intrigued by the method known as the transit timing variations or TTVs for short. The method is straightforward. If there is just one transiting planet and no complications, the planetary transits must be occurring on a linear ephemeris. That is [*exactly*]{} on a linear ephemeris, as defined by the planet’s orbital period. Once you add planets, however, they start pulling on each other, and their orbits are strictly Keplerian no more; compared to a linear ephemeris, some transits occur earlier and some later. That is what the TTVs stand for.
The promise of the TTV method was that if there is, say, transiting Neptune closer in and an Earth-size planet farther out, then the inner planet’s TTVs should reveal the existence of the outer planet. No other observations needed. Awesome, isn’t it!? That was the theme that the first paper, by Holman & Murray (2005), highlighted. The second paper, by Agol et al. (2005), was broader in scope. It discussed TTVs for all sorts of planetary configurations and gave an approximate scaling of the TTV amplitude for each.
So far so good, I recall thinking, but how about the heart of the matter, which is the [*inverse*]{} problem. The inverse problem arises when someone attempts to figure out the planetary parameters, such as the mass and orbit, from TTVs. Does the inverse problem have a unique solution? What if the companion planet is not transiting?
My goal in 2007/2008 was somewhat naive, I thought it could be possible to fully resolve the inverse TTV problem by employing computer algebra. For that I considered a case where there are two planets orbiting the same star, and the orbital period ratio of the two planets is not in a ratio of small integers (i.e., the non-resonant orbits in a scientific jargon). There is a well known mathematical method, known as the Lie-Hori perturbation theory, that can be applied to this case. Furthermore, in practice, the observational coverage of any given system is relatively short, years to tens of years max. So, one only needs to consider the short-period variations, and ignore everything else. This turns out to be relatively easy. The interaction potential is expanded in the Fourier series and the short-period variations of orbital elements emerge in the Lie-Hori theory as derivatives of the generating function, which is closely related to the original Fourier expansion. The variations are then plugged into an expression for TTVs, and voila, the TTVs are given as the Fourier series as well.
I reasoned that an observer can take the TTV data and perform the Fourier analysis, thus identifying frequencies, amplitudes, and phases of whatever terms the measurements contain. The short-period frequencies must be $k_1 n_1 + k_2 n_2$, where $k_1$ and $k_2$ are small integers, and $n_1$ and $n_2$ the orbital frequencies of the two planets (here, 1 is the inner transiting planet and 2 is the outer one). The periods of these terms are comparable to the orbital periods and that’s why they are called the short-period TTVs. There is a slight complication as some identified frequencies can be aliases of $k_1 n_1 + k_2 n_2$. Still, given a set of frequencies, it should be possible to figure out which ones are real and which ones are aliases, eventually giving us $n_2$ (frequency $n_1$ is known from transits).
It then remains to match the observed amplitudes and phases to their theoretical expressions and we have a set of equations to compute unknowns, including masses of the two planets and their six orbital elements. That is, in general, 14 unknowns. Not all unknowns, however, can be determined from TTVs. For example, the unknown orbit orientation with respect to the sky plane causes a degeneracy in the nodal longitudes. The TTVs can be used to determine the difference, $\Omega_1-\Omega_2$, but not the individual values. Also, the true longitude of the transiting planet is known from the transit observations. So there are really only 12 unknowns. So, if the goal is to determine every parameter, at least 6 frequency terms need to be measured in the TTV signal. This gives six equations for phases and six for amplitudes, i.e., 12 equations and 12 unknowns, as it should be.
Well, what seems simple in theory is not easy in practice, mainly because the equations are ugly and difficult to deal with. Rather than struggling with the analytic solution, I realized that it would more practical to do things numerically, and my goals shifted. Still, while my original plan somewhat predictably failed, I learned many things from this exercise. It occurred to me, for example, that the analytic method can be used to greatly speed up the whole process of inversion.
To appreciate that, let’s take a modern viewpoint on this issue and consider a purely numerical method. Say that an efficient N-body integrator is instructed how to compute the transit times for any given planetary system. The code is interfaced with some smart algorithm that knows how to maximize the likelihood of the fit. All that is OK, but the basic difficulty is that the algorithm must search in parameter space of 12 dimensions, which is a lot of dimensions. The program may take too long to execute or it may not converge at all if the likelihood landscape is too complex. It all depends on how much CPU time it takes to compute transits for one planetary configuration.
I developed a fully numerical code and tested it on mock planetary systems back in 2008. Things were annoyingly slow. So, I explored every avenue to speed things up. For example, do we gain anything if the N-body code is replaced by the Fourier routines that calculate TTVs analytically? If so, they can perhaps be used to determine an approximate solution, and the N-body integrator can take over after that.
It turns out that the 12 variables can be split in four groups. The first and the most difficult to deal with are the semimajor axes of the two planets. The coefficients of the Fourier series depend on them in non-trivial ways. Fortunately, they depend only on the ratio of the semimajor axis, $\alpha = a_1/a_2$, and not on $a_1$ and $a_2$ individually. So, it is possible to precompute all coefficients on a grid in $\alpha$ and devise a fast algorithm that interpolates from the grid to any value of $\alpha$. The likelihood of the fit is a very sensitive function of $\alpha$, so the grid must be sufficiently dense for things to work. \[In fact, it is even better to work with the orbital periods (rather than the semimajor axes), because of uncertainties in stellar mass.\]
The second group is the orbital eccentricities and inclinations. The coefficient dependence on them is simple: they appear in all powers permitted by symmetries. It turns out to be possible to develop recursive routines to compute the higher powers from the lower ones such that the number of arithmetical operations is minimized.
The third group are the orbital angles, three for each planet. A really efficient way to evaluate the Fourier series for any combination of angles is to make use of complex algebra and symmetries. The algorithm computes a few leading terms and combines them to get the remaining ones almost for free. Therefore, in essence, because the evaluation of the Fourier series for angles is so inexpensive, one can set aside the angle dimensions. This effectively reduces the dimension of the problem.
The last group is the masses of the two planets. The TTVs of the inner transiting planet are nearly independent of its own mass and depend linearly on the mass of the outer planet. So, there is no hope, in absence of other information, to determine the mass of the transiting planet from its short-period TTVs. On the other hand, since the dependence on the perturbing planet’s mass is linear, the algorithm can first compute TTVs for some indeterminate mass, and subsequently adjust $m_2$ to optimize the fit. Again, this is cheap.
These are some of the main features of the code I developed in 2008. In the final version, the algorithm based on the perturbation theory was [*many orders of magnitude*]{} faster than the N-body approach. It counts, you know, if the calculation can be done in minutes instead of many weeks.
The radial velocity observations of warm and cold Jupiters indicate that these planets often have large orbital eccentricities. Their orbits were presumably excited by dynamical instabilities and gravitational scattering. So, to make my analytic algorithm applicable to these cases, I pushed the perturbation theory to very high powers of eccentricity, first to 5, then to 15, and finally to 25. This means that all terms in eccentricities up to power 25 were included in the final code. In retrospect, this was unnecessary because the [*Kepler*]{} observations showed that the TTV planets regularly have almost circular orbits.
There were various hiccups while the code was being developed and tested. Some were more serious than others. In most cases, I was able to link these problematic cases to systems that were too compact, too close to resonances or something else, but sometimes a perfectly normal system was giving me a trouble. After weeks and weeks of struggle, with the problem seemingly going away and then coming back when I least expected it, I started to suspect that the Fourier expansion of the potential is at fault. I have adapted this part of the code from another program that was given to me by my former teacher and advisor, Miloš Šidlichovský, who developed and used it for other projects.
It took some courage to start suspecting that something funky is going on in that part of the code, because Miloš is a very careful man. I would rather expect to find a bug in my code. Tracking the issue down, however, I found that some coefficients of the expansion are exactly two times smaller than they should be, and applied an empirical patch in the code that compensated for that. With that, things fell in place. I later visited Miloš just before his retirement from the Czech Academy of Sciences. When I described the problem to him, he said, of course, you are using the program to do things that it was not meant to do, and then proceeded to figure out what the real problem was.
After 2008, I was ready to use my new algorithms to do things, but did not have any good data to try them on. Before [*Kepler*]{}, TTVs were measured for hot Jupiters and alike, which do not have planetary companions too often. Also, companions would need to be fairly close or near resonant period ratios for the TTV method to work. In addition, the ground-based transit observations produced TTVs with rather large measurement errors and sparse transit coverage. That was not good enough for solving the inverse problem. I knew that well because I was experimenting on mock systems, where I would inject realistic measurement errors in the TTV data and vary the number of observed transits. It turns out that even for an excellent signal-to-noise (Kepler-46 has $S/N \sim 50$, where $S/N$ is defined here as the ratio of the observed TTV amplitude to the timing measurement uncertainty), one still needs at least about 15 transits, continuous or not, for the inverse problem to have a unique solution.
The [*Kepler*]{} mission, of course, changed that, but not being part of the [*Kepler*]{} team did not help. Thus, I became somewhat disheartened while watching the discoveries of Kepler-9b,c, which was the first planetary system characterized from TTVs (Holman et al. 2010), Kepler-19b, which was the first case that showed clear TTV evidence for an unseen planet (Ballard et al. 2011), and others. It looked as if the train departed leaving me behind. In the meanwhile, I improved the validity of the codes for strongly inclined systems and eccentric transiting planets, performed a tentative analysis of COROT-1b, TrES-1b and HD 189733b, and waited for something.
That something happened in November 2011 when I was on a sabbatical leave at the Nice observatory, in southern France. I received an unexpected email from David Kipping, then Carl Sagan Fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. David invited me to be a member of a small team of researchers known as the [*Hunt for Exomoons with Kepler*]{} (HEK; Kipping et al. 2012).[^1] Other then David and me, the HEK staff included Gáspár Bakos from Princeton University and Allan Schmitt from [PlanetHunters.org]{}. Small teams suit me well and knowing David from before I gladly accepted. My role in the team was to use [*Kepler*]{} TTVs, which David extracted with formidable speed and accuracy from the MAST catalog, to characterize planets.
The following part of the story, which eventually led to the detection and characterization of Kepler-46 and the publication of this work in the [*Science*]{} magazine, is best told by an email exchange among the HEK members. Below I reproduce excerpts from some of these emails along with short commentaries. In the following text, the dates of the emails are given in the US convention (MM/DD/YYYY).
[**From David K’s email to the HEK team (11/27/2011):**]{}
HCV-439 is the most interesting system. The system exhibits TTVs of $\sim$1 hour amplitude whereas none of the other systems have ‘clean’ TTVs like this.
I attach here the TTVs of the top four candidates. HCV-439 is the only one with a really convincing signal.
The highest priority is HCV-439. Could you please run your code on these TTVs and see what planetary solutions are valid (if any)? Let me know if you need any other system parameters. Note that the system is known to only have one transiting planet thus far.
Note that HCV-439, mentioned in the above email, was our HEK nickname for KOI-872, which later became known as Kepler-46. We used a nickname to avoid potential information leaks.
[**From David N’s email on 12/1/2011:**]{}
I made some initial attempts to fit the TTV signal for 439. So far I only tried co-planar systems. There are many solutions that provide a good match to the data.
The plot illustrates the importance of getting additional transits. With only one additional transit, it will be clearly possible to distinguish between the three solutions shown here. I expect that the unique solution will be found when we will have $\sim$10 transits.
This saw-tooth pattern looks to me like a short-period planetary signal which is ideal for my method (resonant oscillations would have longer period).
One solution gives normalized chi2$<$0.1 and stands out as exceptionally good. This could be the right one. It corresponds to a planet half the Jupiter mass at $a=0.29$ AU and $e=0.1$. It may or may not be the right one.
It turns out that the best solution mentioned above is essentially the right one. This is amazing, because we only had 6 (!) transits of KOI-872b in late 2011, when this email was written (Figure 1).
[**From David K’s email on 12/1/2011:**]{}
Excellent stuff. It is frustrating that we only have 6 transits. In January we should acquire additional $\sim$10 transits so we will then have more than enough.
The TDVs are significant so I suspect there is important information in there and I look forward to seeing what happens when you fit the TTV and TDV simultaneously.
David K was rightly pointing out the importance of transit duration variations (TDVs). The lack of TDVs of KOI-872 was later used to reject the second best solution and obtain a unique fit.
[**From David N’s email on 12/9/2011:**]{}
With 6 transits it is impossible to do anything reasonable with non-coplanar systems, so I focused on coplanar planetary fits.
For the moment I looked at the semimajor axis range of the putative planet between 0.17 to 1 AU. There are 30 solutions where analytic fits to observed TTVs showed normalized chi2$<$1. This cut is arbitrary.
I would like to briefly highlight the first solution in the list below, corresponding to a planet about half the Jupiter mass with 80 day period and 0.1 eccentricity. Attached plot shows the TTVs and TDVs for this system. TTVs look pretty good.
The ‘first’ solution mentioned in my Dec. 9 email was published as the second-best solution (s2) in our [*Science*]{} article. This solution can be rejected with more TTV data and TDVs.
[**From David K’s email on 12/9/2011.**]{}
[ This is all really cool. So either we have a moon or a 2nd planet then. I wonder if there is any way to constrain the mass of the transiting planet, even a broad limit such as Mp$<$10 Mj (i.e. a real planet rather than a false positive)? So what I’m really asking is can we confirm this candidate? ]{}
Again, this is spot on. We could not obtain any limits on the mass of the transiting candidate from the TTV data available to us in 2011/2012. Instead, the candidate was confirmed by first detecting its companion from TTVs and then running a stability analysis for the whole system. This gives 6 Jupiter masses ($M_{\rm J}$) as an upper limit for KOI-872b, which is clearly planetary.
In 2017, using the whole [*Kepler*]{} dataset and 35 transits of KOI-872b, the mass of the transiting candidate can already be constrained from TTVs to give $M_b=0.88_{-0.34}^{+0.37}$ $M_{\rm J}$ (Saad-Olivera et al. 2017). This is possible because the TTV signal starts picking up the non-linear terms in the mutual interaction of the two planets.
[**From David K’s email on 1/10/2012:**]{}
I want to just update on the progress of the real project here. I have adapted multinest to work on “real” data now, it took a hellish day of coding but I think it is now working. I am about to start a final test on HCV-439 to see if I recover the same TTVs as before. If it passes this test, then I will begin detrending the new [*Kepler*]{} data for this system.
Once I have detrended the data, I will begin fits on all 14 transits. This could take some time, week or more. However, the nice thing with multinest is that one rarely has to re-execute the fits.
Multinest is a multimodal nested sampling algorithm that was developed by Farhan Ferroz (Ferroz et al. 2009). David K initially used it to obtain parameters of individual transits from the [*Kepler*]{} photometry. We adapted the Multinest code to execute the dynamical fits as well (e.g., Nesvorný et al. 2013).
[**From David K’s email on 1/15/2012:**]{}
Cool, with such a complex and high SNR signal, I wonder if this could be the first example of a perturber being uniquely determined from TTV alone? Exciting stuff!
I am running refined TTV fits, they will take 1-2 days minimum.
The next day David K sent me KOI-872’s TTVs from the [*Kepler*]{} quarters 1-6, and I performed a more complete dynamical analysis immediately. Each dynamical fit was executed by the analytic codes in minutes (Figure 2). All the effort I have put into the code over the past three years finally paid off. Doing this with N-body is possible but takes days on a supercomputer.
[**From David N’s email on 1/16/2012:**]{}
It is looking good!
The analytic search routine in 5D (planet’s mass,a,e,varpi,capm) found promising solutions that fit TTVs very nicely (TDVs were ignored at this step). Most of the solutions could not have been fine tuned with my numerical (and more) precise code in 7D (mass,a,e,inc,capom,varpi,capm), so I discarded them. Two remained.
Solution 1: mass$=$0.000934 Msun, sema$=$0.2998 AU, ecc$=$0.0560
This solution is related to the 2nd best solution that we obtained from the original 6 transits. It is a Jupiter-mass planet just inside the 5:2 resonance (P2/P1$=$2.437) which explains large TTVs. The parameters are very well constrained, including the inclination. With inclination this large, TDVs can be substantial, but I did not have time to look into this in a more detail. Will do it asap.
Solution 2: mass$=$0.0002107 Msun, sema$=$0.2346 AU, ecc$=$0.01224
This is a planet 1/5 Jupiter mass near the 5:3 resonance (P2/P1=1.696). The ultimate test of this could be TDVs as this solution has smaller inclination than solution 1, and should produce smaller TDV amplitude. All this has to be checked with the new TDV data.
Yes, this was a critical assessment: TDVs of the 2nd solution should be smaller. Given that no TDVs were detected for KOI-872, the first solution can be ruled out because it generates TDVs in excess of the measurement errors.
By the way, my statement that “the 5:2 resonance ... explains large TTVs” is incorrect. In fact, the large variations come from the 2:1 short-period term and are a consequence of the relatively large companion mass.
[**From David K’s email on 1/16/2012:**]{}
Awesome! I have more good news. There are three epochs missing in the data I sent you. My code had a bug where it cut them off, but I have fixed it now. So you have 3 new transits to add in.
[**From David N’s email on 1/17/2012:**]{}
Interesting news: The priority of the two solutions that I mentioned in the previous email switched with the new data. Now, the solution with a smaller planet near 5:3 gives chi2$=$5.8 (!) for 8 degrees of freedom. This one improved enormously. The solution with the Jupiter-mass planet near 5:2 now gives chi2=28.9, and can be rejected.
I am starting to be confident that we have finally obtained the correct and unique solution.
To summarize: In all likelihood we have here a system of two planets, the outer non-transiting planet should have mass about 25% lower than Saturn. It should be near the 5:3 resonance (period ratio 1.6967), low eccentricities and low inclinations.
We had 15 transits of KOI-872b and things were converging toward the solution near the 5:3 resonance, which is the correct one. And our excitement was building up...
[**From David K’s email on 1/17/2012:**]{}
Woah - that’s a hell of a fit!
Transit wise - interesting point. I can begin looking for transits on the 5:3 resonance. My immediate instinct is that it cannot be transiting given the planet is likely at least Neptune radius and should be sticking out like a sore thumb. I should be able to produce constraints on inclination vs radius for a fixed period which will give you a strong constraint to add in.
According to the best TTV/TDV fit mentioned above, the relative inclination of the two planets in the KOI-872 system must be small. We therefore considered the possibility that the outer planet might be transiting but was somehow overlooked. That turned out not to be the case: no transits of the outer planet were detected.
[**From David N’s email from 1/18/2012:**]{}
The short-period TTVs are sensitive to the Mc/M\* ratio only, so I fit for Mc/M\* and it comes out as $\sim$0.0002. For M\*$=$0.8, this would roughly be a Saturn-mass planet.
It would be nice if transits of the 2nd planet can be ruled out. We could use it to give some lower limit on the perturbing planet’s inclination.
Good news: No interesting secondary maxima of chi2 popped out so far, so the two solutions that I mentioned in the previous email stand out as the only candidates. The 2nd solution can still be ruled out at >99% confidence, leading to a unique parameter set. :-)
With things going well, David K contacted the HEK team and told them the good news in the following email.
[**From David K’s email to the HEK team on 1/20/2012:**]{}
David N. and I have been working hard on HCV-439 these last few days are some answers are beginning to emerge. First of all, the new data strongly indicates the presence of star spots. Exomoon-like features seem to correlate with times of maximum activity which is a bad sign for exomoons. I have not run a moon fit through the new data yet, but my instincts are that this is not a moon.
However, the TTVs persist and exhibit a complex and highly significant signal. David N. has managed to obtain what appears to be a unique TTV inverse fit to the data. Let me just stress that this is the 1st time this has ever been done by anyone for a non-transiting perturber and represents a major accomplishment if the solution holds with our subsequent tests. It seems as though an outer planet of about 0.25 jupiter masses is near the 5:3 resonance and almost coaligned to the transiting planet.
The near-coalignment suggests the outer planet has a good chance of transiting, but not guaranteed. Indeed, the fact it is a Neptune sized planet suggests it should have already been detected if it was there. I have run a search through the data and Allan has manually checked for transits but there is nothing convincing in the data.
So we are thinking of running a paper on this system and I am working hard on finishing up all of the fits for this system. Perhaps we should arrange a telecon next week sometime to discuss everything. Including journal, naming of the system, confirming the system, etc.
It remained to confirm the planetary nature of KOI-872b. On the suggestion of David K, I performed a stability analysis with different masses of KOI-872b. The results are described in the following email.
[**From David N’s email to the HEK team on 1/30/2012:**]{}
I have done the stability test last week. The upper bound on Mb is 5 MJupiter for M\*$=$0.8 Msun, which is clearly planetary. I can increase M\* and see what happens. The result can be predicted from the Wisdom’s overlap criterion. Will update on this asap.
Please see attached a very preliminary draft of the paper that I sent to David K. already.
Given this result is so \*cool\* I think we should submit it to Science. I am now 99.9% sure that this is a real planetary system and that we identified the right solution. TTVs give us Mc/M\*, Pc (or ac for assumed M\*), ec$<$0.03, eb$<$0.02, ic$<$5 deg. We also have a very tight constraint on the pericenter and true longitudes.
Note that this is the first time that eccentricities were constrained from TTVs. The\
inclination constraint is also unique. David K. just sent me new error estimates and things look even better that what is described in the attached draft.
The stellar mass of KOI-872 was later revised to $0.90 \pm 0.04$ solar masses, indicating that the mass of KOI-872b cannot be larger than about 6 Jupiter masses.
We have done 17 iterations of the first draft and David K has written over 30 pages of the Supplementary Material. Gáspár Bakos, Lars Buchhave (Niels Bohr Institute) and Joel Hartman (Princeton University) improved the stellar parameters of KOI-872, and the whole HEK team was indispensable to the effort. Here it paid off how David K assembled the team with each member having a unique expertise. David was a driving force behind all efforts. He also found transits of a third planet in the KOI-872 system, a super-Earth with 1.7 Earth radius and 6.8-day period. This planet should produce TTVs of KOI-872b of the order of seconds and has nothing to do with the measured TTVs.
I performed innumerous additional test to demonstrate that no other solution, including polar/retrograde orbits and other absurd configurations, and systems of multiple planets, can compete with the solution already found. Dozens of different fits were attempted overall.
The paper was submitted to [*Science*]{} on 2/26/2012. We received three referee reports on 3/23/2012. This is from my email on 3/23/2012:
We received three \*very\* positive reviews!!! They are attached below.
Reviewer 1 praises the paper and has no criticism whatsoever. Referee 2 is similarly\
enthusiastic and suggests only a few minor changes. Reviewer 3 liked the science as well (even congratulates us!) and offers numerous comments on how to improve the main text.
I have not seen such an uniformly positive reaction to any of the published Science/Nature papers that I contributed in the past. This is absolutely incredible and we should be proud of such an achievement.
The paper was finally published on June 1, 2012 (Figure 3), and David K and I prepared a press release to accompany the publication (Figure 4).[^2] To reflect the confirmed nature of these planets, the [*Kepler*]{} team later renamed this system to Kepler-46.
What is, in retrospect, the importance of this work in planetary? To answer this question, recall that TTVs were originally proposed as a non-transiting planet detection method, but prior to 2012 they have found more use in validating the transiting planet candidates from [*Kepler*]{}. A non-transiting planet has been previously inferred via TTVs, but the measurement was unable to support a unique solution (Ballard et al. 2011). Our [*Science*]{} article demonstrated the full potential of TTVs as a method to detect non-transiting planets and precisely characterize their properties. So, in some sense, the work on Kepler-46 closed the loop and recasted the TTVs as a planet-detection method.
This is useful because planetary transits can only be detected if the orbit is seen edge on. The transit method is therefore blind to planetary companions with even a small orbital tilt away from the line of sight. The TTV method, on the other hand, can be used to detect non-transiting companions (assuming that at least one planet in the system is transiting). TTVs can therefore play an important role in addressing the incompleteness of planetary systems detected from transits, with interesting implications for the distribution of mutual inclinations of orbits. Ultimately, all this links to the holy grail of the exoplanet research, which is to establish how planets form and evolve.
How confident are we about the Kepler-46 system characterization published in 2012? The full [*Kepler*]{} mission provided 35 transits of Kepler-46b (compared to 15 transits available to us back in 2012). My student, Ximena Saad-Olivera, recently performed a new TTV analysis with improved methods and all 35 transits (Saad-Olivera et al. 2017). This work confirmed that the Kepler-46c planet characterization, including its mass and orbital period, was correct. The orbital eccentricities of Kepler-46b and c favored by the new fits are slightly higher than the original estimates, $e_{b,c}\simeq0.03$ versus $e_{b,c}\simeq0.01$-0.015, but this is within the error bars reported in the original publication. Future TTV observations including those of the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), can be used to further improve the Kepler-46 parameters.
Unfortunately, the host star of Kepler-46 is not bright enough (apparent magnitude 15.3) for precise Doppler observations. For this reason, it may take some time before Kepler-46c is confirmed by independent means, be it the radial velocity technique or something else. At this point, however, I think this is a mere formality, which brings us to a related story of KOI-142 (Kepler-88).
We selected KOI-142 as an interesting TTV case from Mazeh et al. (2013), where they published a large collection of TTVs for dozens of [*Kepler*]{} candidates. The TTVs of KOI-142b are different from those of Kepler-46b in that they show a huge, nearly-sinusoidal signal ($\sim$12 hour amplitude, which is about 5% of the orbital period!). Also, we already had 105 transit epochs of KOI-142b in 2013.
I was initially not enthusiastic about this case, because KOI-142’s TTVs did not seem to have the type of complexity required for the unique inversion. I was wrong. When David K provided a detailed analysis of transits and I attempted the dynamical fits in early 2013, the code very rapidly converged to a single solution –an outer planet just outside the 2:1 resonance with KOI-142b– and nothing would move it from there.
This case is therefore unlike that of Kepler-46, where we only had a few transits to start with and were struggling with the solution ambiguity. Still, I did not understand why the solution should be unique in the case of KOI-142b until I realized that the measurements are so precise that they are picking up the chopping effect in the TTVs signal due to planet conjunctions (see Nesvorný & Vokrouhlický 2014 for discussion of the conjunction effect). The chopping effect has a very low amplitude, of the order of minutes, and was buried in the huge TTVs produced by the near 2:1 commensurability between orbits. The chopping effect has a high information content and this is what was driving the code to converge to a unique solution.
Another happy moment with KOI-142 happened when we predicted TDVs from the best-fit TTV solution and then went back to the transit photometry to dig out the TDVs of KOI-142b. The measured TDVs turned out to be exactly where the dynamical solution of TTVs was predicting them. Such things do not happen by chance.
Our paper on KOI-142 was published in ApJ (Nesvorný et al. 2013) and the system was later renamed to Kepler-88. Soon after, in 2014, new radial velocity measurements from the SOPHIE instrument were used to confirm the non-transiting planet Kepler-88c with the mass and orbital period that we previously inferred from TTVs (Barros et al. 2014; the published SOPHIE velocimetry was not precise enough to improve the original parameter determination). This firmly demonstrated that the TTV method can be used to detect and characterize non-transiting planets, and resolved many doubts that I had back in 2007 when I started working on this project. More detections and characterizations of non-transiting planets followed later (e.g., KOI-227, KOI-319 and KOI-882; Nesvorný et al. 2014).
Kepler-88 is interesting because of its dynamical configuration near the 2:1 resonance. The orbital period ratio of the two planets is 2.03. This is therefore one of many pairs of the [*Kepler*]{} planets with orbits just outside of a first-order resonance, but in this specific case we have a very good determination of masses and orbital eccentricities. It is possible that Kepler-88b and 88c migrated into the resonance by gravitational torques from their parent gas disk and later separated by tidal migration. For that, however, the tidal dissipation would have to be unusually strong. Also, the orbital eccentricity of the outer planet, Kepler-88c, is substantial ($0.056 \pm 0.002$) and cannot be explained by gravitational perturbations from the inner planet. Perhaps there were, or still are, additional massive companions at larger orbital distances. In any case, the transits of Kepler-88b are predicted to disappear in 15-25 years from know (due to the precession of its orbital plane caused by Kepler-88c), so either these hypothetical outer companions reveal themselves in Kepler-88b’s TTVs within the next two decades or we will have to use other methods (e.g., precise radial velocity measurements) to figure things out.
Many thanks to the HEK team, and David Kipping in particular, for their work on the TTV-related issues. The story of Kepler-46 and Kepler-88 described in this text would not happen without their vision, leadership and support. We thank the [*Kepler*]{} Science Team, especially the Data Analysis Working Group, for making the [*Kepler*]{} data publicly available. I would also like to thank Eric Agol, Katherine Deck, Daniel Fabrycky, Matt Holman, Alessandro Morbidelli, Jason Steffen and David Vokrouhlický for numerous helpful discussions, and Jack Lissauer, Darin Ragozzine and Joann Ersberg for carefully reading the submitted manuscript and suggesting corrections.
Agol, E., Steffen, J., Sari, R., Clarkson, W. 2005. On detecting terrestrial planets with timing of giant planet transits. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 359, 567-579.
Ballard, S., and 30 colleagues 2011. The Kepler-19 System: A Transiting 2.2 R$_{\oplus}$ Planet and a Second Planet Detected via Transit Timing Variations. The Astrophysical Journal 743, 200.
Barros, S. C. C., and 11 colleagues 2014. SOPHIE velocimetry of Kepler transit candidates. X. KOI-142 c: first radial velocity confirmation of a non-transiting exoplanet discovered by transit timing. Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 561, 561.
Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Bridges, M. 2009. MULTINEST: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 398, 1601-1614.
Holman, M. J., Murray, N. W. 2005. The Use of Transit Timing to Detect Terrestrial-Mass Extrasolar Planets. Science 307, 1288-1291.
Holman, M. J., and 40 colleagues 2010. Kepler-9: A System of Multiple Planets Transiting a Sun-Like Star, Confirmed by Timing Variations. Science 330, 51.
Kipping, D. M., Bakos, G. [Á]{}., Buchhave, L., Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Schmitt, A. 2012. The Hunt for Exomoons with Kepler (HEK). I. Description of a New Observational project. The Astrophysical Journal 750, 115.
Mazeh, T., and 15 colleagues 2013. Transit Timing Observations from Kepler. VIII. Catalog of Transit Timing Measurements of the First Twelve Quarters. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 208, 16.
Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D. 2014. The Effect of Conjunctions on the Transit Timing Variations of Exoplanets. The Astrophysical Journal 790, 58.
Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Kipping, D. M., Buchhave, L. A., Bakos, G. [Á]{}., Hartman, J., Schmitt, A. R. 2012. The Detection and Characterization of a Nontransiting Planet by Transit Timing Variations. Science 336, 1133.
Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Kipping, D., Terrell, D., Hartman, J., Bakos, G. [Á]{}., Buchhave, L. A. 2013. KOI-142, The King of Transit Variations, is a Pair of Planets near the 2:1 Resonance. The Astrophysical Journal 777, 3.
Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Kipping, D., Terrell, D., Feroz, F. 2014. Photo-dynamical Analysis of Three Kepler Objects of Interest with Significant Transit Timing Variations. The Astrophysical Journal 790, 31.
Saad-Olivera, X., Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Kipping, D. M., Roig, F. 2017. Masses of Kepler-46b,c from Transit Timing Variations. The Astronomical Journal 153, 198.
[^1]: [https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/HEK/]{}
[^2]: [https://www.swri.org/press-release/unseen-planet-revealed-its-gravity]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We introduce a new and general continuum thermodynamic framework for the mathematical analysis and computation of adsorption on dynamic interfaces. To the best of our knowledge, there is no formulation available that accounts for the coupled dynamics of interfaces and densities of adsorbants. Our framework leads to analytic adsorption isotherms which also take the interfacial geometry fully into account. We demonstrate the utility and physical consistency of our framework with a new computational multi-level discretization strategy. In the computations, we recover the experimentally observed feature that the adsorption of particles minimizes the interfacial tension.'
address:
- 'Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom'
author:
- Markus Schmuck
- Serafim Kalliadasis
bibliography:
- 'padsorpCH\_main.bib'
title: New and general framework for adsorption processes on dynamic interfaces
---
free energy ,multiscale computation ,dynamic surface tension ,gradient flow ,complex adsorption
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
Adsorption on dynamic interfaces {#sec:2}
================================
Asorption of uniform particles {#sec:2_1}
------------------------------
Asorption of different types of particles {#sec:2_2}
-----------------------------------------
Generalization to incompressible fluids {#sec:2_3}
---------------------------------------
Computations: Heterogeneous multi-level method {#sec:3}
==============================================
Conclusion {#sec:4}
==========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have found a new evolutionary path to Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) which has been overlooked in previous work. In this scenario, a carbon-oxygen white dwarf (C+O WD) is originated, not from an asymptotic giant branch star with a C+O core, but from a red-giant star with a helium core of $\sim 0.8-2.0 M_\odot$. The helium star, which is formed after the first common envelope evolution, evolves to form a C+O WD of $\sim 0.8-1.1 M_\odot$ with transferring a part of the helium envelope onto the secondary main-sequence star. This new evolutionary path, together with the optically thick wind from mass-accreting white dwarf, provides a much wider channel to SNe Ia than previous scenarios. A part of the progenitor systems are identified as the luminous supersoft X-ray sources or the recurrent novae like U Sco, which are characterized by the accretion of helium-rich matter. The white dwarf accretes hydrogen-rich, helium-enhanced matter from a lobe-filling, slightly evolved companion at a critical rate and blows excess matter in the wind. The white dwarf grows in mass to the Chandrasekhar mass limit and explodes as an SN Ia. A theoretical estimate indicates that this channel contributes a considerable part of the inferred rate of SNe Ia in our Galaxy, i.e., the rate is about ten times larger than the previous theoretical estimates for white dwarfs with slightly evolved companions.'
author:
- Izumi Hachisu
- Mariko Kato
- 'Ken’ichi Nomoto, and Hideyuku Umeda'
title: 'A NEW EVOLUTIONARY PATH TO TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE: HELIUM-RICH SUPER-SOFT X-RAY SOURCE CHANNEL'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) have been widely believed to be a thermonuclear explosion of a mass-accreting white dwarf (WD) (e.g., [@nom97] for a recent review). However, the immediate progenitor binary systems have not been identified yet ([@bra95]). There exist two models discussed frequently as progenitors of SNe Ia: 1) the Chandrasekhar (Ch) mass model, in which a mass-accreting carbon-oxygen (C+O) WD grows in mass up to the Ch mass and explodes as an SN Ia, and 2) the sub-Chandrasekhar (sub-Ch) mass model, in which an accreted layer of helium atop a C+O WD ignites off-center for a WD mass well below the Ch mass. The early time spectra of the majority of SNe Ia are in excellent agreement with the synthetic spectra of the Ch mass models, while the spectra of the sub-Ch mass models are too blue to be comparable with the observations ([@hof96]; [@nug97]).
For the evolution of accreting WDs toward the Ch mass, two scenarios have been proposed: 1) a double degenerate (DD) scenario, i.e., merging of double C+O WDs with a combined mass surpassing the Ch mass limit ([@ibe84]; [@web84]), and 2) a single degenerate (SD) scenario, i.e., accretion of hydrogen-rich matter via mass transfer from a binary companion (e.g., [@nom82a]; [@nom94]). The issue of DD vs. SD is still debated (e.g., [@bra95]), although theoretical modeling has indicated that the merging of WDs leads to the accretion-induced collapse rather than SN Ia explosion (Saio & Nomoto 1985, 1998; [@seg97]).
For the Ch/SD scenario, a new evolutionary model has been proposed by Hachisu, Kato, & Nomoto (1996; hereafter HKN96). HKN96 have shown that if the accretion rate exceeds a critical rate, the WD blows a strong wind and burns hydrogen steadily at this critical rate and expels excess matter in the wind. The WD increases its mass up to the Ch mass avoiding formation of a common envelope. Li & van den Heuvel (1997) have extended HKN96’s model to a system consisting of a mass-accreting WD and a lobe-filling, more massive, main-sequence (MS) or sub-giant star (hereafter “WD+MS system”), identified with luminous supersoft X-ray sources, and found that such a system is one of the main progenitors of SNe Ia as well as a system consisting of a WD and a lobe-filling, less massive, red-giant (hereafter “WD+RG system”) proposed by HKN96.
Recently, Yungelson & Livio (1998) have reanalyzed the models by HKN96 and Li & van den Heuvel based on their population synthesis code and concluded that both HKN96’s WD+RG and Li & van den Heuvel’s WD+MS systems can account for only (at most) 10% of the inferred rate of SNe Ia in our Galaxy. However, Yungelson & Livio (1998) overlooked important evolutionary processes both in the WD+MS and WD+RG systems. In this paper, we first describe an important evolutionary process to form the WD+MS system, which has been overlooked in previous works (e.g., [@dis94]; [@yun96]; [@yun98]). Another evolutionary process leading to the WD+RG system is discussed elsewhere (Hachisu, Kato, & Nomoto 1999, hereafter HKN99). In §2, we describe the new evolutionary process to form the WD+MS system. Including this new evolutionary path, we will show that the secondary (slightly evolved MS star) becomes a helium-rich star like in U Sco (e.g., [@wil81]), which is transferring helium-rich matter onto the primary (WD). We have reanalyzed such a helium-rich matter accretion onto the WD based on the optically thick wind theory developed by Kato & Hachisu (1994). If the secondary MS star has a mass of $\sim 2-3.5 M_\odot$, a WD with an initial mass of $0.8-1.1 M_\odot$ grows in mass to the Ch mass and explodes as an SN Ia. We describe the evolution of such a WD+MS system in §3. The new parameter region thus obtained is much wider than that by Li & van den Heuvel (1997) and Yungelson & Livio (1998). Discussions follow in §4, in which we have estimated the realization frequency of our WD+MS systems that accounts for about a third of the inferred rate of SNe Ia in our Galaxy.
FORMATION OF A NAKED HELIUM CORE AND ITS EVOLUTION TOWARD C+O WHITE DWARF
=========================================================================
In this section, we describe the evolutionary path to form the WD+MS system where the secondary (MS star) has a helium-rich envelope. This important evolutionary path shown in Figure \[hemtsn1a\] has been overlooked in previous work. Yungelson & Livio (1998) applied their population synthesis code to the WD+MS systems and found that the realization frequency of the WD+MS systems is at most one tenth of the inferred rate of SNe Ia in our Galaxy. In their population synthesis code, they consider only initial systems consisting of a more massive AGB star with a C+O core and a less massive main-sequence star. This system undergoes a common envelope evolution and finally yields a binary system of a mass-accreting C+O WD and a lobe-filling MS or sub-giant star. Their code does not include another important evolutionary path, in which a more massive component fills up its inner critical Roche lobe when it develops [*a helium core*]{} of $\sim 0.8-2.0 M_\odot$ in [*its red-giant phase*]{}.
Common Envelope Evolution at Red-Giant Phase with a Helium Core
---------------------------------------------------------------
This evolutionary path from [*stage A*]{} to [*F*]{} in Figure \[hemtsn1a\] has been first introduced by Hachisu & Kato (1999) to explain the helium-rich companion of the recurrent nova U Sco. We consider, for example, a close binary at a separation $a$ with the primary of mass $M_{1,i} = 7 M_\odot$ and the secondary of $M_{2,i} = 2 M_\odot$ ([*stage A*]{}). When the primary has evolved to a red-giant of the radius $R_1$ forming a helium core of mass $M_{\rm 1,He}$ ([*stage B*]{}), it fills up its inner critical Roche lobe, i.e., $R_1=R_1^*$. Here, $R^*_1$ is the effective radius of the inner critical Roche lobe of the primary, which is approximated by Eggleton’s (1983) formula, $${{R_1^*} \over {a}} = f(q) \equiv {{0.49q^{2/3}}
\over{0.6q^{2/3} + \ln (1+q^{1/3})}},
\label{inner_critical_Roche_lobe}$$ for the mass ratio $q= M_1/M_2$. The long dashed line in Figure \[m7m2com2\] shows the primary radius $R_1$ against the helium core mass $M_{\rm 1,He}$ ([@bre93]). The radius of the primary increases with the helium core mass from $M_{\rm 1,He} \sim 0.2 M_\odot$ to $\sim 1.4 M_\odot$ until helium burning ignites at the center of the helium star. If the primary fills its inner critical Roche lobe at a certain $M_{\rm 1,He}$, i.e., $R_1(M_{\rm 1,He}) = R_1^*$, the separation of the binary, $a$, is given by $$a = {{R_1(M_{\rm 1,He})} \over {f(q)}}.
\label{inner_separation}$$ Using this relation, we can plot the initial separation $a_i$ against $M_{\rm 1,He}$ as shown by the thick solid line in Figure \[m7m2com2\].
Then the mass transfer begins. This mass transfer is dynamically unstable because the primary red-giant star has a convective envelope. The binary undergoes common envelope (CE) evolution ([*stage C*]{}), which yields a much more compact close binary consisting of a naked helium star of $M_{1,{\rm He}}$ and a main-sequence star of $M_2= 2 M_\odot$ ([*stage D*]{}). Figure \[m7m2com2\] shows the separation $a_{f,{\rm CE}}$ and the inner critical Roche lobe radius of the secondary $R^*_{2,f,{\rm CE}}$ after the common envelope evolution. Here, we assume the relation $${{a_{f,{\rm CE}}} \over {a_{i}}} \sim \alpha_{\rm CE} \cdot
\left({{M_{1,{\rm He}}} \over { M_{1,i}}} \right)
\cdot \left({{M_2} \over {M_{1,i}-M_{1,{\rm He}}}} \right),
\label{common_envelope_separation}$$ with the efficiency $\alpha_{\rm CE}=1.0$ for the common envelope evolution (e.g., [@ibe84]; [@ibe93]; [@yun98]).
After the common envelope evolution, the radii of the inner critical Roche lobes of the primary and the secondary become $R_1^* \sim 0.36 a_{f, \rm{CE}}$ and $R_2^* \sim 0.4 a_{f, \rm{CE}}$, respectively. Since the secondary radius (shown by the dashed line in Figure \[m7m2com2\] for the $2 M_\odot$ ZAMS) should be smaller than its inner critical Roche lobe, i.e., $R_2 < R^*_{2,f,{\rm CE}}$, the initial separation $a_{i}$ should exceed $\sim 80 ~R_\odot$ as shown in Figure \[m7m2com2\]. The upper bound of the initial separation is obtained from the maximum radius of the $7 M_\odot$ star which has formed a helium core, i.e., $a_{i} \approx 2 R_{\rm 1,max} \lesssim 2 \times 300 ~R_\odot$. Thus, the allowable range of the initial separations for our model is $80 ~R_\odot \lesssim a_{i} \lesssim 600 ~R_\odot$, so that $R_1^* \sim 1.4-18 ~R_\odot$ and $R_2^* \sim 1.6-20 ~R_\odot$ for the case of Figure \[m7m2com2\].
Transfer of Helium Envelope to the Secondary
--------------------------------------------
After the hydrogen-rich envelope is stripped away and hydrogen shell burning vanishes, the naked helium core contracts to ignite central helium burning and becomes a helium main sequence star of mass $M_{\rm 1,He}$ ([*stage D*]{}). For $M_{\rm 1,He} \lesssim 2 M_\odot$, its C+O core mass is less than $1.07 M_\odot$ which is the lower mass limit to the non-degenerate carbon ignition (e.g., [@ume99]; [@nom88] for a review). Then the helium star forms a degenerate C+O core, whose mass $M_{\rm C+O}$ grows by helium shell burning. When $M_{\rm C+O}$ becomes $0.9-1.0 M_\odot$ and the core becomes strongly degenerate, its helium envelope expands to $R_1 \sim 1.4-18 ~R_\odot$ (e.g., [@pac71a]; [@nom82b]) to fill its inner critical Roche lobe again ([*stage E*]{}). Helium is transferred to the secondary stably on an [*evolutionary time scale*]{} of $\tau_{\rm EV} \sim 10^5$ yr because the mass ratio is smaller than $0.79$ ($q= M_1/M_2 < 0.79$). The resultant mass transfer (MT) rate is $\dot M_1 \sim 10^{-5} M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, which is too low to form a common envelope (e.g., [@neo77]; [@kip77]). After the helium envelope is lost, the primary becomes a C+O WD of $M_{\rm WD} \sim 0.9-1.1 M_\odot$ ([*stage F*]{}). In Figure \[m7m2hemt\], $M_{1,f,{\rm MT}}= M_{\rm WD}$ is plotted as a function of $M_{\rm 1,He}$. Here, we assume the relation of (in solar mass units of $M_\odot$) $$M_{\rm WD} = \left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}ll}
0.2 \left( M_{\rm 1,He} - 0.85 \right)+0.85,
& \mbox{~for~} 0.85 < M_{\rm 1,He} \lesssim 2, \cr
M_{\rm 1,He},
& \mbox{~for~} 0.46 \lesssim M_{\rm 1,He} \le 0.85,
\end{array}
\right.
\label{C+O_core_mass}$$ for the final degenerate C+O WD mass vs. the initial helium star mass relation (reduced from the evolutionary paths by [@pac71a] and [@nom82b]). Helium stars with $M_{\rm He} \le 0.85 M_\odot$ do not expand to $\sim 2-10 R_\odot$, thus burning most of helium to C+O without transferring helium to the secondary. For $M_{\rm 1,He} \gtrsim 2.0 M_\odot$, the C+O core has a mass larger than $1.07 M_\odot$ before becoming degenerate, thus igniting carbon to form an O+Ne+Mg core (e.g., [@nom84]), thus we do not include their mass range. For $M_{\rm 1,He} \lesssim 0.46 M_\odot$, helium is not ignited to form a C+O core.
The secondary increases its mass $M_2$ by receiving almost pure helium matter of $\Delta M_{\rm He} \sim 0.1-0.6 M_\odot$, which is a function of $M_{\rm 1,He}$ as plotted in Figure \[m7m2hemt\]. Then a helium-enriched envelope is formed as illustrated in Figure \[hemtsn1a\] ([*stage F*]{}). After the helium mass transfer (MT), the separation increases by 10%$-$40%, i.e., $a_{\rm f, MT} \sim (1.1-1.4)
a_{\rm f, CE} \sim (4-70) R_\odot$. Here, we assume the conservation of the total mass and angular momentum during the helium mass transfer, which leads to the relation of $${{a_{\rm f, MT}} \over {a_{\rm f, CE}}} = \left({{M_{\rm1,He}} \over
{{M_{\rm 1,He}-\Delta M_{\rm He}}}} \right)^2
\left({{M_{2,i}} \over {M_{2,i} + \Delta M_{\rm He}}} \right)^2,
\label{helium_mass_transfer}$$ and we use this to obtain $a_{\rm f, MT}$ and then the orbital period $P_0 \equiv P_{\rm f, MT}$ in Figure \[m7m2hemt\].
Since the secondary receives $\sim 0.1-0.6 M_\odot$ helium, its hydrogen content in the envelope decreases to $X \sim 0.6$ if helium is completely mixed into the central part of the star. However, the envelope of the mass-receiving star is not convective but radiative so that the helium content may be higher in the outer part of the star.
Helium-Enriched Main-Sequence Companion
---------------------------------------
We have examined total $5 \times 5= 25$ cases, $M_{1,i}= 4$, 5, 6, 7, $9 M_\odot$ and $M_{2,i}= 1.0$, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, $3.0 M_\odot$, and have found the possible progenitors to be in the range of $M_{\rm 1, C+O ~WD} \sim 0.8-1.1 M_\odot$ and $M_{\rm 2, MS} \sim 1.7-3.5 M_\odot$ with the separation of $a_{\rm f, MT} \sim 4-80 ~R_\odot$. In these cases, the secondary forms a helium-enriched envelope for the primary mass of $M_{\rm 1, WD} \sim 0.9-1.1 M_\odot$ (but not for $M_{\rm 1, WD} \sim 0.8-0.85 M_\odot$). We assume, in this paper, that the average mass fractions of hydrogen and helium in the envelope are $X= 0.50$ and $Y= 0.48$ respectively. (assuming the solar abundance of heavy elements $Z= 0.02$). For the $9 M_\odot + 2.5 M_\odot$ case, much more helium is transferred, while much less helium is transferred for the $6 M_\odot + 2 M_\odot$ case (see Table \[tbl-1\]).
GROWTH OF C+O WHITE DWARFS
==========================
Starting from a close binary of $M_{\rm WD, 0} \equiv M_{\rm 1, C+O ~WD} \sim 0.8-1.1 M_\odot$ and $M_{\rm MS, 0} \equiv M_{\rm 2, MS} \sim 1.7-3.5 M_\odot$ with the separation of $a_0 \equiv a_{\rm f, MT} \sim 4-80 ~R_\odot$, we have followed a growth of the WD component to examine whether the WD reaches $1.38 M_\odot$ and explodes as an SN Ia (from [*stage F*]{} to [*J*]{} in Fig. \[windsn1a\]).
The initial secondary now has a helium-rich envelope ([*stage F*]{}). It evolves to expand and fills its inner critical Roche lobe near the end of main-sequence (MS) phase. Then, it starts mass transfer ([*stage G*]{}). This is a [*case A mass transfer*]{} after Kippenhahn & Weigert (1967, also [@pac71b]) or a [*cataclysmic-like mass transfer*]{} after Iben & Tutukov (1984). Since the donor is more massive than the accretor (WD component), the separation decreases and the inner critical Roche lobe decreases even to scrape the envelope mass off the donor star. Thus, the mass transfer proceeds on a [*thermal time scale*]{} rather than an evolutionary time scale ([*stage H*]{}). The transferred matter is helium-rich as observed in the recurrent nova U Sco.
Optically Thick Winds from Mass-Accreting White Dwarfs
------------------------------------------------------
Hachisu, Kato, & Nomoto (1996, HKN96) have shown that optically thick winds blow from the white dwarf when the mass accretion rate exceeds a critical value ([*stage H*]{}). In the present case, the accreted matter to form the white dwarf envelope is helium-rich, which is different from the solar abundance in HKN96. Assuming $X= 0.50$, $Y= 0.48$, and $Z= 0.02$, we have calculated the envelope models of accreting white dwarfs for various accretion rates and white dwarf masses, i.e., $M_{\rm WD}= 0.6$, $0.7$, $0.8$, $0.9$, $1.0$, $1.1$, $1.2$, $1.3$, $1.35$, and $1.377 M_\odot$. Optically thick winds occur for all these ten cases of $M_{\rm WD}$ as shown for five cases of $M_{\rm WD}= 0.8$, $1.0$, $1.2$, $1.3$, and $1.377 M_\odot$ in Figures \[dmdtenvx50z02\] and \[dmdttrvx50z02\]. Our numerical methods have been described in Kato & Hachisu (1994). The envelope solution is uniquely determined if the envelope mass $M_{\rm env}$ is given, where $M_{\rm env}$ is the mass above the base of the hydrogen-burning shell. Therefore, the wind mass loss rate $\dot M_{\rm wind}$ and the nuclear burning rate $\dot M_{\rm nuc}$ are obtained as a function of the envelope mass $M_{\rm env}$, i.e., $\dot M_{\rm wind} (M_{\rm env})$ and $\dot M_{\rm nuc} (M_{\rm env})$ as shown in Figure \[dmdtenvx50z02\].
The envelope mass of the white dwarf is determined by $$\dot M_{\rm env} = \dot M_2 - (\dot M_{\rm wind}+ \dot M_{\rm nuc}).
\label{envelope_mass_rate}$$ If the mass transfer rate does not change much in a thermal time scale of the WD envelope, the steady-state $\dot M_{\rm env}=0$, i.e., $$\dot M_2 = \dot M_{\rm wind}+\dot M_{\rm nuc},
\label{envelope_mass_equilibrium}$$ is a good approximation. In such a steady-state approximation, the ordinates in Figures \[dmdtenvx50z02\] and \[dmdttrvx50z02\], $\dot M_{\rm wind} + \dot M_{\rm nuc}$, are regarded as the mass transfer rate from the secondary $\dot M_2$. Thus, the envelope solution is determined from the relation in Figure \[dmdtenvx50z02\] for the given mass transfer rate $\dot M_2$. The photospheric radius, temperature, and velocity are also obtained from the relations in Figure \[dmdttrvx50z02\].
Optically thick winds blow when the mass transfer rate exceeds the critical rate, which corresponds to the break of each solid line in Figure \[dmdtenvx50z02\]. There exists only a static (no wind) envelope solution for the mass transfer rate below this break. Its critical accretion rate is approximated as $$\dot M_{\rm cr} = 1.2 \times10^{-6}
\left({M_{\rm WD} \over {M_\odot}} -
0.40\right) M_\odot {\rm ~yr}^{-1},
\label{critical}$$ for $X=0.50$, $Y=0.48$ and $Z=0.02$. If the mass accretion rate exceeds the critical rate, i.e., $\dot M_2 > \dot M_{\rm cr}$, the strong wind blows from the white dwarf. The white dwarf accretes helium almost at the critical rate, i.e., $\dot M_{\rm nuc} \approx \dot M_{\rm cr}$, and expels the excess matter in the wind at a rate of $\dot M_{\rm wind} \approx \dot M_{2} - \dot M_{\rm cr}$. Here, we assume that the white dwarf accretes helium-rich matter from the equator via the accretion disk and blows winds to the pole or off the equator.
Efficiency of Mass-Accretion in Hydrogen Shell Burning
------------------------------------------------------
Steady hydrogen shell burning converts hydrogen into helium atop the C+O core, which can be regarded as a helium matter accretion onto the C+O WD. To estimate whether or not the white dwarf mass grows to $1.38 M_\odot$, we must calculate the mass accumulation efficiency, that is, the ratio between the mass accumulated in the WD after H/He-burning and the mass transferred from the companion. We denote the efficiency by $\eta_{\rm H}$ and $\eta_{\rm He}$ for hydrogen shell-burning and helium shell-burning, respectively. As shown in the previous subsection, the excess matter is blown in the wind when the mass transfer rate exceeds the critical rate, which leads to $\eta_{\rm H}= (\dot M_2 - \dot M_{\rm wind})/\dot M_2 < 1$, for the wind phase.
During the evolution of mass-accreting white dwarfs, the accretion rate becomes lower than $\dot M_{\rm cr}$ in some cases. Then the wind stops ([*stage I*]{} in Fig. \[windsn1a\]). Hydrogen steadily burns for $\dot M_2 >
\dot M_{\rm st} \approx 0.5 \dot M_{\rm cr}$. Then, we have $\eta_{\rm H}=1$. For $\dot M_2 < \dot M_{\rm st}$, hydrogen shell-burning becomes unstable to trigger weak shell flashes. Once a weak hydrogen shell flash occurs, a part of the envelope mass of the white dwarf may be lost from the system (e.g., [@kov94]). In the present study, no mass loss is assumed during the weak hydrogen shell flashes until the mass transfer rate becomes lower than $\dot M_{\rm low} = 1 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot \mbox{~yr}^{-1}$, i.e., $\eta_{\rm H}=1$ for $\dot M_{\rm low} \lesssim \dot M_2 < \dot M_{\rm st}$. When the mass transfer rate becomes lower than $\dot M_{\rm low}$, however, no mass accumulation is expected from such relatively strong hydrogen shell-flashes (e.g., [@kov94]), i.e., $\eta_{\rm H}=0$ for $\dot M_2 \lesssim \dot M_{\rm low}$. Therefore, we stop calculating the binary evolution either when the primary reaches $1.38 M_\odot$ ([*stage J*]{} in Fig. \[windsn1a\]), i.e., $M_{\rm 1, WD}= 1.38 M_\odot$ or the mass transfer rate becomes lower than $\dot M_{\rm low}$.
To summarize, we have used the following simplified relation $$\eta_{\rm H}= \left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}ll}
(\dot M_2 - \dot M_{\rm wind})/ \dot M_2 < 1,
&(\dot M_{\rm cr} < \dot M_2 < 1 \times 10^{-4} M_\odot
\mbox{~yr~}^{-1}) \cr
1,
& (\dot M_{\rm low} \le \dot M_2 \le \dot M_{\rm cr}) \cr
0,
& (\dot M_2 \le \dot M_{\rm low}) \cr
\end{array}
\right.
\label{hydrogen_accumulation}$$ for the mass accumulation efficiency of hydrogen shell burning.
Efficiency of Mass-Accretion in Helium Shell Burning
----------------------------------------------------
For $\dot M_2 \ge \dot M_{\rm cr}$, steady hydrogen burning is equivalent to the helium accretion at the critical rate of $\dot M_{\rm cr}$ given by equation (\[critical\]). In this case, weak helium shell flashes are triggered (e.g., [@kat89]) and almost all processed matter is accumulated on the C+O WD. Recently, Kato & Hachisu (1999) have recalculated the helium wind model after the helium shell flashes and estimated the mass accumulation efficiency with the updated OPAL opacity ([@igl96]). Here, we adopt their new results in a simple analytic form, i.e., $$\eta_{\rm He} = \left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}ll}
1,
& (-5.9 \le \log \dot M_{\rm He} \lesssim -5) \cr
-0.175 ( \log \dot M_{\rm He} & + ~~5.35 )^2 + 1.05, \cr
& (-7.8 < \log \dot M < -5.9)
\end{array}
\right.
\label{helium_accumulation}$$ where the helium mass accretion rate, $\dot M_{\rm He}$, is in units of $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. We use this formula for various white dwarf masses and accretion rates, although their results are given only for the $1.3 M_\odot$ white dwarf ([@kat99h]).
The wind velocity in helium shell flashes reaches as high as $\sim 1000$ km s$^{-1}$ ([@kat99h]), which is much faster than the orbital velocities of our WD+MS binary systems $a\Omega_{\rm orb} \sim 300$ km s$^{-1}$. It should be noted that either a Roche lobe overflow or a common envelope does not play a role as a mass ejection mechanism because the envelope matter goes away quickly from the system without interacting with the orbital motion (see [@kat99h] for more details).
Mass Transfer Rate of the Secondary
-----------------------------------
We have followed binary evolutions from the initial state of $(M_{\rm WD,0}, M_{\rm MS,0}, a_0)$ or $(M_{\rm WD,0}, M_{\rm MS,0}, P_0)$, where $P_0$ is the initial orbital period. Here, the subscript naught (0) denotes [*stage F*]{} in Figure \[windsn1a\], that is, before the mass transfer from the secondary starts. The radius and luminosity of slightly evolved main-sequence stars are calculated from the analytic form given by Tout et al. (1997). The mass transfer proceeds on a thermal time scale for the mass ratio of $M_2/M_1 > 0.79$. We approximate the mass transfer rate as $$\dot M_2 = {{M_2} \over {\tau_{\rm KH}}} \cdot \max\left(
{{\zeta_{\rm RL} - \zeta_{\rm MS}} \over {\zeta_{\rm MS}}},0 \right),
\label{secondary_mass_transfer}$$ where $\tau_{\rm KH}$ is the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale (e.g., [@pac71b]), and $\zeta_{\rm RL}=d \log R^*/d \log M$ and $\zeta_{\rm MS}= d \log R_{\rm MS}/d \log M$ are the mass-radius exponents of the inner critical Roche lobe and the main sequence component, respectively (e.g., [@hje87]). The effective radius of the inner critical Roche lobe, $R^*$, is calculated from equation (\[inner\_critical\_Roche\_lobe\]).
Late Binary Evolution toward SN Ia
----------------------------------
The separation is determined by $${{\dot a} \over {a}} = {{\dot M_1 + \dot M_2} \over {M_1+M_2}}
- 2 {{\dot M_1} \over {M_1}} -2 {{\dot M_2} \over {M_2}}
+ 2 {{\dot J} \over {J}}.
\label{separation_change}$$ We estimate the total mass and angular momentum losses by the winds as $$\dot M \equiv \dot M_1 + \dot M_2 = \dot M_{\rm wind},
\label{wind_mass_loss}$$ and $${{\dot J} \over {J}}
= \ell \cdot {{(M_1+M_2)^2} \over {M_1 M_2}} {{\dot M} \over {M}},
\label{specific_angular_momentum_loss}$$ where $\ell$ is a numeric factor expressing the specific angular momentum of the wind, i.e., $${{\dot J} \over {\dot M}} = \ell \cdot a^2 \Omega_{\rm orb}.
\label{specific_angular_momentum_wind}$$ For the very fast winds such as $v_{\rm wind} \gtrsim 2 a \Omega_{\rm orb}$, the wind has, on average, the same specific angular momentum as that of the WD component, i.e., $$\ell = \left( {{M_2} \over {M_1 + M_2}} \right)^2,
\label{ell_value}$$ because the wind is too fast to interact with the orbital motion (see also HKN99). In equations (\[separation\_change\])$-$(\[specific\_angular\_momentum\_wind\]), we must take into account the sign of the mass loss rates, i.e., $\dot M = \dot M_{\rm wind} \le 0$, $\dot M_2 \le 0$, $\dot J \le 0$, and so on.
Figure \[evlx50z02\] shows an example of such close binary evolutions which lead to the SN Ia explosion. Here, we start the calculation when the secondary fills its inner critical Roche lobe. The initial parameters are $M_{\rm WD,0}= 1.0 M_\odot$, $M_{\rm MS,0}= 2.0 M_\odot$, and $a_0= 9.6 R_\odot$ ($P_0= 2.0$ d). The mass transfer begins at a rate as high as $\dot M_{\rm 2} = 2.2 \times 10^{-6} M_\odot {\rm ~yr}^{-1}$. The WD burns hydrogen to form a helium layer at the critical rate of $\dot M_{\rm cr} = 0.7 \times 10^{-6} M_\odot {\rm ~yr}^{-1}$ and the wind mass loss rate is $\dot M_{\rm wind} = 1.5 \times 10^{-6} M_\odot {\rm ~yr}^{-1}$. Thus a large part of the transferred matter is blown off in the wind.
Since the mass ratio $M_2/M_1$ decreases, the mass transfer rate determined by equation(\[secondary\_mass\_transfer\]) gradually decreases below $\dot M_{\rm cr}$. The wind stops at $t= 1.9 \times 10^5 {\rm ~yr}$. The mass transfer rate becomes lower than $\dot M_{\rm st} \sim 5 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ (for $M_{\rm WD}= 1.2 M_\odot$) at $t= 3.8 \times 10^5 {\rm ~yr}$ and very weak shell flashes may occur. The WD mass gradually grows to reach $1.38 M_\odot$ at $t= 6.7 \times 10^5$ yr. At this time, the mass transfer rate is still as high as $\dot M_2 = 3.6 \times 10^{-7} M_\odot {\rm ~yr}^{-1}$, because the mass ratio $M_2/M_1$ is still larger than $0.79$, implying thermally unstable mass transfer.
This WD+MS system may not be observed in X-rays during the strong wind phase due to the self-absorption of X-rays. However, it is certainly identified as a luminous supersoft X-ray source from $t= 1.9 \times 10^5 {\rm ~yr}$ to $3.8 \times 10^5 {\rm ~yr}$, because it is in a steady hydrogen shell burning phase without a strong wind. Just before the explosion, it may be observed as a recurrent nova like U Sco, which indicates a helium-rich accretion in quiescence ([@han85]).
Outcome of Late Binary Evolution
--------------------------------
Thus we have obtained the final outcome of close binary evolutions for various sets of $(M_{\rm WD,0}, M_{\rm MS,0}, a_0)$ or $(M_{\rm WD,0}, M_{\rm MS,0}, P_0$). Figure \[zams11ms\] depicts the final outcomes in the $M_{\rm MS,0} - \log P_0$ plane for $M_{\rm WD,0}= 1.1 M_\odot$. Final outcome is either
1. forming a common envelope (denoted by $\times$) because the mass transfer rate at the beginning is large enough to form a common envelope, i.e., $R_{\rm 1,ph} > a \sim 10 R_\odot$ for $\dot M_2 \gtrsim 1 \times 10^{-4} M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ as seen in Figure \[dmdttrvx50z02\],
2. triggering an SN Ia explosion (denoted by $\oplus$, $\bigcirc$, or $\odot$) when $M_{\rm 1,WD}= 1.38 M_\odot$, or
3. triggering repeated nova cycles (denoted by $\triangle$), i.e., $\dot M_2 < \dot M_{\rm low}$ when $M_{\rm 1,WD} < 1.38 M_\odot$.
Among the SN Ia cases, the wind status at the explosion depends on $\dot M_2$ as follows.
1. wind continues at the SN Ia explosion for $ \dot M_{\rm cr} < \dot M_2 \lesssim 1 \times 10^{-4} M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ (denoted by $\oplus$).
2. wind stops before the SN Ia explosion but the mass transfer rate is still high enough to keep steady hydrogen shell burning for $ \dot M_{\rm st} < \dot M_2 < \dot M_{\rm cr}$ ($\bigcirc$).
3. wind stops before the SN Ia explosion and the mass transfer rate decreases to between $ \dot M_{\rm low} < \dot M_2 < \dot M_{\rm st}$ at the SN Ia explosion ($\odot$).
The region producing an SN Ia is bounded by $M_{\rm MS,0}= 1.8-3.2 M_\odot$ and $P_0= 0.5-5$ d as shown by the solid line.
1. The left bound is determined by $R^*_{2,f,{\rm CE}} = R_2({\rm ZAMS})$ in Figure \[m7m2com2\], where $R_2({\rm ZAMS})$ is the minimum radius of the secondary at the zero age main-sequence (ZAMS).
2. The right bound corresponds to the maximum radius at the end of main sequence, after which central hydrogen burning vanishes and the star shrinks.
3. The lower bound is determined by the decrease in the mass transfer rate mainly because the secondary mass decreases to reach the mass ratio $M_2/M_1$ below unity, i.e., $\dot M_2 < \dot M_{\rm low}$.
4. The upper bound is limited by the formation of a common envelope. When the mass transfer rate is as high as a few times $10^{-5} M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ or more, the photosphere of the white dwarf envelope reaches the secondary and then swallows it, i.e., $R_{\rm 1,ph} \gtrsim a$ (see Fig. \[dmdttrvx50z02\]). It may be regarded as the formation of a common envelope. The binary will undergo a common envelope evolution and will not become an SN Ia.
The final outcome of the evolutions is also plotted in Figures \[zams10ms\]-\[zams08ms\] for other initial white dwarf masses of $M_{\rm WD,0}= 1.0 M_\odot$, $0.9 M_\odot$, and $0.8 M_\odot$, respectively. Figure \[zamstot\] shows the regions that lead to an SN Ia for all the white dwarf masses of $M_{\rm WD,0}= 0.75$, $0.8$, $0.9$, and $1.1 M_\odot$ (thin solid lines) together with $M_{\rm WD,0}= 1.0 M_\odot$ (thick solid line). The region for $M_{\rm WD,0}= 0.7 M_\odot$ vanishes. The shrinking of the upper bound for smaller $M_{\rm WD,0}$ is due to larger initial mass ratio of $M_{\rm MS,0}/M_{\rm WD,0}$, which enhances the mass transfer rate at the beginning of mass transfer ([*stage G*]{}), thus resulting in the formation of a common envelope. The shrinking of the lower bound can be understood as follows: The white dwarf with smaller $M_{\rm WD,0}$ needs to accrete more mass from the slightly evolved main-sequence companion. Thus the companion’s mass near the [*stage I*]{} or [*J*]{} (just before SN Ia explosion) is smaller after a considerable part of the hydrogen-rich envelope is transferred to supply hydrogen-rich matter to the white dwarf. The thermal time scale of the companion is longer for smaller masses, thereby decreasing the mass transfer rate down to the nova region.
DISCUSSIONS
===========
We have estimated the rate of SNe Ia originating from our WD+MS systems in our Galaxy by using equation (1) of Iben & Tutukov (1984), i.e., $$\nu = 0.2 \cdot \Delta q \cdot
\int_{M_A}^{M_B} {{d M} \over M^{2.5}} \cdot \Delta \log A
\quad \mbox{yr}^{-1},
\label{realization_frequence}$$ where $\Delta q$ and $\Delta \log A$ denote the appropriate ranges of the initial mass ratio and the initial separation, respectively, and $M_A$, and $M_B$ are the lower and the upper limits of the primary mass that leads to SN Ia explosions, respectively. For the WD+MS progenitors, we assume that $a_{i} \lesssim 1500 ~R_\odot$ in order to obtain a relatively compact condition of $a_{f,{\rm CE}}$ after the common envelope evolution.
If the $\sim 1 M_\odot$ C+O WD is a [*descendant from an AGB star*]{}, its zero-age main sequence mass is $\sim 7 M_\odot$ (see, e.g., eq.(11) of [@yun95]) and the binary separation is larger than $a_i \sim 1300 ~R_\odot$ (e.g., [@ibe84]). Its separation shrinks to $a_{f,\rm{CE}} \sim 60 ~R_\odot$ after the common envelope evolution for the case of $\alpha_{\rm CE} = 1$ and $\sim 2 M_\odot$ secondary. Then the orbital period becomes $P_0 \sim 30$ d, which is too long to become an SN Ia (e.g., [@lih97]; see also Fig. \[zams10ms\]). Therefore, the WD+MS systems descending from an AGB star may be rare as pointed out by Yungelson & Livio (1998) and may not be a main channel to SNe Ia.
To obtain the realization frequency of our WD+MS system [*descending from a red-giant with a helium core*]{}, we have followed total $\sim 500$ evolutions with the different initial set of $(M_{1,i},M_{2,i}, a_{i})$ and estimated the appropriate range for the initial separation of $\Delta \log A= \log a_{\rm i, max}- \log a_{\rm i, min}$ for total $5 \times 5 =25$ cases of $(M_{1,i},M_{2,i})$, each for the primary mass of $M_{1,0}= 4$, 5, 6, 7, and $9 M_\odot$ and the secondary mass of $M_{2,0}= 1$, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and $3 M_\odot$ (see Table \[tbl-1\]). In Table \[tbl-1\], we omit the case of $M_{1,0}=4 M_\odot$ because it never leads to SN Ia explosions. We find that SN Ia explosions occur for the ranges of $M_{1,i}= 5.5-8.5 M_\odot$, $M_{2,i}= 1.8-3.4 M_\odot$, and $\Delta \log A= 0.5$. We thus obtain the realization frequency of SNe Ia from the WD+MS systems as $\nu_{\rm MS}= 0.0010$ yr$^{-1}$ for $\alpha_{\rm CE}=1$, by substituting $\Delta q = 3.4/5.5 - 1.8/8.5 = 0.41$, $M_A= 5.5 M_\odot$, $M_B= 8.5 M_\odot$, and $\Delta \log A= 0.5$ into equation (\[realization\_frequence\]). For comparison, we have obtained a realization frequency of SNe Ia for $\alpha_{\rm CE}= 0.3$. It is still as high as $\nu_{\rm MS} \sim 0.0007$ yr$^{-1}$, which is about one fourth of the inferred rate. Our new rate of $\nu_{\rm MS}= 0.0010$ yr$^{-1}$ is about a third of the inferred rate of SNe Ia in our Galaxy and much higher than $\nu_{\rm MS}= 0.0002$ yr$^{-1}$ (as an upper limit) obtained by Yungelson & Livio (1998). The reason of their low frequency is probably due to the absence of the path through the primary’s helium star phase in their scenarios. However, it should be noted here that Yungelson & Livio (1998) have also obtained a realization frequency of $\nu_{\rm MS} \sim 0.001$ yr$^{-1}$ under the assumption of no restrictions in their binary evolutions, the conditions of which are unlikely.
A part of our WD+MS systems are identified as the luminous supersoft X-ray sources (SSSs) ([@heu92]). SSSs are characterized by a luminosity of $\sim 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and a temperature of $T \sim 4 \times 10^5$ K $(k T \sim 35$ eV), which have been established as a new class of X-ray sources through ROSAT observations (e.g., [@kah97] for a recent review). A population synthesis for SSSs has first been done by Rappaport, Di Stefano, & Smith (1994), followed by a more complete population synthesis ([@yun96]). These calculations predict the total number of the Galactic SSSs of $\sim 1000$ and led to the conclusion that the SSS birth rate is roughly consistent with the observation (e.g., [@kah97] for a review). Our SN Ia progenitors should be observed as an SSS during the steady hydrogen shell burning phase without winds, which is about a few times $10^5$ yr as shown in Figure \[evlx50z02\]. Then the number of SSSs from our scenario is roughly estimated to be at least about $\sim 3 \times 10^5 {\rm ~yr}
\times \nu_{\rm MS} \approx 300$, which should be added to 1000 by Yungelson et al. (1996). The total number is still consistent with observations.
Our WD+MS progenitor model predicts helium-enriched matter accretion onto a WD. Strong He II $\lambda\lambda4686$ lines are prominent in the luminous supersoft X-ray sources (e.g., [@kah97] for a recent review) as well as in the recurrent novae like U Sco ([@han85]; [@joh92]) and V394 CrA ([@sek89]). Thus the weakness of the hydrogen emission lines relative to the He II and CNO lines is very consistent with the requirement that the accreted matter and hence the envelope of the secondary have a hydrogen-poor (helium-rich) composition.
For SNe Ia, several attempts have been made to detect signature of circumstellar matter. There has been no radio detections so far. Radio observations of SN 1986G have provided the most stringent upper limit to the circumstellar density as $\dot M / v_{10} = 1 \times
10^{-7} M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ ([@eck95]), where $v_{10}$ means $v_{10}= v/10$ km s$^{-1}$. This is still $10-100$ times higher than the density predicted for the white dwarf winds, because the WD wind velocity is as fast as $\sim 1000$ km s$^{-1}$. Further attempts to detect high velocity hydrogen signature are encouraged.
We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments to improve the manuscript. This research has been supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (05242102, 06233101, 08640321, 09640325) and COE Research (07CE2002) of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Culture, and Sports.
Branch, D., Livio, M., Yungelson, L.R., Boffi, F.R., & Baron, E. 1995, , 107, 717
Bressan, A., Fagotto, F., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 1993, , 100, 647
Di Stefano, R., & Rappaport, S. 1994, , 437, 733
Eck, C.R., Cowan, J.J., Roberts, D.A., Boffi, F.R., & Branch, D. 1995, , 451, L53
Eggleton, P. P. 1983, , 268, 368
Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 1999, , submitted (U Sco)
Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Nomoto, K. 1996, , 470, L97 (HKN96)
Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Nomoto, K. 1999, , submitted (HKN99)
Hanes, D. A. 1985, , 213, 443
Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, , 318, 794
Höflich, P., & Khokhlov, A. 1996, , 457, 500
Iben, I. Jr., & Livio, M. 1993, , 105, 1373
Iben, I. Jr., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, , 54, 335
Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. 1996, , 464, 943
Johnston, H. M., & Kulkarni, S. R. 1992, , 396, 267
Kahabka, P., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, , 35, 69
Kato, M., Hachisu, I., 1994, , 437, 802
Kato, M., & Hachisu, I., 1999, , 513, in press (astro-ph/9901080) Kato, M., Saio, H., & Hachisu, I. 1989, , 340, 509
Kippenhahn, R., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1977, , 54, 539
Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1967, Z. Ap., 65, 251
Kovetz, A., & Prialnik, D. 1994, , 424, 319
Li, X.-D., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, , 322, L9
Neo, S., Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K., & Sugimoto, D. 1977, , 29, 249
Nomoto, K. 1982a, , 253, 798
Nomoto, K. 1982b, in Supernovae: A Survey of Current Research, ed. M. Rees & R. J. Stoneham (Dordrecht: Reidel), 205
Nomoto, K. 1984, , 277, 791
Nomoto, K., & Hashimoto, M. 1988, Phys. Rep., 163, 13
Nomoto, K., Iwamoto, K., & Kishimoto, N. 1997, Science, 276, 1378
Nomoto, K., Yamaoka, H., Shigeyama, T., Kumagai, S., & Tsujimoto, T. 1994, in Supernovae (Les Houches, Session LIV), ed. S. Bludman et al. (Amsterdam: Elsevier Sci. Publ.), 199
Nugent, P., Baron, E., Branch, D., Fisher, A., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1997, , 485, 812
Paczynski, B. 1971a, Acta Astronomica, 21, 1
Paczynski, B. 1971b, , 9, 183
Rappaport, S., Di Stefano, R., & Smith, J. D. 1994, , 426, 692
Saio, H., & Nomoto, K. 1985, , 150, L21
Saio, H., & Nomoto, K. 1998, , 500, 388
Sekiguchi, K., Catchpole, R. M., Fairall, A. P., Feast, M. W., Kilkenny, D., Laney, C. D., Lloyd Evans, T., Marang, F., & Parker, Q. A. 1989, , 236, 611
Segretain, L., Chabrier, G., & Mochkovitch, R. 1997, , 481, 355
Tout, C. A., Aarseth, S. J., Pols, O. R., & Eggleton, P. P. 1997, , 291, 732
Umeda, H., Nomoto, K., Yamaoka, H., & Wanajo, S. 1999, , 513, in press (astro-ph/9806336)
van den Heuvel, E. P. J., Bhattacharya, D., Nomoto, K., & Rappaport, S. 1992, , 262, 97 Webbink, R. F. 1984, , 277, 355
Williams, R. E., Sparks, W. M., Gallagher, J. S., Ney, E. P., Starrfield, S. G., & Truran, J. W. 1981, , 251, 221
Yungelson, L., & Livio, M. 1998, , 497, 168
Yungelson, L., Livio, M., Truran, J. W., Tutukov, A., & Fedorova, A. 1996, , 466, 890
Yungelson, L., Livio, M., Tutukov, A., & Kenyon, S. 1995, , 447, 656
[ccccccccc]{} $\Delta M_{\rm He}$ & — & — & 0.0,0.0 & 0.0,0.2 & 0.1,0.2 & 0.37,0.37 & 0.5,0.6 & 0.6,0.6 $1.0 M_\odot$ & — & — & — & — & — & — & — & — $1.5 M_\odot$ & — & — & — & — & — & — & — & — $2.0 M_\odot$ & — & — & 1.9,2.4 & 2.4,2.6 & 1.8,2.3 & 2.3,2.8 & — & — $2.5 M_\odot$ & — & — & 1.8,2.4 & 2.3,2.7 & 1.8,2.3 & 2.4,2.8 & 1.8,2.3 & 2.4,2.5 $3.0 M_\odot$ & — & 2.3,2.5 & 2.1,2.4 & 2.4,2.7 & 2.0,2.3 & — & — & —
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We find assimpotics for the first $k$ highest degrees of the degree distribution in an evolving tree model combining the local choice and the preferential attachment. In the considered model, the random graph is constructd in the following way. At each step, a new vertex is introduced. Then, we connect it with one (the vertex with the largest degree is chosen) of $d$ ($d>2$) possible neighbors, which are sampled from the set of the existing vertices with the probability proportional to their degrees. It is known that the maximum of the degree distribution in this model has linear behavior. We prove that $k$-th highest dergee has a sublinear behavior with a power depends on $d$. This contrasts sharply with what is seen in the preferential attachment model without choice, where all highest degrees in the degree distribution has the same sublinear order. The proof is based on showing that the considered tree has a persistent hub by comparison with the standard preferential attachment model, along with martingale arguments.'
address: Tver State University
author:
- Yury Malyshkin
bibliography:
- 'High degree vertices.bib'
title: |
High degree vertices in the Power of Choice\
model combined with Preferential Attachment
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Conjecture]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Claim]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{}
Introduction
============
In the present work, we further explore how the addition of choice (see, e.g., [@DSKrM; @KR13; @MP14; @MP15]) affects the standart preferential attachment model (see [@barabasi; @KrReLe]). The preferential attachment graph model is a time-indexed inductively constructed sequence of graphs, formed in the following way. We start with some initial graph and then on each step we add a new vertex and an edge between it and one of the old vertices, chosen with probability proportional to its degree. Many different properties of this model have been obtained in both the math and physics literature (see [@barabasi; @KrReLe; @Mori; @DvdHH]).
In the current work, we are interested in the first $k$ maximums of the degree distribution. For the preferential attachment model, this problem is studied in [@FFF04]. It is shown in [@FFF04] that the $k$ highest degrees $\Delta_i(n),$ $i\in\{1,...,k\}$, at time $n$ satisfy $$\frac{n^{1/2}}{g(n)}\leq\Delta_1(n)\leq g(n)n^{1/2}\, \text{and}\, \frac{n^{1/2}}{g(n)}\leq\Delta_i(n)\leq \Delta_{i-1}(n)-\frac{n^{1/2}}{g(n)},\quad k\geq i\geq 2,$$ with high probability for any function $g(n)$ with $g(n)\rightarrow\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. In [@MP15], the limited choice is introduced into the preferential attachment model. More specifically, at each step we independently (from each other) choose $d$ existing vertices with a probability proportional to their degrees and connect the new vertex with the vertex with the smallest degree. In [@MP15], it is shown that the maximal degree at time $n$ in such a model grows as $\log\log n/\log d$ with high probability. If instead of a vertex with the smallest degree we pick one with the highest degree, we would get the max-choice model that was introduced in [@MP14]. In [@MP14], the exact first-order asymptotics for the maximal degree in this model was obtained and almost sure convergence of the appropriately scaled maximal degree was shown. In the current work, we provide such asymptotics for $k$ highest degrees.
Let us describe the max-choice model. Fix $d\in\mathbb{N}$, $d\geq 2$. Introduce a countable non-random set of vertices $V=\{v_i,\;i\in\mathbb{N}\}$. Define a sequence of random trees $\{ P_n \}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, by the following inductive rule. Let $P_1$ be the one-edge tree which consists of vertices $v_1$ and $v_2$ and an edge between them. Given $P_{n}$, we construct $P_{n+1}$ by adding one vertex and drawing one edge in the following way.
First, we add a vertex $v_{n+2}$ to $P_n$, hence the vertices set $V(P_{n+1})$ of $P_{n+1}$ is $V(P_{n+1})=\{v_i,\;i=1,...,n+2\}$. Note that the randomness of $P_n$ caused by its edge set $\mathcal{E}_n$. Denote $\mathcal{F}_n=\sigma\{\mathcal{E}_1,...,\mathcal{E}_n\}$. Let $X^1_n,\ldots,X^d_n$ be i.i.d. vertices of $V( P_n )$ chosen with the conditional probability $${\mathbb{P}}\left[
X^1_n = v_i|\mathcal{F}_{n}
\right] = \frac{{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_i(n)}{2n},\quad v_i\in V(P_n),$$ where ${{\operatorname{deg}}}v_i(n)$ is the degree of $v_i$ in $P_n$ (note that, $\sum_{v_i}{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_i(n)=2n$).
Second, create a new edge between $v_{n+2}$ and $Y_n,$ where $Y_n$ is whichever of $X^1_n$,...,$X^d_n$ has the largest degree. In the case of a tie, choose according to an independent fair coin toss (this choice will not affect the degree distribution). This model is called the *max-choice preferential attachment tree model*. For any fixed $k\in\mathbb{N}$, let $M_{1}(n)\geq M_2(n)\geq...\geq M_k(n)$ be the degrees of $k$ highest degree vertices at time $n$ (if there are less then $k$ vertices at time $n$ put $M_k(n)=1$).
Let us formulate our main theorem:
\[thm:max\_degree\]
For $d\in\mathbb{N}$, $d>2$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $k>1$ and any $\epsilon>0$, $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}(n^{c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon}<M_k(n)<n^{c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon}) = 1,$$ where $c=1-x^{\ast}/2$, $x^{\ast}$ is the unique positive solution of the equation $1-(1-x/2)^{d}=x$ in the interval $0\leq x\leq 1$.
Our proof is based on the existence of the $k$-th *persistent hub*, i.e. a single vertex that in some finite random time becomes the $k$-th highest degree vertex for all time after. Using this, instead of analyzing the $k$-th highest degree over all vertices we effectively only need to analyze the degree of just one vertex. The existence of the $k$-th persistent hub is stated in the following result.
\[prop:persistent\_hub\] There exist random variables $N_l$ and $K_l$, $1\leq l\leq k$, that are finite almost surely so that at any time $n \geq N_l$, ${{\operatorname{deg}}}v_{K_l}(n)=M_l(n)$ and $M_1(n)>M_2(n)>...>M_l(n)>{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_{i}(n)$ for any $i\neq K_1,...,K_l$.
The purpose of this proposition is to simplify analisys of the dynamics of $M_k(n)$. Indeed, let $L_k(n)$ be the number of vertices at time $n$ that has degree equal to $M_k(n)$. The effect of Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] is that for some random and sufficiently large $N_k < \infty$, $L_k(n) = 1$ for all $n \geq N_k.$
If $M_{k-1}(n)=M_k(n)$, then $M_k(n+1)=M_{k}(n)$, cause $M_{k-1}(n)$ and $M_k(n)$ could not be increased at the same time and we should increase $M_{k-1}(n)$ before $M_k(n)$. If $M_{k-1}(n)>M_k(n)$, to increase $M_k(n)$ we need to draw an edge to a vertex with the degree $M_k(n)$. Therefore the dynamics of $M_k(n)$ is given by the formula $$M_k(n+1)-M_k(n) = {\mathbf{1}}\{{{\operatorname{deg}}}Y_{n+1}(n) =M_{k}(n),\,M_{k-1}(n)>M_{k}(n)\},\;\text{with}$$ $$\mathbb{E}(M_k(n+1)-M_k(n)|\mathcal{F}_n)$$ $$=\left(\hat{c}^d_k(n) - \left(\hat{c}_k(n)-\frac{M_k(n)L_k(n)}{2n}\right)^{d}\right) {\mathbf{1}}\{M_{k-1}(n)>M_{k}(n)\},$$ where $$\hat{c}_l(n)=1-\frac{1}{2n}\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}M_i(n),\;1\leq l\leq k,\;n\in\mathbb{N}.$$ Note that $\hat{c}_l(n)\geq 0$ cause the sum of the degrees is $2n$. From here, we will reffer to $\hat{c}^d_k(n) - \left(\hat{c}_k(n)-\frac{M_k(n)L_k(n)}{2n}\right)^{d}$ as $p_{n,k}$. Note that cause $M_k(n+1)-M_k(n)$ could only take values $0$ and $1$, if $M_{k-1}(n)>M_{k}(n)$ then $p_{n,k}$ equals to the probability to increase $k$-th maximal degree at the $n$-[th]{} step conditional on $\mathcal{F}_{n}$.
Before starting the proof, let us describe its structure and main ideas. We will prove Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] and Theorem \[thm:max\_degree\] using an induction over $k$. To do so, we consider them as independend theorems for each $k$. For $k=1$, the convergence $\frac{M_1(n)}{n}\to x^{\ast}$ almost surely and the existence of the persistent hub were proven in [@MP14]. We will fix $k_0>1$ and, using statements of Theorem \[thm:max\_degree\] and Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] for $k<k_0$ (from here we reffer to them as induction hypothesis), prove them for $k=k_0$. In Section 2, we prove initial estimates using Theorem \[thm:max\_degree\] for $k<k_0$. In Section 3, we use these estimates to prove the existence of the persistent hub and, so, prove Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] for $k=k_0$. In Section 4, we use Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] along with lemmas from Section 2 to prove Theorem \[thm:max\_degree\] for $k=k_0$.
Initial estimates {#sec:apriori}
=================
We assume that Theorem \[thm:max\_degree\] and Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] hold for $k<k_0$. In this section, we obtain an initial estimate on $M_{k_0}(n)$ along with some technical lemmas.
Recall that $c=1-x^{\ast}/2$, where $x_{\ast}$ is the solution of the equation $1-(1-x/2)^{d}=x$ in the interval $0\leq x\leq 1$. Define the function $$f(x,y)=\frac 1 2 \sum_{i=0}^{d-1}y^{d-i-1}(y-x/2)^{i},\;x,y\in\mathbb{R}_+.$$ Note that $f(x,y)=\frac{y^d-(y-x/2)^d}{x}$ for $x\neq 0$. We will need the following estimates.
\[lem:f\_est\] $f(x,y)<1$ for $y^{d-1}<2/d$ and $0\leq x\leq 2y$.
$f(0,y)=d/2y^{d-1}<1.$ Since $f(x,y)$ is the decreasing function over $x$ for $0\leq x\leq 2y$, we have that $f(x,y)<1$ for corresponding $x$.
\[lem:c\_est\] $c^{d-1}<2/d$.
Note that $x^{\ast}=1-(1-x^{\ast}/2)^d=1-c^d$. Therefore, $$c^{d-1}=\frac{c^d}{c}=\frac{1-x^{\ast}}{1-x^{\ast}/2}<2(1-x^{\ast}).$$ Now show that $x^{\ast}>1-1/d$. Due to convexity of $1-(1-x/2)^{d}$ on $[0,2]$, it is enough to show that $1-(1-(1-1/d)/2)^d-(1-1/d)>0$: $$1-(1-(1-1/d)/2)^d-(1-1/d)=1/d-\left(\frac{d+1}{2d}\right)^d=1/d-(1/2)^d(1+1/d)^d>0,$$ for $d>2$ (could be easily proved by an induction starting with $d=3$).
We will frequently use the following lemma of [@Galashin].
\[lem:numbers\] Suppose that a sequence of positive numbers $r_n$ satisfies $$r_{n+1} = r_n\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{n+x}\right),~n \geq k$$ for fixed $\alpha > 0,$ $k > 0$ and $x.$ Then $r_n/n^{\alpha}$ has a positive limit.
Now, we formulate our initial estimate.
\[lem:starting\_low\_bound\] There is $\gamma>0$ (which do not depend on $k_0$) such that, with probability $1,$ $
\inf_{n} M_{k_0}(n)/n^{\gamma} > 0.
$
For fixed $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$, define $$C_{n+1}=\frac{4n}{4n-(c-\delta)^{d-1}}C_n =\left(1+\frac{(c-\delta)^{d-1}}{4n-(c-\delta)^{d-1}}\right)C_n,\,n\geq n_0,$$ with $C_{n_0} = 1$ and $0<\delta<c$. By Lemma \[lem:numbers\], we have that $C_n/n^{(c-\delta)^{d-1}/4}$ converges to a positive limit. Introduce events $$Q_{k_0}(n_0)=\{N_{k_0-1}<n_0,\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)>c-\delta\;\forall n>n_0\}.$$ By the induction hypothesis ($N_{k_0-1}<\infty$ almost surely and $\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)\to c$ in probability), $\mathbb{P}(Q_{k_0}(n_0))\to 1$ when $n_0\to\infty$. Introduce Markov moments $$\lambda_{k_0}(n_0)=
\inf\{n> n_0:L_{k}(n)>1\;\text{for some}\;k<k_0\;\text{or}\;\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)<c-\delta\}.$$ Note that $\lambda_{k_0}(n_0)=\infty$ on $Q_{k_0}(n_0)$. Put $A_{k_0}(n)=C_{n}/M_{k_0}(n)$. We will prove that $A_{k_0}(n\wedge\lambda_{k_0}(n_0))$ (where $x\wedge y=\min(x,y)$) is a supermartingale for $n>n_0$. Hence by Doob’s theorem (Corollary 3, p. 509 of [@Shir96]) it converges almost surely to some finite limit. Therefore, there is a random variable $B_{k_0,n_0},$ which is positive on $Q_k(n_0)$, such that $\frac{M_{k_0}(n)}{n^{\gamma}}\geq B_{k_0,n_0}$ almost surely for $\gamma=(c-\delta)^{d-1}/4$ and $n\geq n_0$. Consequently, we have $$\mathbb{P}\left(\inf_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\frac{M_{k_0}(n)}{n^{\gamma}}>0\right) \geq\mathbb{P}\left(\inf_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\frac{M_{k_0}(n)}{n^{\gamma}}>0,Q_{k_0}(n_0)\right) $$=\_[k,n\_0]{}(\_[n]{}>0)(Q\_k(n\_0)) =(Q\_[k\_0]{}(n\_0))1$$ Now prove that $A_{k_0}(n\wedge\lambda_{k_0}(n_0))$ is a supermartingale, which concludes our proof.
Recall that if $M_{k_0-1}(n)>M_{k_0}(n)$ (holds if $L_{k_0-1}=1$, in particualr for $n_0<n<\lambda_{k_0}(n_0)$) then $p_{n,k_0}$ equals to the probability to increase $k_0$-th maximal degree at the $n$-[th]{} step conditional on $\mathcal{F}_{n}$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
p_{n,k_0} &=\hat{c}_{k_0}^d(n) - \left(\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)-\frac{M_{k_0}(n)L_{k_0}(n)}{2n}\right)^{d}
\geq \hat{c}_{k_0}^d(n)\left(1-\left(1-\frac{M_{k_0}(n)}{2n\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)}\right)^{d}\right) \\
&\geq \hat{c}_{k_0}^d(n)\left(1-\left(1-\frac{M_{k_0}(n)}{2n\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)}\right)^{2}\right)
=\hat{c}_{k_0}^d(n)\left(\frac{M_{k_0}(n)}{n\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)}-\frac{(M_{k_0}(n))^2}{(2n\hat{c}_{k_0}(n))^2}\right) \\
&= \hat{c}_{k_0}^{d-1}(n)\frac{M_{k_0}(n)}{n}\frac{4n\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)-M_{k_0}(n)}{4n\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)}\geq \hat{c}_{k_0}^{d-1}(n)\frac{2M_{k_0}(n)}{4n}=\hat{c}_{k_0}^{d-1}(n)\frac{M_{k_0}(n)}{2n}.\end{aligned}$$ By definition of $p_{n,k_0}$, for $1/M_{k_0}(n+1)$ we get $${\mathbb E}\left(1/M_{k_0}(n+1)|\mathcal{F}_n \right)=$$ $${\mathbb E}\left(\left.\frac{{\mathbf{1}}\{M_{k_0}(n+1)=M_{k_0}(n)+1\}}{M_{k_0}(n)+1} +\frac{{\mathbf{1}}\{M_{k_0}(n+1)=M_{k_0}(n)\}}{M_{k_0}(n)}\right| \mathcal{F}_n\right)=$$ $$\left(\frac{p_{n,k_0}{\mathbf{1}}\{M_{k_0-1}(n)>M_{k_0}(n)\}}{M_{k_0}(n)+1}+\frac{1-p_{n,k_0}{\mathbf{1}}\{M_{k_0-1}(n)>M_{k_0}(n)\}}{M_{k_0}(n)}\right)=$$ $$\left(\frac{M_{k_0}(n)+1-p_{n,k_0}{\mathbf{1}}\{M_{k_0-1}(n)>M_{k_0}(n)\}}{(M_{k_0}(n)+1)M_{k_0}(n)}\right).$$ Therefore, if $n_0<n<\lambda_{k_0}(n_0)$, then $${\mathbb E}\left(1/M_{k_0}(n+1)|\mathcal{F}_n \right)=\frac{M_{k_0}(n)+1-p_{n,k_0}}{M_{k_0}(n)(M_{k_0}(n)+1)}
=\frac{1}{M_{k_0}(n)}\left(1-\frac{p_{n,k_0}}{M_{k_0}(n)+1}\right)\leq$$ $$\frac{1}{M_{k_0}(n)}\left(1-\frac{p_{n,k_0}}{2M_{k_0}(n)}\right)
\leq\frac{1}{M_{k_0}(n)}\left(1-\frac{\hat{c}_{k_0}^{d-1}(n)}{4n}\right)$$ $$\leq\frac{1}{M_{k_0}(n)}\left(1-\frac{(c-\delta)^{d-1}}{4n}\right).$$ which concludes the proof.
Persistent hub {#sec:hub}
==============
We assume that Theorem \[thm:max\_degree\] and Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] holds for $k<k_0$. In this section, we prove Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] for $k=k_0$ under this assumption. Our method of the proof bases on the comparison of our model with the standart preferential attachment model, and we use the technique of [@Galashin] developed for the last one. We divide the proof of Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] into two parts. First, we prove that degrees of only finite number of vertices could at some time become $k$-th maximal. Second, we prove that two vertices could have a $k$-th highest degree at the same time only for finite number of time moments.
Let us introduce some notations: $$\chi_k(n)=\min\{i\geq n:{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_n(i)=M_{k}(i)\},$$ $$U_k=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{\mathbf{1}}\{\chi_{k}(n)<\infty\},$$ $$\psi_{i,j}(n)=\min_{l\geq n}\{{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_{i}(l)={{\operatorname{deg}}}v_{j}(l)\}.$$ Here $U_k$ is the number of vertices (of $V$) whose degrees were $k$-th maximal at some moments, $\chi_k(n)$ is the moment it happens for the vertex $v_n$.
\[lem:change\_of\_leader\] $U_k$ is finite almost surely.
To prove the lemma, we first need a result (which is stated below) from [@MP14] on a random walk that describes the evolution of degrees of two vertices in the preferential attachment model without choices.
Let $T_n=T_n(n_0,A_{n_0},B_{n_0}) = (A_n, B_n)$ for $n \geq n_0$ be random walks on ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$ started from some point $(A_{n_0},B_{n_0})$ that at time $n$ move one step right or one step up with the conditional probabilities $\frac{A_n}{A_n+B_n}$ and $\frac{B_n}{A_n+B_n}$ respectively. Also, indroduce the stoping times $\pi(i,j)=\min\{n\geq n_0: A_{n}=B_{n}|A_{n_0}=i, B_{n_0}=j\}$ and the function $q(i,j)=\mathbb{P}(\pi(i,j)<\infty)$. Although, the arguments of $q$ and $\pi$ are integers, sometimes in estimates we will write noninterges in arguments meaning the value of the floor function of it.
Lemma 4.2 from [@MP14] stated that
\[lem:walk\_domination\] The following inequality holds for any positive integers $i$ and $j$ $$\mathbb{P}(\psi_{i,j}(n)<\infty|\mathcal{F}_{n})\leq q({{\operatorname{deg}}}v_{i}(n),{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_{j}(n)).$$
Let us prove Lemma \[lem:change\_of\_leader\].
By Lemma \[lem:starting\_low\_bound\], we get $
M_k(n)\geq M n^{\gamma}
$ for some random $M>0$ almost surely. Hence, at time $n$ there are at least $k$ vertices $v_{i_1},...,v_{i_k}$ with degrees not less then $Mn^{\gamma}$ with probability 1. A degree of the vertex $v_{n+1}$ could become $k$-th maximal only if at some moment $\tilde{n}>n$ its degree becomes higher than at least one of the degrees ${{\operatorname{deg}}}v_{i_1}(\tilde{n}),...,{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_{i_k}(\tilde{n})$. Due to Lemma \[lem:walk\_domination\] (as in [@MP14]), we could construct $k$ versions $\pi_{l}(i,j)$, $1\leq l\leq k$, of $\pi(i,j)$, such that $${\mathbf{1}}\{\chi_k(n+1)<\infty\}\leq\sum_{l=1}^{k}{\mathbf{1}}\{\psi_{i_l,n+1}(n)<\infty\}\leq$$ $$\sum_{l=1}^{k}{\mathbf{1}}\{\pi_{l}({{\operatorname{deg}}}v_{i_l}(n),1)<\infty\}\leq \sum_{l=1}^{k}{\mathbf{1}}\{\pi_{l}(Mn^{\gamma},1)<\infty\}\quad a.s.$$ Fix $C>0$. Then $$U_{k}{\mathbf{1}}\{M>C\}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{\mathbf{1}}\{\chi_k(n)<\infty\}{\mathbf{1}}\{M>C\} <$$ $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{l=1}^{k}{\mathbf{1}}\{\pi_{l}(Mn^{\gamma},1)<\infty\}{\mathbf{1}}\{M>C\}\leq
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{l=1}^{k}{\mathbf{1}}\{\pi_{l}(Cn^{\gamma},1)<\infty\}{\mathbf{1}}\{M>C\}\leq$$ $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{l=1}^{k}{\mathbf{1}}\{\pi_{l}(Cn^{\gamma},1)<\infty\}.$$
Corollary 15 of [@Galashin] gives us the following estimate: $$q(i,1)\leq\frac{Q(i)}{2^i}\;\text{for any integer}\;i$$ for some polynomial function $Q(x)$. Therefore, the expectations $$\mathbb{E}{\mathbf{1}}\{\pi_{l}(Cn^{\gamma},1)<\infty\}=q(Cn^{\gamma},1)\leq\frac{Q(Cn^{\gamma})}{2^{Cn^{\gamma}}}$$ forms a convergent series, and the last sum is finite almost surely by Borel-Cantelli Lemma. Since $M>0$ with probability $1$, $$\mathbb{P}(U_{k}<\infty)=\mathbb{P}(\{U_{k}<\infty\}\bigcup\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\{M>1/n\})=1.$$
Now let $J_k$ denote the set of vertices whose degrees become $k$-th maximal at some moment. According to Lemma \[lem:change\_of\_leader\], $J_k$ is finite almost surely. Introduce random moments $$\zeta_l(v_i,v_j)=\inf\{n>\zeta_{l-1}(v_i,v_j):$$ $${{\operatorname{deg}}}v_i(n-1)\neq{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_j(n-1)\,\text{and}\,{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_i(n)={{\operatorname{deg}}}v_j(n) \},\;\zeta_0(v_i,v_j)=0,$$ $$N(v_i,v_j)=\sup\{l:\zeta_{l}(v_i,v_j)<\infty\},$$ $$\xi_k=\sup\{\zeta_{N(v_i,v_j)}(v_i,v_j)|v_i\in J_k,v_j\in J_k\}.$$ Note that almost sure finitness of $\xi_k$ implies Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] cause any vertex that become $k$-th maximal at any time is in $J_k$, and an order of degrees of vertices from $J_k$ does not change after the moment $\xi_k$. Thus, to complete the proof of Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] we need the following lemma:
\[lem:change\_of\_leadership\] $\xi_k$ is finite almost surely.
Since $J_k$ is finite almost surely, it is enough to prove that for any $v_i,v_j\in V$ $N(v_i,v_j)$ is finite almost surely. To do so we will use the random walk $T_n$ with $n_0=\max\{i+1,j+1\}$, $A_{n_0}={{\operatorname{deg}}}v_i(n_0)$, $B_{n_0}={{\operatorname{deg}}}v_j(n_0)$. Let $R(n_0,i,j)$ be the number of times $n>n_0$ such that $A_n=B_n$, and let $n_0\leq\rho_1(i,j)<\rho_2(i,j)<...$ be moments when either ${{\operatorname{deg}}}v_i$ or ${{\operatorname{deg}}}v_j$ is changed. Then due to the coupling used in the proof of Lemma 4.2 from [@MP14] there is version of $T$, such that $\min\{{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_i(\rho_n),{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_j(\rho_n)\}$ is dominated by $\min\{A_{n},B_{n}\}$ for $n\geq n_0$, which implies $N(v_i,v_j)\leq R$ (since $A_n+B_n={{\operatorname{deg}}}v_i(\rho_n)+{{\operatorname{deg}}}v_j(\rho_n)$).
It is a standard fact about Pólya urn model that if $T_n=(A_n,B_n)$ starts from a point $(a,b)$, then the fraction $A_{n}/(A_{n}+B_{n})$ tends in law to a random variable $H(a,b)$ as $n$ tends to infinity, where $H(a,b)$ has beta probability distribution: $$H(a,b)\sim{\operatorname{Beta}}(a,b).$$ (See, e.g., Theorem 3.2 in [@M09] or Section 4.2 in [@JK77]). Thus, the limit of $A_n/(A_n + B_n)$ exists almost surely, and it takes the value $1/2$ with probability $0$ for any starting point of the process $T$. Hence, this fraction can be equal to $1/2$ only finitely many times almost surely, and so $R$ is finite almost surely, which completes the proof.
Final result {#sec:finald}
============
Fix $0<\delta<2/d-c^{d-1}$ (by Lemma \[lem:c\_est\], $2/d>c^{d-1}$). For any fixed $n_0>0$, we introduce the events $$D_{k_0}(n_0,\delta)=\{L_l(n)=1,\,c-\delta<\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)<c+\delta,\,M_{k_0}(n)>n^{\gamma}/n_0 \;\forall n\geq n_0\;\forall k\leq k_0\},$$ and the Markov moment $$\eta_{k_0}(n_0,\delta)=\inf\{n \geq n_0:L_k(n) > 1\,\text{for some}\, k\leq k_0,\, \text{or}\,$$ $$\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)>c+\delta,\,\text{or}\,\hat{c}_{k_0}(n)<c-\delta,\,\text{or}\,M_{k_0}(n)\leq n^{\gamma}/n_0\}.$$ Note that by the induction assumption for $k<k_0$, Proposition \[prop:persistent\_hub\] and Lemma \[lem:starting\_low\_bound\] (both for $k=k_0$) we have that $$\mathbb{P}(D_{k_0}(n_0,\delta))=\mathbb{P}(\eta_{k_0}(n_0,\delta)=\infty)\to 1\, \text{as}\, n_0\to\infty.$$ Now, let prove Theorem \[thm:max\_degree\] for $k=k_0$
\[lem:final\_est\] With probability $1,$ $
M_k(n)/n \to 0.
$
Recall that if $M_{k-1}(n)>M_k(n)$ (in particular, on $D_k(n0,\delta)$) then $p_{n,k}$ equals to the conditional probability to increase $M_k(n)$ conditional on ${\mathcal{F}}_n.$ Note that for $n$ such that $n_0 \leq n \leq \eta_{k,C},$ $$p_{n,k}
=\hat{c}_k^d(n)-\left(\hat{c}_k(n)-\frac{M_k(n)}{2n}\right)^{d}
=\frac{M_k(n)}{2n}\left(\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}\hat{c}_k^{d-i-1}(n)\left(\hat{c}_k(n)-\frac{M_k(n)}{2n}\right)^{i}\right).$$ Hence, $\frac{p_{n,k}}{M_k(n)}=\frac{1}{n}f(\frac{M_k(n)}{n},\hat{c}_k(n))$. From Lemmas \[lem:f\_est\], \[lem:c\_est\], it follows that for any small enought $\delta>0$ there is $\beta>0$ so that $f(x,y)<1-\beta$ if $y<c+\delta$ for $0\leq x\leq 2y$.
Consider the expectation: $${\mathbb{E}}\left(\left.\frac{M_k(n+1)}{M_k(n)} \right| {\mathcal{F}}_{n}\right)
=\frac{p_{n,k}(M_k(n)+1)}{M_k(n)}+1-p_{n,k}
=1+\frac{p_{n,k}}{M_k(n)}.$$ Therefore, for small enough $\delta>0$ there is $\beta>0$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}(M_k(n+1)|{\mathcal{F}}_{n})<(1+(1-\beta)/n)M_k(n)$ for $n_0\leq n<\eta_{k}(n_0,\delta)$. Set $A_{k}(n) = M_k(n)/C_{n,k},$ where $C_{n+1,k}=(1+(1-\beta)/n)C_{n,k},$ $n\geq n_0$, $C_{n_0,k}=1$. We have that $$\mathbb{E}\left(\left.\frac{A_k(n+1\wedge\eta_k(n_0,\delta))}{A_k(n\wedge\eta_k(n_0,\delta))}\right|\mathcal{F}_{n}\right)=$$ $$\mathbb{E}\left(\left.\frac{A_k(n+1)}{A_k(n)}{\mathbf{1}}\{n+1\leq\eta_k(n_0,\delta)\}+{\mathbf{1}}\{n+1>\eta_k(n_0,\delta)\}\right|\mathcal{F}_n\right)=$$ $${\mathbf{1}}\{\eta_k(n_0,\delta)>n\}\mathbb{E}\left(\left.\frac{A_k(n+1)}{A_k(n)}\right|\mathcal{F}_n\right)+ {\mathbf{1}}\{\eta_k(n_0,\delta)\leq n\}=$$ $${\mathbf{1}}\{\eta_k(n_0,\delta)>n\}\frac{C_{n,k}}{C_{n+1,k}}\mathbb{E}\left(\left.\frac{M_k(n+1)}{M_k(n)}\right|\mathcal{F}_n\right) +{\mathbf{1}}\{\eta_k(n_0,\delta)\leq n\}\leq$$ $${\mathbf{1}}\{\eta_k(n_0,\delta)>n\}\frac{1+(1-\beta)/n}{1+(1-\beta)/n}+{\mathbf{1}}\{\eta_k(n_0,\delta)\leq n\}=1.$$ Thus, $A_k(n\wedge\eta_k(n_0,\delta))$ is a supermartingale. By Lemma \[lem:numbers\], we have that $C_{n,k}n^{-1+\beta}$ converges to a positive limit. Therefore, by Doob’s theorem we have that $A_k(n\wedge\eta_k(n_0,\delta))$ tends to a finite limit with probability 1, and, in particular, there is a random constant $B_k > 0$ so that $M_k(n\wedge\eta_k(n_0,\delta)) \leq B_k n^{1-\beta}$ almost surely. Thus, $M_k(n\wedge\eta_k(n_0,\delta))/n \to 0$ almost surely as $n\to\infty$, and, since $\mathbb{P}(\eta_k(n_0,\delta)=\infty)\to 1$ as $n_0\to\infty$, $M_k(n)/n\to 0$ almost surely as $n\to\infty$.
Now, concider the expectation for $n_0\leq n\leq\eta_{k}(n_0,\delta)$ and some $0<\alpha<1$ $$\mathbb{E}\left(\left.\frac{M_k(n+1)/(n+1)^{\alpha}}{M_k(n)/n^{\alpha}}\right|\mathcal{F}_n\right)= \frac{M_k(n)+\hat{c}_k^d(n)-\left(\hat{c}_k(n)-\frac{M_k(n)}{2n}\right)^{d}}{M_k(n)}\frac{n^{\alpha}}{(n+1)^{\alpha}}=$$ $$\left(1+\frac{1}{2n}\left(d\hat{c}_k^{d-1}(n)+\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}(-1)^i {i\choose d}\hat{c}_k^{d-1-i}(n)\left(\frac{M_k(n)}{2n}\right)^{i}\right)\right)\frac{1}{(1+1/n)^{\alpha}}.$$ By the induction assumption and Lemma \[lem:final\_est\], $$\Delta_k(n)=d\hat{c}_k^{d-1}(n)+\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}(-1)^i {i\choose d}\hat{c}_k^{d-1-i}(n)\left(\frac{M_k(n)}{2n}\right)^{i}\to c^{d-1}d \text{ a.s. as } n\to\infty.$$ In particular, for any $\epsilon>0$ $$\mathbb{P}(\Delta_k(n)<c^{d-1}d+\epsilon\,\text{for}\,n>n_0)\to 1 \text{ and}$$ $$\mathbb{P}(\Delta_k(n)>c^{d-1}d-\epsilon\,\text{for}\,n>n_0)\to 1\, \text{as}\,n_0\to\infty.$$ Therefore, $$\mathbb{P}\left(\mathbb{E}\left(\left.\frac{M_{k}(n+1)/(n+1)^{c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon}}{M_{k}(n)/n^{c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon}}\right|\mathcal{F}_n\right)>1,\, \text{for}\, n>n_0\right)\geq$$ $$\mathbb{P}\Bigg(\mathbb{E}\left(\left.\frac{M_{k}(n+1)/(n+1)^{c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon}}{M_{k}(n)/n^{c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon}}\right|\mathcal{F}_n\right)>1,\,$$ $$\Delta_k(n)>c^{d-1}d-\epsilon\, \text{for}\, n>n_0, \eta_{k}(n_0,\delta)=\infty\Bigg)\geq$$ $$\mathbb{P}\Bigg(\frac{1+(c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon/2)/n}{(1+1/n)^{c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon}}>1,$$ $$\Delta_k(n)>c^{d-1}d-\epsilon,\, \text{for}\, n>n_0, \eta_{k}(n_0,\delta)=\infty\Bigg)\to 1\,\text{as}\,n_0\to\infty\, \text{and}$$ $$\mathbb{P}\left(\mathbb{E}\left(\left.\frac{M_{k}(n+1)/(n+1)^{c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon}}{M_{k}(n)/n^{c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon}}\right|\mathcal{F}_n\right)<1,\, \text{for}\, n>n_0\right)\geq$$ $$\mathbb{P}\Bigg(\mathbb{E}\left(\left.\frac{M_{k}(n+1)/(n+1)^{c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon}}{M_{k}(n)/n^{c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon}}\right|\mathcal{F}_n\right)<1,\,$$ $$\Delta_k(n)<c^{d-1}d+\epsilon\, \text{for}\, n>n_0, \eta_{k}(n_0,\delta)=\infty\Bigg)\geq$$ $$\mathbb{P}\Bigg(\frac{1+(c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon/2)/n}{(1+1/n)^{c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon}}<1,\,$$ $$\Delta_k(n)<c^{d-1}d+\epsilon\, \text{for}\, n>n_0, \eta_{k}(n_0,\delta)=\infty\Bigg)\to 1$$ as $n_0\to\infty$. Introduce Markov moments $$\nu_{k,n_0,\epsilon}=\inf\left\{\left.n>n_0: \mathbb{E}\left(\frac{M_{k}(n+1)/(n+1)^{c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon}}{M_{k}(n)/n^{c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon}}\right|\mathcal{F}_n\right)\leq 1, \text{or}\right.$$ $$\left.\mathbb{E}\left(\left.\frac{M_{k}(n+1)/(n+1)^{c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon}}{M_{k}(n)/n^{c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon}}\right|\mathcal{F}_n\right)\geq 1\right\}.$$ Note that $\mathbb{P}(\nu_{k,n_0,\epsilon}=\infty)\to 1$ as $n_0\to\infty$. Let $$A_{k}(n)=\frac{M_{k}(n)}{n^{c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon/2}} \text{ and } B_{k}(n)=\frac{n^{c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon/2}}{M_{k}(n)}.$$ Then $A_k(n\wedge\nu_{k,n_0,\epsilon})$ and $B_k(n\wedge\nu_{k,n_0,\epsilon})$ are supermartingales, and from Doob’s theorem, $$\frac{M_k(n)}{n^{c^{d-1}d/2-\epsilon}}\to \infty \text{ and } \frac{M_k(n)}{n^{c^{d-1}d/2+\epsilon}}\to 0 \text{ almost surely},$$ which imply our theorem.
Acknowledgements. {#acknowledgements. .unnumbered}
=================
The author is grateful to Professor Itai Benjamini for proposing the model and to Maksim Zhukovskii for helpful discussions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- MyungJoo Ham
- Ji Joong Moon
- Geunsik Lim
- Wook Song
- Jaeyun Jung
- Hyoungjoo Ahn
- Sangjung Woo
- Youngchul Cho
- Jinhyuck Park
- Sewon Oh
- 'Hong-Seok Kim'
bibliography:
- 'nnstreamer.bib'
title: |
**NNStreamer: Stream Processing Paradigm for Neural Networks,\
Toward Efficient Development and Execution of On-Device AI Applications**
---
=1
Introduction {#S_Intro}
============
Related Work {#S_RWork}
============
Approaches {#S_Approach}
==========
Implementation {#S_Implementation}
==============
Evaluations {#S_Evaluation}
===========
Future Work {#S_FutureWork}
===========
Conclusion
==========
Availability {#availability .unnumbered}
============
*Nnstreamer* is open source software developed in a public GitHub repository. Ubuntu 16.04 and 18.04 users may use PPA to install *nnstreamer* and keep it updated:
$ sudo add-apt-repository ppa:nnstreamer/ppa
$ sudo apt-get update
$ sudo apt-get install nnstreamer
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
*Derek K. Wise\
\
Department of Mathematics\
University of California\
Riverside, CA 92521\
\
email: [email protected]*
date: 'July 19, 2005'
title: |
Lattice $p$-Form Electromagnetism\
and Chain Field Theory[^1]
---
Introduction
============
For the relativist, describing electromagnetism as a gauge theory has obvious appeal. The language of fiber bundles in which gauge theory is written provides a coherent framework for doing field theory in curved spacetimes of arbitrary dimension and with very general global topology. The bundle formalism emphasizes the idea that there is no canonical way to compare ‘states at $x$’ with ‘states at $y$’ when $x$ and $y$ are distinct points of spacetime — the notion of a connection is central. Briefly, gauge theory has much of the sort of flexibility that relativists like to demand.
In contrast, [*discrete*]{} analogs of gauge theory tend to be much more rigid. Field theories are often discretized using lattice methods [@Montvay], in which Euclidean spacetime is approximated by a regular hypercubical lattice $a{\mathbb{Z}}^4$, where $a$ is some fixed length called the lattice spacing. The lattice way of doing field theory has serious computational advantages, particularly because computer models are by nature discrete. But lattice gauge theory also represents a certain theoretical compromise. As A. Zee has pointed out (see Chapter VII.1 of his textbook [@Zee]) lattice gauge theory rescues gauge invariance from the “mangling" it suffers in perturbative field theory — including the introduction of unphysical ‘ghost fields’ necessary to make sense of the results — but does so at the expense of Lorentz invariance. The discretization shatters the symmetry of spacetime. The lattice picks out preferred directions. And the situation is worse for those interested in spacetimes more general than affine Minkowski space: there is no such thing as a diffeomorphism-invariant lattice. Of course, lattice gauge theory is often considered merely as a computational tool for doing calculations in ordinary continuum gauge theory. One expects to recover Lorentz invariance in the limit $a\to 0$, after Wick rotation. If we are really interested in [*manifestly*]{} discrete theories of physics, however, the success of lattice gauge theory in its usual form is not very satisfying: we would like to have ‘unmangled’ gauge invariance without doing such drastic damage to spacetime’s symmetry. In the context of quantum gravity, where spacetime itself is a dynamical variable, the ‘spin foam’ approach avoids picking out preferred directions in spacetime by integrating over possible discretizations; in lattice electromagnetism we should at least like to have a theory which allows discretizations more general than the hypercubical lattices of lattice gauge theory, with the hope of recovering something that looks like diffeomorphism invariance at large scales.
More generally, we would like such a flexible discretization of [**$p$-form electromagnetism**]{}, the generalization of Maxwell’s theory one obtains by replacing the gauge field $A$ by a $p$-form [@Carrion]. More precisely, the gauge field in electromagnetism is a connection on a $U(1)$-bundle, which may be thought of in local coordinates as a 1-form $$A = A_\mu dx^\mu,$$ and [*this*]{} may be generalized to a $p$-form: $$A= A_{\mu_1\ldots \mu_p} \frac{1}{p!} dx^{\mu_1}\wedge\cdots \wedge dx^{\mu_p}.$$ The electromagnetic field, locally the 2-form $
F = dA
$, is globally just the curvature of the connection $A$. In direct analogy, the $p$-form electromagnetic field is described locally by the $(p+1)$-form $$F= dA.$$ The classical equations of motion for $p$-form electromagnetism, what we might call the [**$p$-form Maxwell equations**]{}, look formally identical to the 1-form case [@GFKG]: $$\begin{aligned}
dF &= 0 \\
\star d\star F &= J \end{aligned}$$ But here, since $F$ is a $(p+1)$-form, $\star d \star F$ is a $p$-form, so the [**current**]{} $J$ must also be a $p$-form. One sees how the dimensions get boosted: whereas the current in ordinary electromagnetism is fundamentally 1-dimensional, corresponding to 0-dimensional point particles tracing out 1-dimensional curves, 2-form electromagnetism has a 2-dimensional current. One might expect such a theory to describe 1-dimensional charges sweeping out surfaces in spacetime. It is thus not surprising that something like this shows up in string theory, where it is called the ‘Kalb-Ramond field’ [@GSW; @KR]. Integrating the Kalb-Ramond field over the string’s worldsheet gives a term in the action, analogous to the term in the action of a charged particle given by integrating the vector potential $A$ along the particle’s worldline.
A natural question which has been pursued by Baez and others is how to describe $p$-form electromagnetism, and other ‘higher gauge theories’ [@BS; @Pfeiffer] with more general gauge group, [*globally*]{}. In fact, putting ‘$p$-form gauge theory’ on the same global footing as ordinary gauge theory requires some higher-dimensional generalization of the notion of fiber bundle [@BS; @Bartels; @Bryl; @MP]. In particular, one needs to know what is meant by parallel transporting a $p$-dimensional extended object along a $(p+1)$-dimensional submanifold, rather than merely translating point particles along paths.
Remarkably, many of the technical difficulties of defining ‘higher gauge theory’ melt away in a discrete setting when the gauge group is abelian, that is, in the case of discrete $p$-form electromagnetism! The need for the bundle formalism in gauge theory arises from the possibility that the gauge field might be ‘twisted’ in a global way. But in the lattice context, changes in the gauge field happen not continuously but in discrete steps. It therefore becomes impossible to decide if the field is ‘twisted’ around some noncontractible loop. Moreover, the abelian nature of electromagnetism allows higher-dimensional generalization to be carried out in a straightforward way. Rather than increasingly rich algebraic structures necessary for boosting the dimension in nonabelian gauge theory, higher dimensional electromagnetism can always be described in terms of chain complexes of abelian groups. In fact, $p$-form electromagnetism on discrete spacetime turns out to be no more difficult than ordinary electromagnetism.
It is the hope of the author that this detailed and pedagogical study of discrete $p$-form electromagnetism will serve as a starting point for further study in both lattice gauge theory and higher-dimensional analogs of gauge theories, both fields of active research, as well as theories at their interface. A subsidiary motivation is to smooth the reader’s way toward an understanding of discrete models of spacetime which arise in the study of quantum gravity, especially ‘spin foams’. It is also hoped that the expository flavor of this article will make it accessible to a wider variety of readers, including physicists wishing to see an elegant treatment of lattice gauge theory and mathematicians wishing to see applications of cohomology and category theory in physics.
The plan of the paper is as follows. [**Section \[sec:survey\]**]{} serves as an invitation to much of the material that follows it, with the intent of getting as quickly as possible to the point of doing path integral calculations in discrete quantum electromagnetism. In this section we make an initial attempt at quantizing discrete vacuum electromagnetism with gauge group ${\mathbb{R}}$. As typical in lattice gauge theory, we work in this section and throughout the paper in Euclidean (i.e. ‘Wick-rotated’) spacetime. Readers already well acquainted with path integrals in lattice gauge theory may wish to skim through this to fix notation and then move on to Section \[sec:ngraph\].
In [**Section \[sec:ngraph\]**]{} we begin a more careful approach, considering first what mathematical model of discrete spacetime is appropriate for the description of $p$-form electromagnetism.
[**Section \[sec:action\]**]{} draws a comparison to the continuum theory and uses this to construct an appropriate form of the action in discrete $p$-form electromagnetism. In a subsection, it is shown that, just as ordinary gauge theories are particularly simple in two dimensions, $p$-form electromagnetism simplifies greatly in $p+1$ dimensions.
Topological issues are considered in [**Section \[sec:cohomology\]**]{}, where the cohomology of a spacetime is introduced as a criterion for convergence of the path integral when the gauge group is ${\mathbb{R}}$. The $p$-form analog of the Bohm-Aharonov effect is also discussed. In the final subsection of Section \[sec:cohomology\], the classical theory is examined more closely, using the topological machinery developed earlier in the section. Using Hodge’s theorem, it is shown that, quite surprisingly, under certain conditions $p$-form electromagnetism in [*Riemannian*]{} signature is purely topological as a classical theory. More precisely, in the absence of charged matter the space of classical solutions depends only on the topology of spacetime.
In [**Section \[sec:u1\]**]{} we examine the relationship between the groups ${\mathbb{R}}$ and $U(1)$ as gauge groups for electromagnetism, and use the formalism developed in previous sections for gauge group ${\mathbb{R}}$ to set up path integrals in the more usual $U(1)$ case. These these turn out to involve not Gaussian integrals in the ordinary sense, but the analog of a Gaussian on a torus, which is nothing but a theta function.
[**Sections \[sec:zeroform\]**]{} and [**\[sec:vft\]**]{} deal with some special cases of the theory. First, we consider $0$-form electromagnetism, which is really just scalar field theory, and find that understanding this requires a further insight in topology, namely, augmentation of complexes. We then return to the case of $p$-form electromagnetism in $p+1$ dimensions, a case which is in fact the source of many examples in the paper. We suggest that in $p+1$ dimensions, the theory is ‘almost’ a topological quantum field theory — what we call a ‘volumetric field theory’ — where the volume of spacetime is the only nontopological degree of freedom.
The final section of the paper, [**Section \[sec:chain\]**]{}, presents the main result of this work, namely a description of lattice $p$-form electromagnetism that parallels the category-theoretic description of topological field theory. The importance of this result is that it gives a rigorous description of [*time evolution*]{} in lattice $p$-form electromagnetism. Namely, it allows an $n$-dimensional discrete spacetime to be split into $(n-1)$-dimensional slices representing space, and provides time evolution operators between the Hilbert spaces of states on these. Though some attempt has been made to retain the expository tone of the previous sections, this final section is more technically demanding than the rest of the paper. In particular it will probably not be comprehensible without a working knowledge of categories and functors. A highly readable introduction to categories and functors which also emphasizes applications to physics is the book by Geroch [@Geroch]. The more technical aspects of category theory needed in this section are all covered in Mac Lane’s textbook [@MacLane].
As this paper is intended to be expository and as self-contained as possible, an [**Appendix**]{} includes a review of the Gaussian integrals needed to do calculations in discrete $p$-form electromagnetism.
[Survey: From $n$-Graphs to Path Integrals]{} {#sec:survey}
=============================================
A discrete model of spacetime might begin with a simple discrete set of points, the “events." Soon however, if we want to write down theories that look like their desired continuum limits, we are forced to equip our model with additional data. In the context of gauge theory, for example, we would like to be able to define an analog of the connection and take holonomies along paths, and this requires that we specify ways of getting from one event to another. This has the effect of turning our model into a [*graph*]{}, with events as vertices and paths between events as finite strings of edges:
\[width=.6\] [graph-1.ps]{}
Likewise, the desire to give meaning to notions such as area and curvature makes it natural to fill in empty spaces bounded by edges with 2-dimensional faces, or [**plaquettes**]{}. Thus our model becomes a ‘2-graph’:
\[width=.6\] [2graph-1.ps]{}
In a similar way, we are led to adjoin 3-dimensional cells bounded by plaquettes, and so on, all the way up to the highest dimension of the spacetime. In general, an $n$-dimensional discrete spacetime should be constructed from $n+1$ distinct classes of geometric objects: vertices, edges between vertices, plaquettes bounded by edges, 3-cells bounded by plaquettes, ..., and $n$-cells bounded by $(n-1)$-cells. Spacetime thus becomes an ‘$n$-graph’.
The problem is, nobody knows what an $n$-graph is! Of course, we have some solid ideas of what an $n$-graph should be like, but there seems to be no accepted intrinsic definition that is flexible enough to encompass every would-be example. We take up this issue in Section \[sec:ngraph\].
For now, let us rely on our intuitive notion of a 2-graph as a combinatorial object consisting of finite sets of vertices, edges, and plaquettes, and begin with a naïve attempt at discretizing quantum electromagnetism in 2 dimensions. Let $V$ be the set of [**vertices**]{}, $E$ the set of [**edges**]{}, and $P$ the set of [**plaquettes**]{} or [**faces**]{}. An edge is just a line segment or curve connecting one vertex to another, while a plaquette is a 2-dimensional surface whose boundary consists of one or more edges. A simple example, with 2 vertices, 3 edges, and 2 plaquettes, is depicted below. $$\xy
(0,0)*{\includegraphics{twoface_uo-1.ps}};
\endxy$$
In practice, it is helpful to arbitrarily assign an orientation to each cell. It is also useful to give labels to cells, just as it is sometimes convenient to use coordinates in ordinary gauge theory. We shall label the elements of $V$, $E$, and $P$ using lower case letters $v$, $e$, and $p$, with subscripts to distinguish between them, as shown below: $$\usebox{\twoface}$$
The usual gauge group for electromagnetism is $U(1)$, but there is another obvious choice, namely ${\mathbb{R}}$. We will follow the latter alternative in the first part of the paper, both because a noncompact gauge group leads to some instructive problems, and because the construction of the $U(1)$ path-integral in Section \[sec:u1\] is made easier having established the formalism with gauge group ${\mathbb{R}}$. In lattice gauge theory, the [**gauge field**]{} or [**connection**]{} $A$ assigns to each edge in the lattice an element of the gauge group: $$A{\colon}E\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}.$$ The space of connections is therefore just $${\cal A} = {\mathbb{R}}^E.$$
Now suppose we move a test particle from one vertex to another along some path, i.e. along some concatenation $\gamma=e_1^{\varepsilon_1} e_2^{\varepsilon_2} \ldots e_n^{\varepsilon_n}$ of oriented edges, where $\varepsilon_i=\pm 1$ with $e_i^{-1}$ denoting the edge $e_i=e_i^{+1}$ with its orientation reversed. We define the [**holonomy**]{} of $A$ along the path $\gamma$ to be the sum $$H(A,\gamma)=\varepsilon_1 A(e_1) + \varepsilon_2 A(e_2) + \cdots +
\varepsilon_n A(e_n)$$ Note that we use addition and subtraction because ${\mathbb{R}}$ is an additive group. Most gauge theories, including the $U(1)$-version of electromagnetism, use multiplicative groups, so the holonomy becomes $H(A,\gamma)= A(e_1)^{\varepsilon_1}A(e_2)^{\varepsilon_2}\cdots
A(e_n)^{\varepsilon_n}$ instead.
In gauge theory, one way to tell if a connection is curved is to send a test particle around some small loop and keep track of what happens to the connection as it goes around. In the context of $U(1)$ electromagnetism, this means comparing the phase of the particle before and after its trip around the loop. In the present context, our gauge group is not the group of phases, but the idea is similar. Accordingly, we define the [**curvature**]{} or [**field strength**]{} $F(p)$ on a plaquette $p\in P$ to be the holonomy of the connection $A$ around the loop that forms its boundary $\partial p$. For example, in the lattice $$\usebox{\twoface}$$ the curvature on plaquette $p_1$ is $A_2-A_1$, while the curvature on $p_2$ is $A_3-A_2$, where $A_i:=A(e_i)$. Note that since the gauge group is abelian, the holonomy around the loop does not depend on what order we traverse the edges in! This fact will be of great use to us.
To quantize our theory, we will use the Euclidean path integral approach, and to do this we must specify the form of the action for the gauge field. Roughly, when there are no sources present, the action should be a positive quadratic function of the curvature, so that the connections with zero curvature have the least action, hence are most probable. In Section \[sec:action\] we discuss in more detail what the action for a given connection should look like. In the case of lattice electromagnetism in two dimensions, we find that the best choice for the action is $$S(A)=\frac{1}{2e^2}\sum_{p_i \in P} \frac{{F_i}^2}{V_i},$$ where $F_i=F(p_i)$ is the curvature induced by the connection on the $i$th plaquette, $V_i$ is the area of the $i$th plaquette, and $e^2$ is the square of the charge on the electron (or if you wish, the fine structure constant $\alpha=e^2/\hbar c$, since we are using units with $\hbar=c=1$).
An [**observable**]{} $O$ in our theory is a real-valued function of the gauge field: $$O{\colon}{\cal A}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$$ so we can try to calculate its expected value, using our action $S(A)$, as $$\langle O \rangle = \frac{\displaystyle\int_{\cal A} O(A)e^{-S(A)} {\cal D}A}
{\displaystyle\int_{\cal A} e^{-S(A)} {\cal D}A}.$$ In certain cases, it might be difficult to define exactly what this means. For example, if our lattice is infinite, then we must deal with the difficulties of defining measures on infinite dimensional Euclidean space. However, even in the finite dimensional case, where ${\cal D}A=d^E\!\! A$ is just Lebesgue measure on ${\cal A}={\mathbb{R}}^E$, when we try to calculate $\langle O \rangle$ by the above formula we usually run into serious problems! To see this, let us do a sample calculation of the integral in the denominator, which is just the **partition function** $$Z:=\int_{\cal A} e^{-S(A)} {\cal D}A$$ against which all other expected values are normalized.
For convenience, let us take the little two-plaquette complex above as our spacetime, with plaquette areas $V_1$ and $V_2$. We then write the action as a function of the connection using matrix notation: $$\begin{aligned}
S(A) &= \frac{1}{2e^2}\left(\frac{{F_1}^2}{V_1} + \frac{{F_2}^2}{V_2}\right)\\
&= \frac{1}{2e^2}\left(\frac{(A_1 - A_2)^2}{V_1}+\frac{(A_2- A_3)^2}{V_2}\right) \\
&=\frac{1}{2e^2V_1V_2}
\begin{bmatrix}
A_1 & A_2 & A_3
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
V_2 & -V_2 & 0 \\
-V_2 & V_1+V_2 & -V_1 \\
0 & -V_1 & V_1
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
A_1 \\ A_2 \\ A_3
\end{bmatrix}\\
&=\frac{1}{2e^2V_1V_2}\langle A, QA \rangle\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ in the last line denotes the vector with components $(A_1, A_2, A_3)$ and $Q$ is the $3\times 3$ matrix in the line above. If we naïvely apply one of the integal formulas derived in the Appendix, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Z= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^E}
e^{-\frac{1}{2e^2} \langle A, Q A \rangle} d^{E}\!\!A
&=\sqrt{\frac{(2\pi e^2 V_1 V_2)^3}{\det(Q)}}.\end{aligned}$$ However, when we actually calculate the determinant we find $\det (Q)=0$, thereby obtaining the most famous wrong answer in quantum field theory: $Z=\infty$! This is obviously bad.
Let us examine [*why*]{} the integral diverges. Notice that if we transform the connection as follows: $$(A_1,A_2,A_3)\mapsto (A_1+d\phi,A_2+d\phi,A_3+d\phi),$$ where $d\phi$ is any real number, the action $$S(A)=\frac{1}{2e^2}\left(\frac{(A_1 - A_2)^2}{V_1}+\frac{(A_2- A_3)^2}{V_2}\right)$$ is unaffected. This symmetry of the action is a degree of ‘gauge freedom’. From this perspective, the divergence of the partition function should hardly be surprising — the integrand $\exp(-S)$ is equal to $1$ along an entire line through the origin of ${\mathbb{R}}^E$! More pictorially, one cross section of $\exp(-S)$ looks like this:
{width="2" height="1in"}
where the direction of gauge freedom is obvious.
The reason we could add $(d\phi,d\phi,d\phi)$ to the connection $A=(A_1,A_2,A_3)$ without affecting the action is that the connection $(d\phi,d\phi,d\phi)$ is [**flat**]{}: its holonomy around each plaquette is zero. A little thought reveals a simple way of constructing such flat connections. First, for each directed edge $e$ in the lattice, let $s(e),t(e)\in V$ denote the [**source**]{} and [**target**]{} (or ‘tail’ and ‘tip’) of $e$, respectively: $$\xy
(-15,0)*{\bullet};(15,0)*{\bullet}**\dir{-} ?(.55)*\dir{>};
(-15,2.5)*{s(e)}; (0,2.5)*{e}; (15,2.5)*{t(e)}
\endxy$$ Then, if we let $$\phi {\colon}V\to {\mathbb{R}}$$ be any real-valued function of the vertices of spacetime, and define the [[****]{}differential of $\phi$]{} to be $$d\phi {\colon}E \to {\mathbb{R}}$$ given by $$d\phi(e)=\phi(t(e)) - \phi(s(e))$$ the connection $d\phi$ is flat! To see this, note that computing the holonomy of $d\phi$ around any loop then amounts to just adding and subtracting the same value at each vertex along the way. For example taking the holonomy of $d\phi$ along the boundary $\gamma$ of this plaquette: $$\xy
(-12,0)*{\xy
(0,0)*{\includegraphics{triface-1.ps}};
(0,-10)*{e_3};(-6,2)*{e_2};(6,2)*{e_1};
(-10,-10)*{v_1};(10,-10)*{v_2};(0,10)*{v_3};
\endxy};
(15,0)*{\displaystyle \gamma=e_1e_2^{-1}e_3}
\endxy$$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
H(d\phi,\gamma) &= d\phi(e_1) - d\phi(e_2) + d\phi(e_3) \\
&= (\phi_3 - \phi_2) - (\phi_3 - \phi_1) + (\phi_2 - \phi_1) = 0\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_i := \phi(v_i)$ for $i=1,2,3$. In fact, in lattice gauge theory we define a [**gauge transformation**]{} to be a map from the set of vertices to the gauge group. The space of gauge transformations is thus $${\cal G} = {\mathbb{R}}^V.$$ It is convenient to think of ${\cal G}$ as a group which acts on the space $\cal A$ of connections by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}\times {\cal A} &\to {\cal A} \\
(\phi, A) &\mapsto A + d\phi. \end{aligned}$$
A common way of eliminating divergences caused by gauge freedom is [**gauge fixing**]{}. Fixing a gauge means choosing some method to pick one representative of each gauge-equivalence class $[A]$ and doing path integrals over just these. There are problems with this approach, however. In a general gauge theory, it might not even be possible to fix a smooth, global gauge over which to integrate. But even when we can do this, the arbitrary choice involved in fixing a gauge is undesirable, philosophically. Gauge fixing amounts to pretending a [*quotient space*]{} of $\cal A$, the space of [**connections modulo gauge transformations**]{}, is a [*subspace*]{}. A better approach is to use the quotient space directly. Namely, modding out by the action of ${\cal G}$ on $\cal A$ gives the quotient space $\cal A /G$ consisting of gauge-equivalence classes of connections, and we do path integrals like $$Z = \int_{{\cal A}/{\cal G}} e^{-S([A])} d[A].$$ When gauge fixing works, path integrals over $\cal A/G$ give the same results as gauge fixing. But integrating over $\cal A/G$ is more general and involves no arbitrary choices.
Since gauge equivalent connections are regarded as physically equivalent, the quotient space ${{\cal A}/{\cal G}}$ of connections mod gauge transformations is sometimes called the [**physical configuration space**]{} for vacuum electromagnetism. A [**physical observable**]{} is then any real-valued function on the physical configuration space: $$O: {{\cal A}/{\cal G}} \to {\mathbb{R}}$$ or equivalently, any gauge-invariant function on the space $\cal A$ of connections.
In the case of noncompact gauge group even factoring out all of the gauge freedom may be insufficient to regularize our path integrals. In particular, there are certain topological conditions our spacetime must meet for this programme to give convergent path integrals. As a consequence, in the case where the gauge group is ${\mathbb{R}}$, we must sometimes take more drastic measures in order to extract meaningful results, and this leads to some interesting differences between the cases $G={\mathbb{R}}$ and $G=U(1)$ as the gauge group for electromagnetism. These differences are related to the famous ‘Bohm-Aharonov effect’, which has higher dimensional generalizations in the case of $p$-form electromagnetism. We discuss this issue in Section \[sec:cohomology\].
[Spacetime Lattice as an $n$-Complex]{} {#sec:ngraph}
=======================================
Just as the concept of a manifold is fundamental to an elegant treatment of general relativity, lattice gauge theory must give due attention to the spacetime lattice itself. In particular, we should say with some precision what we mean when we describe discrete spacetime as an ‘$n$-graph.’ We make no attempt in this section at giving the most general definition of $n$-graph suitable for describing arbitrary discrete gauge theories. Rather, we show that for [*abelian*]{} gauge theory, we really only need a weaker notion — what we shall call an ‘$n$-complex’.
The $n$-Graph Problem
---------------------
Formulating a precise definition of $n$-graph is not an easy task. Ideally, we should be able to describe $n$-graphs in a purely combinatorial way: An $n$-graph should consist of sets of various kinds of cells, together with maps telling how the cells are linked together. An ordinary (directed) [**graph**]{}, for example, is specified by a set $V$ of vertices and a set $E$ of edges, together with [**source**]{} and [**target**]{} maps $$s,t{\colon}E \to V$$ telling at which vertex each edge begins and ends.
If one tries copying this definition to define a notion of $n$-graph, one quickly realizes the immensity of the combinatorial problem at hand! Even if we only wish to add 2-dimensional faces, complete generality requires an infinite number of new sets and set maps; whereas an edge has only two ends, a 2d face can have arbitrarily many sides:
What’s more, the specified maps must satisfy certain equations. For example, in the pentagonal face
{width="1.7in"}
we must impose equations saying that the $0$th and $4$th edges have the same source vertex, that the target of the $2$nd edge is the source of the $3$rd, and so on (three more equations). These equations are called [**incidence relations**]{}.
And it gets worse. A 3-cell may have arbitrarily many faces, each of which may have any number of sides …
There are various attempts at formalizing the notion of $n$-graph in a fully satisfactory way, most relying heavily on category theory, or rather $n$-category theory, which itself is still under development. At the present state of the art, however, we are forced to make compromises of one sort or another. Each of these compromises carries with it its own weaknesses.
We could, for example, restrict the allowable shapes of cells. Allowing only simplices as cells, for example, lets us define ‘simplicial $n$-graphs’ as simplicial sets [@May], where we simply remove any cells of dimension greater than $n$. Similarly, we could define ‘cubical $n$-graphs’ using cubical sets [@GL]. If we are only interested in lattice gauge theory as a computational tool, these should be sufficient, and indeed the study of lattice gauge theory began with regular cubical lattices. However, if we really believe spacetime is discrete at some scale, then there seems to be no [*a priori*]{} physical justification for imposing such strong conditions on the shapes of cells!
For this reason, piecewise-linear CW-complexes (or PLCW-complexes, for short) [@HMS; @H] have been used as discrete models of spacetime in loop quantum gravity [@Baez; @Baez2]. These allow a wider variety of cell shapes, and are quite handy if, for example, we want to chop up a manifold with boundary into polyhedra:
[PLCWcyl-1.ps]{}
Unlike simplicial sets, however, we do not know how to define PLCW complexes [*intrinsically*]{} — they rely on an ambient space for their construction. This too is undesirable for physics, analogous to defining the spacetime manifold in relativity as a submanifold of some higher dimensional Euclidean space. In addition, the polyhedral cells in PLCW complexes would not allow, for example, plaquettes bounded by only one or two edges:
or 3-cells bounded by fewer than four plaquettes, like these:
and so on. The problem with all of these is that they involve curved sides; cells in PLCW complexes must be constructible in Euclidean space using only polyhedra with straight sides. So in fact, even our simple two-plaquette example from Section \[sec:survey\] is not a PLCW complex. Worse, a typical [*graph*]{} is not a 1-dimensional PLCW complex, so PLCW complexes are hardly a candidate for general $n$-graphs.
$n$-Complexes
-------------
\[ncomplex\] Luckily, it turns out that in gauge theory, and even ‘higher gauge theory’, we can avoid many of the technical issues with $n$-graphs when the gauge group is [*abelian*]{} — that is, in the case of $p$-form electromagnetism! To see why, note that taking the holonomy of a connection along some path through a graph, we multiply group elements of the edges composing the path [*in order*]{}. In a nonabelian gauge theory, this requires we keep close track of how the edges are interconnected. This is manageable for 1-dimensional holonomies, but in ‘$p$-form gauge theory’, where holonomy involves multiplying group elements labelling $p$-cells, it is difficult to know what order to use. In general, the holonomy depends intimately on the incidence relations of the $n$-graph — that is, on the details of how cells are linked up — and keeping track of this requires a fairly sophisticated notion of $n$-graph. If the gauge group is abelian, however, then the order in which we apply the group operation is unimportant, and all that matters is the orientation of each cell!
The key to defining a rudimentary $n$-graph suitable to our purposes is to follow the topological maxim, [*‘The boundary of a boundary is zero’*]{}. This principle, so phrased by John Archibald Wheeler [@CW; @MTW], has limitless applications to physics, from Kirchoff’s laws in electrical circuits to the Bianchi identities in general relativity. It is also the topological foundation of Maxwell’s equations themselves, so it is perhaps not so surprising that it plays a foundational role in a precise formulation of lattice electromagnetism.
For us, spacetime will be a **cell complex** $M$, which we define as follows. First of all, $M$ consists of a list of sets $$X_0, X_1, X_2 \ldots , X_k, \ldots$$ where we call $X_k=X_k(M)$ the set of [[****]{}$k$-cells]{} in $M$. Now intuitively, the boundary of a $k$-cell should be a “sum” of $(k-1)$-cells. To formalize such sums, for each $k$ we let $C_k = C_k(M)$ be the free abelian group on the set $X_k$. In other words, $C_k$ just consists of all formal linear combinations of $k$-cells, with integer coefficients. We call the elements of $C_k$ the [[****]{}$k$-chains]{} in $M$. We then hypothesize **boundary maps** $\partial_k{\colon}C_k\rightarrow C_{k-1}$ and require that these be linear over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. If we let $\partial_0{\colon}C_0\to 0$ be the unique map from $C_0$ to the trivial group, then the boundary maps fit together like this: $$0 \buildrel \partial_{0} \over \longleftarrow
C_{0} \buildrel \partial_{1} \over \longleftarrow
C_{1} \buildrel \partial_{2} \over \longleftarrow
C_{2} \buildrel \partial_{3} \over \longleftarrow
\cdots\buildrel \partial_{k} \over \longleftarrow
C_{k} \buildrel \partial_{k+1} \over \longleftarrow
\cdots.$$
We will say that the cell complex is [[****]{}$n$-dimensional]{}, or that it is an [[****]{}$n$-complex]{}, provided $X_k =\emptyset$ for all $k>n$.[^2] When the cell complex is $n$-dimensional, we might as well truncate the chain and write simply $$0 \buildrel \partial_{0} \over \longleftarrow
C_{0} \buildrel \partial_{1} \over \longleftarrow
C_{1} \buildrel \partial_{2} \over \longleftarrow
C_{2} \buildrel \partial_{3} \over \longleftarrow
\cdots\buildrel \partial_{n} \over \longleftarrow
C_{n}.$$
With this construction, Wheeler’s principle can be stated in a concise way: $$\partial_{k-1}\partial_{k}c=0,$$ for every $c\in C_k$. Better yet, when it is clear which boundary maps we are talking about, we often drop the subscripts and just write $\partial$ for all of them. If we also drop the explicit reference to a $k$-chain $c$, we can write simply $$\partial\partial=0$$ or even $$\partial^2=0.$$ So we conclude our definition of a cell complex by demanding that the boundary of the boundary of any $k$-chain is zero, in the sense just described.
In homological algebra, such a sequence of maps $\partial{\colon}C_{k} \to C_{k-1}$ satisfying $\partial\partial=0$ is called a [**chain complex**]{}. This lets us summarize the definition in a concise way:
An [[****]{}$n$-dimensional cell complex]{}, or [[****]{}$n$-complex]{} $M$ is a chain complex \[def:ncomplex\] $$0 \buildrel \partial \over \longleftarrow
C_{0} \buildrel \partial \over \longleftarrow
C_{1} \buildrel \partial \over \longleftarrow
C_{2} \buildrel \partial \over \longleftarrow
\cdots\buildrel \partial \over \longleftarrow
C_{n}$$ of free abelian groups $C_k(M)$, each equipped with a preferred basis $X_k(M)$.
In a certain sense, this definition is perhaps too inclusive. We could take, for instance, the sets $X_k$ of cells to be any sets whatsoever and let each boundary map $\partial$ be the zero map. One can also concoct other sorts of perverse examples, all falling squarely within the bounds of the definition, but with seemingly no connection between the boundary maps and the geometric notion of boundary.
The point is that, although the result might be strange or impractical, one actually can write down a theory of electromagnetism on such $n$-complexes. Our attitude will be simply that it is up to the user of the definition to decide what additional conditions to impose to guarantee more ‘reasonable’ $n$-complexes. But to see that our definition of an $n$-complex at least does include the sort of discrete spacetimes we really [*are*]{} interested in, and to show how the definition might be used in practice, an example or two might be in order.
**Example:** In Section \[sec:survey\], we had the following spacetime: $$\usebox{\twoface}$$ But now, instead of simply talking about the sets $X_0=V$, $X_1=E$, and $X_2=P$ of vertices, edges and plaquettes, we make them into free abelian groups $$C_0{\cong}{\mathbb{Z}}^{V},\,
C_1{\cong}{\mathbb{Z}}^{E},\, \text{ and }
C_2{\cong}{\mathbb{Z}}^{P},$$ with ordered bases $V$, $E$, $P$, respectively. The boundary map $\partial {\colon}C_1 \to C_0$ we define by assigning to each edge $e\in C_1$ its target minus its source: $$\partial(e)= t(e)-s(e).$$ In particular, since all three edges in this example go from $v_1$ to $v_2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial(e_1)=v_2-v_1 \\
&\partial(e_2)=v_2-v_1 \\
&\partial(e_3)=v_2-v_1.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we define the boundary of a plaquette $p\in C_2$ by taking the sum of the edges around its physical boundary, but with opposite sign if an edge points opposite the plaquette orientation. Thus, in our example, $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial(p_1)=e_1-e_2\\
&\partial(p_2)=e_2-e_3 .\end{aligned}$$
It is often convenient to write the boundary maps in matrix form. Relative to the ordered bases $\{v_1,v_2\}$ of $C_0$, $\{e_1,e_2,e_3\}$ of $C_1$, and $\{p_1,p_2\}$ of $C_2$, they are represented in our example by the matrices: $$\partial_{1}=\left[
\begin{array}{rrr}
-1&-1&-1\\
1 & 1& 1
\end{array}\right]
\qquad
\partial_{2}=\left[
\begin{array}{rr}
1&0\\
-1&1\\
0&-1
\end{array}\right].$$ Obviously $\partial_1 \partial_2$ is just the $2\times 2$ zero matrix, as required.
**Example:** As a second example, take the solid tetrahedron: $$\xy
(1,3)*{\includegraphics{tetra-1.ps}};
(-20,-10)*{}="v1";"v1"+(-2,-1)*{v_1};
(10,-14)*{}="v2";"v2"+(-1,-2)*{v_2};
(20,0)*{}="v3";"v3"+(3,0)*{v_3};
(0,20)*{}="v4";"v4"+(0,3)*{v_4};
(-5,-12) + (0,-3) *{e_1};
(0,-5) + (-1,2) *{e_2};
(-10,5) + (-2,1) *{e_4};
(15,-7) + (1.7,-1.7) *{e_3};
(5,3) + (2,1) *{e_5};
(10,10)+(1,2) *{e_6};
\endxy$$ which has four vertices, six edges, four plaquettes, and one 3-cell. Here we have left out the labels on plaquettes, to avoid cluttering the diagram, but for convenience we take the $i$th plaquette $p_i$ to be the triangular face whose vertices include all vertices but $v_i$. On each plaquette, let us take the orientation such that its three edges are traversed in numerically increasing order (or a cyclic permutation). To specify the orientation of the 3-cell $c$, we call each of its faces positively oriented if its orientation is counterclockwise when viewed from inside $c$. The resulting chain complex then looks like this: $$0 \buildrel \partial_{0} \over \longleftarrow
{\mathbb{Z}}^4 \buildrel \partial_{1} \over \longleftarrow
{\mathbb{Z}}^6 \buildrel \partial_{2} \over \longleftarrow
{\mathbb{Z}}^4\buildrel \partial_{3} \over \longleftarrow
{\mathbb{Z}}$$ with the boundary maps represented by the matrices $$\begin{array}{cc}
\partial_0=
\begin{bmatrix} 0&0&0&0\end{bmatrix}
&
\partial_1=
\left[ \begin{array}{rrrrrr}
-1& -1& 0& -1& 0& 0\\
1& 0& -1& 0& -1& 0\\
0& 1& 1& 0&0 &-1 \\
0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 1
\end{array}\right]
\\
\partial_2=
\left[ \begin{array}{rrrr}
0& 0&-1 &-1 \\
0& -1&0 &1 \\
-1 &0 &0 &-1 \\
0 &1 &1 &0 \\
1 & 0& -1& 0 \\
-1& -1& 0& 0
\end{array}\right]
&
\partial_3 = \left[\begin{array}{r} 1\\-1\\1\\-1 \end{array}\right]
\end{array}$$ Again, we can easily verify that $\partial_0\partial_1$, $\partial_1\partial_2$, and $\partial_2\partial_3$ are all zero, so we really do get a chain complex.
Notice that in passing from the physical model of a spacetime lattice to its corresponding $n$-complex, one is actually throwing away quite a lot of information! Given a chain complex, it may be impossible to reconstruct every detail of how cells in the original model might have been hooked together. Applying the boundary map to a $k$-cell only tells us ‘how many times’ each $(k-1)$-cell is included in its boundary, with possible cancellation. For example, in the cylinder with one plaquette $p$: $$\xy
(0,0)*{\includegraphics[height=.2\textwidth] {cyl-1.ps}};
(0,8)*{e_1};
(0,-18)*{e_3};
(-5.5,0)*{e_2};
\endxy$$ we have $\partial p=e_1-e_2+e_3+e_2=e_1+e_3$, leaving no trace of the fact that $e_2$ is actually included twice in the physical boundary of $p$, with opposite orientation.
We must emphasize that we are free to discard all of these incidence data only because electromagnetism is abelian. As we shall soon see, almost everything we need for electromagnetism is contained in the chain complex of spacetime. We can even think of discrete spacetime as [*being*]{} its chain complex, a perspective which we explore more fully in Section \[sec:chain\].
One immediate generalization of the notion of cell complex is sometimes useful. Although [*integer*]{} linear combinations of cells are perhaps the most sensible from a purely combinatorial perspective, we may instead take [*real*]{} coefficients. The $C_k$ then become real vector spaces, rather than mere abelian groups, allowing arbitrary real-linear combinations of cells in the spacetime lattice. This is useful because it allows us to exploit the nice properties of the field ${\mathbb{R}}$ and vector spaces over it in certain computations. More generally, we could take coefficients in any ring $R$. Formal $R$-linear combinations of elements of $X_k$ give the [[****]{}free $R$-module]{} on $X_k$. When we need to be specific about what ring we are using, we write $$C_k(M;R)$$ for the $R$-module of $k$-chains in $M$.
Discrete [$p$]{}-Connections and the Action {#sec:action}
============================================
Cochains as Forms {#sec:cochain}
-----------------
The local theory of continuum electromagnetism is most beautifully written in the language of differential forms [@GFKG]. In $p$-form electromagnetism, the analog of the connection $A$ is locally a $p$-form, making the electromagnetic field $F$=$dA$ a $(p+1)$-form. In [*lattice*]{} $p$-form electromagnetism, we thus define a [[****]{}$p$-connection]{} to be a map assigning to each $p$-cell an element of the gauge group: $$A{\colon}X_p(M) \to {\mathbb{R}}.$$ But in the framework introduced in the previous section, we can now speak not only of $p$-cells but also formal linear combinations of them. The real beauty of this viewpoint is we can extend $A$ linearly to obtain a linear functional $$A{\colon}C_p(M;{\mathbb{R}}) \to {\mathbb{R}}.$$ That is, we can consider a $p$-connection to be an element of the dual space $$C^p(M;{\mathbb{R}}):=C_p(M;{\mathbb{R}})^\ast,$$ which we dub the space of [[****]{}$p$-cochains]{}. Likewise, the curvature is a linear functional on the space of $(p+1)$-cells, or an element of $C^{p+1}(M;{\mathbb{R}})$. In general, we define $$C^k(M;R):= C_k(M;R)^\ast$$ to be the $R$-module dual to $C_k(M;R)$ — i.e. the module of all maps $C_k(M;R)\to R$ that are linear over $R$. When the ring $R$ is clear from the context (typically ${\mathbb{R}}$ or ${\mathbb{Z}}$), we may simply write $C^k$ for $C^k(M;R)$.
To make our discrete theory look as much as possible like its continuous counterpart, we need to understand what takes the place of the differential. This construction is standard in algebraic topology [@GH; @Hatcher]. Since the boundary maps form a chain complex, $$0 \buildrel \partial_{0} \over \longleftarrow
C_{0} \buildrel \partial_{1} \over \longleftarrow
C_{1} \buildrel \partial_{2} \over \longleftarrow
C_{2} \buildrel \partial_{3} \over \longleftarrow
\cdots\buildrel \partial_{n} \over \longleftarrow
C_{n}$$ we get a chain complex of the dual spaces in the opposite direction, the [**cochain complex**]{}, by taking the adjoint of each boundary map: $$C^{0} \buildrel d_{0} \over \longrightarrow
C^{1} \buildrel d_{1} \over \longrightarrow
C^{2} \buildrel d_{2} \over \longrightarrow
\cdots\buildrel d_{n-1} \over \longrightarrow
C^{n} \buildrel d_{n} \over \longrightarrow
0.$$ That is, given $\omega\in C^i$, we define $d_i \omega\in C^{i+1}$ by $
d_i \omega(x) = \omega(\partial_{i+1} x).
$ Following the language of differential forms, we call the maps $d_i$ [**differentials**]{}. Again, dropping the subscripts on both the boundary maps and the differentials usually causes no confusion and we can write more cleanly $$df(x)=f(\partial x).$$ This definition justifies the name cochain complex: it is easy to see that $\partial\partial=0$ implies $dd=0$.
Exploiting the strong parallel between our cochain complex and the DeRham complex of differential forms, we will slip between the two vocabularies at will, calling cochains ‘forms’ whenever convenient. Also borrowing from differential geometry, we will say that a $k$-cochain $\omega$ is **closed** if $d\omega=0$ or **exact** if $\omega=d\eta$ for some $(k-1)$-cochain $\eta$. The equation $dd=0$ then has its usual DeRham translation, “all exact forms are closed."
Differential forms live to be integrated, so we should understand what it means to integrate a [*discrete*]{} differential form. There is a beautiful way of thinking about integrating a cochain that will clarify the correspondence between the equation $df(x)=f(\partial x)$ and the continuum theory. The idea is to think of ‘integrating’ a $k$-cochain $\omega$ over a ‘region’ (a $k$-chain) $R$ as evaluating $\omega(R)$. If we introduce the notation $$\int_R \omega :=\omega(R),$$ then the definition of the differential $d$ as the adjoint of the boundary map $\partial$ is just $$\int_{R} d\omega = \int_{\partial R} \omega$$ — a discrete version of Stokes’ theorem on differential forms!
Action
------
In ordinary continuum electromagnetism, the Lagrangian for the free electromagnetic field $F=dA$ is given by[^3] $${\cal L}=\frac{1}{2e^2} F\wedge\star F.$$ This equation holds for free $p$-form electromagnetism as well, where $F$ is the $p$-form field $F=dA$. To write down a lattice version of this theory, we thus seem to need discrete analogs of the wedge product $\wedge$ and the Hodge star operator $\star$. The Hodge star in differential geometry turns $q$-forms into $(n-q)$-forms, so we seem to need a map: $$\star {\colon}C^q \to C^{n-q}$$ for each $q=0, 1, \ldots, n$. Likewise, for an analog of the wedge product of differential forms we would want $$\wedge {\colon}C^q \times C^r \to C^{q+r}.$$
Defining these maps seems to be the main obstacle to completely formulating a discrete analog of the theory of differential forms. In certain special cases, it is known what these operations should look like. For example, for simplicial complexes, the best approximation to the wedge product of differential forms is the ‘cup product’ $\cup$ of cochains [@GH]. For the Hodge star, a cubical complex is more convenient, since Hodge duality is related to Poincaré duality, and the Poincaré dual of a cubical lattice is also cubical.[^4]
But we would rather not impose any restrictions on the shapes of cells in our spacetime model. Forcing the lattice to be too regular goes against relativity’s lesson that spacetime, at least on the macroscopic level, does not have preferred directions the way a crystal lattice does.
Luckily, if we resist the temptation to dissect the formula for the action $$S=\frac{1}{2e^2}\int F\wedge\star F,$$ we can instead discretize the whole thing in one fell swoop! The key observation is that $$\langle F,G\rangle := \int F\wedge\star G$$ defines an inner product, the [**Hodge inner product**]{}, on differential $(p+1)$-forms. So in the lattice theory, if we endow $C^{p+1}$ with an inner product $$\langle\phantom{F},\phantom{F}\rangle {\colon}C^{p+1}\times C^{p+1}\to {\mathbb{R}},$$ then we can define the action corresponding to the field $F$ to be $$S=\frac{1}{2e^2}\langle F,F \rangle.$$
What this inner product should look like for a given lattice depends on the structure and the dimension of the lattice. We shall not dig too deeply into this issue, but just mention a few ‘reasonable’ requirements. For this it is useful to write the inner product as: $$\langle F,G \rangle = h^{ij}F(x_i) G(x_j)$$ where the implicit sum is over all pairs of $(p+1)$-cells $x_i, x_j$. One sensible condition that might be imposed on this inner product is a ‘locality condition.’ That is, we do not expect the action to have correlations between distant points in spacetime, so we might require that $h^{ij}$ vanish whenever $x_i,y_i$ are ‘nonadjacent’ $(p+1)$-cells. Also, when the details of lattice geometry are carefully accounted for, we might expect the correlation between two cells to depend on the physical [*angle*]{} between those cells. In particular, on a regular cubical lattice, we might well expect $h^{ij}$ to be a diagonal matrix. Note that neither the locality condition nor any geometric data used to build the inner product can be derived from the chain complex itself. Both constitute additional structure in the spactime model.
For the sake of simplicity, many of our examples in this paper involve electromagnetism in two dimensions. For this reason, we next turn briefly away from our more general development of the theory to consider this special case. More generally, we consider the case of $p$-form electromagnetism in $p+1$ dimensions and find that the inner product on $p$-cochains has a natural and simple form.
The Case of [$p+1$]{} Dimensions
--------------------------------
\[pplus1\] Ordinary gauge theories in [*two*]{} dimensions are famously well-behaved [@Witten]. One of the reasons electromagnetism in two dimension is especially nice is that the electromagnetic field, being a 2-form, can be written simply as a scalar field times the volume form (or perhaps more properly, the ‘area form’): $$F= f \; {\mathrm{vol}}.$$ This allows us to choose the best possible inner product on $1$-cochains — an exact analog of the Hodge inner product — without having to define a discrete Hodge star operator in detail. In particular, the only Hodge duals we really need to consider are the trivial ones: $\star {\mathrm{vol}}= 1$ and $\star 1 = {\mathrm{vol}}$. More generally, and for the same reason, we can do discrete $p$-form electromagentism and avoid any unpleasant entanglements with the Hodge star as long as we work in $(p+1)$-dimensional spacetime.
To do path integrals, there are several reasonable choices we could make for the action. We would like, however, to arrive at a discrete theory that looks as much as possible like the more familiar theory of electromagnetism on a manifold. With this motivation, we make an unapologetic appeal to the known continuum theory to decide which action to use.
Since the usual Lagrangian for vacuum electromagnetism is $L=\frac{1}{2e^2}F\wedge \star F$, we find, in the two-dimensional case: $$\begin{aligned}
L&=\frac{1}{2e^2}(f \; {\mathrm{vol}})\wedge\star(f \; {\mathrm{vol}}) \\
&=\frac{1}{2e^2}f^2 \;{\mathrm{vol}}\wedge 1 \\
&=\frac{f^2}{2e^2} {\mathrm{vol}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now, if we want to discretize this theory, say for the purpose of modeling on a computer, we clearly want a fine enough lattice that the value of the scalar curvature field $f$ in the above equations is essentially constant over any plaquette. If we make this assumption, then the action associated with a plaquette $p_i$ whose curvature is $F$ should be $$\begin{aligned}
S(p_i)&= \int_{p_i} L \\
&= \int_{p_i} \frac{f^2}{2e^2} \;{\mathrm{vol}}\\
&\approx \frac{f^2}{2e^2}\int_{p_i}{\mathrm{vol}}\\
&= \frac{f^2}{2e^2}\cdot V_i.\end{aligned}$$ where $V_i$ is the area of the plaquette $p_i$. Similarly, the most obvious way of discretizing the curvature is to assign to each plaquette the area integral of its continuum curvature. $$\begin{aligned}
F_i &= \int_{p_i} F \\
&= \int_{p_i} f \;{\mathrm{vol}}\\
&\approx f\int_{p_i}{\mathrm{vol}}\\
&= f\cdot V_i.\end{aligned}$$
Combining these last two results we find a candidate for the action which now uses only variables that are available to us directly in the lattice model! $$S_i = \frac{1}{2e^2} \frac{F_i^2}{V_i}$$ To get the total action, we just sum over plaquettes. Recalling from Section \[action\] that the action is given by $$S=\frac{1}{2e^2}\langle F,F \rangle,$$ the corresponding inner product on $2$-cochains for electromagnetism in 2 dimensions is thus $$\langle F,G \rangle = \sum_{p_i\in X_2} \frac{F_i G_i}{V_i}.$$
The preceding derivation of the action did not rely explicitly on spacetime being two dimensional but only on the fact that the curvature is a scalar multiple of the volume form. More generally, this happens for $p$-form electromagnetism whenever spacetime is $(p+1)$-dimensional. Indeed, in this case we can repeat the above calculations to obtain the obvious generalization of the action. The inner product on $(p+1)$-cochains for $p$-form electromagnetism in $p+1$ dimensions is thus $$\langle F,G \rangle = \sum_{p_i\in X_{p+1}} \frac{F_i G_i}{V_i}.$$ Here $V_i:={\mathrm{vol}}(x_i)$, where we now use ${\mathrm{vol}}$ to denote the [**discrete volume form**]{} — a $(p+1)$-cochain $${\mathrm{vol}}{\colon}C_{p+1}\to {\mathbb{R}}$$ that assigns to each $(p+1)$-cell its volume.
Discrete [$p$]{}-form Maxwell Equations {#sec:maxwell}
=======================================
As with any field theory, we may obtain the classical equations of motion — in this case the discrete analog of Maxwell’s equations, or rather their $p$-form generalization — by extremizing the action. Formally, the action in our theory is the map $$S{\colon}C^{p}\to {\mathbb{R}}$$ given by $$S(A) = \frac{1}{2e^2}\langle dA,dA\rangle$$ where $\langle -,-\rangle$ is the inner product on $(p+1)$-cochains introduced in the previous section. The extrema of this function are the $p$-connections $A$ such that the differential $$\delta S {\colon}T_{A}C^p \to T_{S(A)}{\mathbb{R}}{\cong}{\mathbb{R}}$$ is the zero map. We get: $$\begin{aligned}
0=\delta S &= \frac{1}{2e^2}\delta \langle dA,dA \rangle \\
&= \frac{1}{e^2} \langle \delta dA,dA \rangle \\
&= \frac{1}{e^2} \langle d \delta A,dA \rangle \\
&= \frac{1}{e^2} \langle \delta A,d^\dagger dA \rangle \end{aligned}$$ where equality in the second line follows from the product rule together with the symmetry of the inner product, and $d^\dagger$ is the Hilbert space adjoint $$d^\dagger{\colon}C^{p+1} \to C^{p}$$ of the linear operator $d$. At an extremum, $\delta S = 0$ must hold for all values of the variation $\delta A$. So, by our above calculation, $$d^{\dagger }dA = 0$$ or $$d^{\dagger}F = 0$$ which is our discrete analog of the vacuum Maxwell equations[^5] $$\star d {\star}F = 0.$$
It is worth noting the relationship between the continuum and lattice versions of the Maxwell equations. In particular, this means understanding the relationship between the two kinds of duality showing up in these equations. In Riemannian signature, the Hodge operator satisfies $\star^2 \omega = (-1)^{p(n-p)}\omega$ when acting on any $p$-form $\omega$. So given a $p$-form $A$ and $(p+1)$-form G, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle dA, G \rangle &= \int dA \wedge \star G \\
&=(-1)^{p+1}\int A \wedge d\star G \\
&=\int A \wedge \star (-1)^{(n-p)p} \star d\star G \\
&=\langle A, (-1)^{(n-p)p} \star d\star G \rangle\end{aligned}$$ where in the second step we did an integration by parts. Thus $$d^\dagger = (-1)^{(n-p)p} \star d\star .$$
In fact, the vacuum $p$-form Maxwell equations: $$d^\dagger F = 0$$ can be simplified further in the present context. If $F=dA$ satisfies this equation, then we have: $$0 = \langle d^\dagger F, A \rangle = \langle F, dA \rangle = \langle F, F \rangle.$$ In Lorentzian physics, we draw no strong conclusions from this calculation. But in the Riemannian case, the inner product $\langle \phantom{F},\phantom{F}\rangle$ is [*positive definite*]{}, and hence the classical equations of motion for free discrete $p$-form electromagnetism reduce to: $$F=0!$$ This is shocking if we are accustomed to electromagnetism on Minkowski spacetime. It means, in particular, that our theory has no analog of electromagnetic waves propagating through a vacuum! Moreover, the same proof works not only in the discrete case but also, for example, for $p$-form electromagnetism on a compact Riemannian manifold. The two assumptions leading to the conclusion that $F=0$ are that (1) we have an inner product defined on [*all*]{} $(p+1)$-forms $F$, and (2) that this inner product is positive definite. In Minkowski spacetime, the Hodge inner product $\int F\wedge \star G$ is neither defined for all $(p+1)$-forms, nor positive definite, so even compactly supported $p$-form electromagnetic fields in the vacuum need not vanish.
There is one way we might try to weasel out of having such a trivial classical theory in cases where conditions (1) and (2) are met. Namely, we can take a pre- gauge theory perspective on electromagnetism, and take $F$ as the fundamental field of classical electromagnetism, rather than $A$. If the electromagnetic field $F$ is not necessarily the differential of any gauge potential, then $dF = 0$ is not automatically satisfied, so we must include it explicitly in the $p$-form Maxwell equations: $$dF=0 \text{ and } d^\dagger F=0.$$ We will see that these equations [*do*]{} have solutions other than $F=0$, but only on spacetimes with a certain topological properties — roughly, spacetimes with ‘holes’ of the type which can be enclosed by a surface of dimension $p+1$. What we will find is that classical $p$-form electromagnetism in Riemannian signature, in cases where we have an inner product defined on all $(p+1)$ forms, is what we might call a [**topological [*classical*]{} field theory**]{}: its space of solutions is determined up to canonical isomorphism by the topology of spacetime! This, in fact, is true whether we take $A$ or $F$ as the basic field, though the two perspectives disagree on what aspect of the topology determines the space of solutions.
In the next section, we quantize ${\mathbb{R}}$ $p$-form electromagnetism and, in parallel, develop enough topology to state a criterion for the convergence of the path integral. As this topology — cohomology — is precisely what we need to fully understand the comments above about the classical theory being topological, we return to the $p$-form Maxwell equations in Section \[hodge\].
Cohomology and Path Integrals {#sec:cohomology}
=============================
A Criterion for Path Integral Convergence {#cohomology1}
-----------------------------------------
Consider some small portion of a complex of ${\mathbb{R}}$-valued cochains $$\xymatrix{
C^{q-1} \ar[r]^{d_{q-1}} & C^{q} \ar[r]^{d_{q}} & C^{q+1}
}$$ Cohomology classifies topological spaces by comparing two subspaces of $C^q$: $$\begin{array}{ll}
Z^q:=\ker d_{q} & \text{--- the space of
$q$-\textbf{cocycles}} \\
B^q:={\mathrm{ran}\;}d_{q-1} & \text{--- the space of
$q$-\textbf{coboundaries}}
\end{array}$$ For the cochain complex of [*any*]{} spacetime lattice we have, by the defining equation $dd=0$, $$B^q\subset Z^q.$$ That is, every $q$-coboundary is a $q$-cocycle. Whether the converse of this statement is true depends on the particular topology of the spacetime lattice. If every $q$-cocycle is a $q$-coboundary, so that $B^q$ and $Z^q$ are [*equal*]{}, we say that the cochain complex is **exact** at $C^q$. In topologically interesting spacetimes (or regions of spacetime), exactness may fail, and we measure the failure of exactness by taking the quotient space $$H^q:=Z^q/B^q,$$ called the [[****]{}$q$th cohomology with real coefficients]{}.
To see the ramifications of cohomology in lattice electromagnetism, let us reexamine what caused the path integral $$Z = \int_{C^p} e^{-S(A)} {\cal D}A$$ to diverge in Section \[sec:survey\]. In gauge theory, the action $S(A)$ is invariant under gauge transformations. In our lattice version of $p$-form electromagnetism with gauge group ${\mathbb{R}}$, gauge transformations take the form $$A \mapsto A + d\varphi,$$ where $\varphi$ is an arbitrary $(p-1)$-cochain. In other words, two $p$-connections $A, A'\in C^p$ are [**gauge equivalent**]{} if they differ by a $p$-coboundary $d\varphi\in B^p$. In Section \[sec:survey\] we saw that the existence of gauge freedom implied path integrals such as the one above must diverge. Indeed, if ${\cal G}=B^p$ is nontrivial, then we can write $$C^p=B^p \oplus (B^p)^\perp$$ and express any $p$-connection $A$ uniquely as a sum $$A=A_0 + A^\perp \text{ with }
\begin{array}{l} A_0\in B^p \\
A^\perp\in(B^p)^\perp
\end{array}$$ This lets us break the path integral up as $$Z = \int_{B^p}\int_{(B^p)^\perp} e^{-S(A_0+A^\perp)}
dA^\perp dA_0 .$$ But since the action is gauge invariant, $S(A_0+A^\perp)=S(A^\perp)$, and so this becomes $$\begin{aligned}
Z &= \int_{B^p}\int_{(B^p)^\perp} e^{-S(A^\perp)}
dA^\perp dA_0 \\
&= \int_{B^p}dA_0 \int_{(B^p)^\perp} e^{-S(A^\perp)}
dA^\perp=\infty,\end{aligned}$$ since for each fixed value of $A^\perp$, the integral over $B^p$ diverges.
To eliminate these divergences it is therefore [*necessary*]{} that we eliminate any gauge freedom from our space of $p$-connections. The standard procedure is to pass to the quotient space $$\frac{\cal A}{\cal G} = \frac{C^p}{B^p}= \text{{\boldmath \bf}$p$-connections modulo gauge transformations},$$ effectively declaring [*gauge equivalent*]{} $p$-connections to be equal.
In many cases, integrating over $C^p/B^p$ instead of just $C^p$ does indeed make the path integral finite. But this does not always work! Whether it works or not depends on a topological condition — the [*cohomology*]{} of the lattice. While factoring out gauge freedom is necessary, it is only sufficient if the $p$th cohomology, $H^p$ is trivial. Indeed, if $$H^p=\frac{Z^p}{B^p}\neq 0$$ then since $$\frac{\cal A}{\cal G} = \frac{C^p}{B^p} {\cong}\frac{C^p}{Z^p} \oplus \frac{Z^p}{B^p}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\cal A}/{\cal G}} e^{-S(A)}
dA
&= \int_{Z^p/B^p}\int_{C^p/Z^p} e^{-S(A)}
dA_1 dA_2 \\
&= \int_{Z^p/B^p}dA_2 \int_{C^p/Z^p} e^{-S(A_1)}
dA_1
=\infty,\end{aligned}$$ since $S(A)$ really only depends on $dA=d(A_1 + A_2)=dA_1$.
Pondering more carefully what caused the divergence, we realize that to eliminate all divergences from ${\mathbb{R}}$ electromagnetism we must use the quotient space $$\frac{\cal A}{{\cal A}_0} = \frac{C^p}{Z^p}= \text{ {\boldmath \bf}$p$-connections modulo flat $p$-connections}$$ For any lattice with only finitely many $p$-cells, integrating over this space [*always*]{} gives us a convergent path integral. The point is that, when $H^p$ is nontrivial, the quadratic form $S$ is still degenerate, even after factoring out all of the gauge freedom. However, when we factor out not just gauge transformations, or in other words ‘pure gauge’ $p$-connections, but [*all*]{} flat $p$-connections, $S$ becomes a positive [*definite*]{} quadratic form, so that $\int e^{-S}$ is finite. Visually, on the space of $p$-connections modulo flat $p$-connections, every cross section of the graph of $e^{-S}$ looks just how we expect a well-behaved Gaussian to look:
{width="2" height="1in"}
in contrast with the analogous picture from Section \[sec:survey\]
Let us consider two examples: one in which modding out by gauge transformations is sufficient to render the path integral finite, and one in which it is not. First, let us finally fix the problem we found in Section \[sec:survey\], namely the divergence of the path integral for $$\usebox{\twoface}$$ over the space of connections. We write the connection as $$A = A_1 e^1 + A_2 e^2 + A_3 e^3 = A_i e^i$$ where $\{e^i\}$ is the basis of 1-cochains dual to the basis $\{e_i\}$ of edges. A gauge transformation $$\phi = \phi_1 v^1 + \phi_2 v^2$$ acts on the connection by $A \mapsto A + d\phi$ where $$d\phi = (\phi_2-\phi_1)(e^1+e^2+e^3).$$ Since the number $\phi_2-\phi_1 \in {\mathbb{R}}$ may be chosen arbitrarily, the space of gauge transformations is just the 1-dimensional subspace $$B^1 := {\mathrm{ran}\;}d_0 ={\rm span}\{e^1+e^2+e^3\} \subset C^1$$
Similarly, the curvature $F$ is given by $$F := dA = (A_1-A_2)p^1-(A_3-A_2)p^2$$ so the space of flat connections is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_0 = Z^1:= \ker d_1&= \{ A\in C_1 | A_1 = A_2 = A_3\} \\
&={\rm span}\{e^1+e^2+e^3\} = B^1.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, due to the simple topology of the model, the flat connections in this case are precisely the pure gauge connections. In other words, the first cohomology is trivial: $$H^1 = Z^1/B^1 = \{0\}.$$
Now let us do the path integral over the space $C^1/B^1 = C^1/Z^1$. To do this we make use of the canonical isomorphism $$\frac{C^1}{B^1} {\cong}(B^1)^\perp$$ given by associating with each gauge equivalence equivalence class $[A]\in C^1/B^1$ its unique member which is also an element of $(B^1)^\perp$. We first define a new orthonormal basis $$\begin{aligned}
e^{1'} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(e^1 +e^2 + e^3) \\
e^{2'} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^1 -e^2) \\
e^{3'} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(e^1 + e^2 - 2 e^3)\end{aligned}$$ of $C^1$ chosen so that $\{e^{1'}\}$ is a basis for $B^1$ and $\{e^{2'}, e^{3'}\}$ is a basis for $(B^1)^\perp$.
We can write the connection $A$ in terms of the new dual basis: $$\begin{aligned}
A = A_{i'} e^{i'} &= \frac{A_1 + A_2 + A_3}{\sqrt{3}}e^{1'} + \frac{A_1 -A_2}{\sqrt{2}}e^{2'} +\frac{A_1+A_2-2A_3}{\sqrt{6}}e^{3'} \end{aligned}$$ Then the action becomes $$\begin{aligned}
S(A) &=\frac{1}{2e^2}\left(\frac{(A_1 - A_2)^2}{V_1}+\frac{(A_2- A_3)^2}{V_2}\right)= \frac{1}{2e^2} [ (A_1-A_2)^2 + (A_2 - A_3)^2 ] \\
&= \frac{1}{2e^2 V_1 V_2} \left[ V_2(\sqrt{2} A_{2'})^2 + V_1(-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}A_{2'} + \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}A_{3'})^2 \right]\\
&=\frac{1}{2e^2 V_1 V_2}
\begin{bmatrix} A_{2'} & A_{3'} \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} 2V_2 + \frac{1}{2} V_1 & \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}V_1 \\
\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}V_1 & \frac{3}{2}V_1 \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} A_{2'} \\ A_{3'} \end{bmatrix} \\
&=\frac{1}{2e^2V_1 V_2} \langle A , QA\rangle \end{aligned}$$ Now integrating over $\cal{A / G}$ is a snap! Since the $2\times 2$ matrix in the above expression is nonsingular, the formula we tried to use for this same problem in Section \[sec:survey\] now gives a finite result: $$\begin{aligned}
Z &= \int_{R^2} e^{-S(A)} d^2\!\! A =
\sqrt{ \frac{(2\pi e^2 V_1 V_2)^2}{\det( Q)} } = 2\pi e^2 \sqrt{\frac{V_1 V_2}{3}}. \end{aligned}$$
As a second example, consider again the case of ordinary 1-form electromagnetism in two dimensions, but this time in a spacetime with the topology of a torus: $$\xy
(-45.5,0)*{\includegraphics{torus-1.ps}};
(-45.5,0)*{\xy
(-11,21)*{\displaystyle v_1};
(11,21)*{\displaystyle v_1};
(-11,-21)*{\displaystyle v_1};
(11,-21)*{\displaystyle v_1};
(-12,0)*{\displaystyle v_2};
(12,0)*{\displaystyle v_2};
(0,22)*{\displaystyle e_1};
(0,-22)*{\displaystyle e_1};
(-12,-11)*{\displaystyle e_2};
(12,-11)*{\displaystyle e_2};
(0,2)*{\displaystyle e_3};
(-12,11)*{\displaystyle e_4};
(12,11)*{\displaystyle e_4};
(0,10)*{\displaystyle p_2};
(0,-10)*{\displaystyle p_1};
\endxy};
\endxy$$ Note in the diagram that objects with the same label are identified. Let us first calculate the cohomology of this lattice. The cochain complex $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] &C^0 \ar[r]^{d_0} & C^1 \ar[r]^{d_1} & C^2 \ar[r] & 0}$$ has differentials represented by the matrices $$d_0 =
\left[ \begin{array}{rr} 0&0\\-1&1\\ 0&0\\1&-1\end{array} \right]
\qquad
d_1 =
\left[ \begin{array}{rrrr} 1&0&-1&0 \\ -1&0&1&0\end{array} \right]$$ relative to the bases $\{ v^1, v^2, v^3\}$ of $C^0$, $\{ e^1,e^2,e^3,e^4\}$ of $C^1$, and $\{p^0,p^2\}$ of $C^2$. We are particularly interested in the first cohomology, since it relates flat connections to gauge transformations. Some basic linear algebra shows that $$\begin{aligned}
Z^1 &:=\ker d_1 = {\rm span}\{e^1+e^3, e^2, e^4\} {\cong}{\mathbb{R}}\\
B^1&:= {\mathrm{ran}\;}d_0 = {\rm span}\{e^2 - e^4\} {\cong}{\mathbb{R}}\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$H^1 = \frac{Z^1}{B^1} {\cong}\frac{{\mathbb{R}}^3}{{\mathbb{R}}} {\cong}{\mathbb{R}}^2$$ Physically, this says there are flat connections $A$ on the torus which are not gauge equivalent to the trivial connection, and that there are two degrees of freedom for such connections. In electromagnetism we also interpret $H^1 {\cong}{\mathbb{R}}^2$ by saying that there are two [**Bohm-Aharonov modes**]{} [@GFKG; @Zee].
For the sake of characterizing the topology more fully, we should calculate the other cohomology groups as well. We find $$H^0 = \frac{{\rm span}\{v^1-v^2\}}{\{0\}} {\cong}\frac{{\mathbb{R}}}{\{0\}} {\cong}{\mathbb{R}}$$ and $$H^2 = \frac{C^2}{{\rm span}\{p^1-p^2\}} {\cong}\frac{{\mathbb{R}}^2}{{\mathbb{R}}} {\cong}{\mathbb{R}}.$$ For doing path integrals on this lattice, it is convenient to take the following orthonormal basis for $C^1$: $$\begin{aligned}
e^{1'} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (e^1 - e^3) \\
e^{2'} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (e^1 + e^3) \\
e^{3'} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (e^2 + e^4) \\
e^{4'} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (e^2 - e^4) \end{aligned}$$ since then $\{e^{1'}\}$ is a basis for $(Z^1)^\perp$ and $\{e^{1'},e^{2'},e^{3'}\}$ is a basis for $(B^1)^\perp$. In terms of this new basis we can write the connection as $$\begin{aligned}
A = A_{i'} e^{i'} &= \frac{(A_1 - A_3)}{\sqrt{2}}e^{1'}
+ \frac{(A_1 + A_3)}{\sqrt{2}}e^{2'} + \frac{(A_2 + A_4)}{\sqrt{2}}e^{3'}
+ \frac{(A_2 - A_4)}{\sqrt{2}}e^{4'}.\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, let us assume that the area of each plaquette is 1, so the action becomes $$\begin{aligned}
S(A) &= \frac{1}{2e^2} ((A_1-A_3)^2 + (A_3 - A_1)^2) = \frac{2}{e^2} A_{1'}^2. $$ Now just as in the previous example, integrating over connections mod gauge transformations, i.e. $C^1/B^1$ is the same as integrating over $(B^1)^\perp= {\rm span}\{e^{1'},e^{2'},e^{3'}\}$, relative to which basis $A$ has components $(A_{1'},A_{2'},A_{3'})$. But $S(A)$ is obviously a degenerate quadratic form in the variables $A_{1'},A_{2'},A_{3'}$, so the path integral diverges: $$\int_{C^1/B^1} e^{-S(A)} {\cal D} A = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} e^{-2{A_{1'}}^2/e^2} dA_{1'}dA_{2'}dA_{3'} = \infty.$$
Similarly, integrating over connections mod flat connections, i.e. $C^1/Z^1$ is the same as integrating over $(Z^1)^\perp$. But $S(A)$ is obviously nondegenerate in the variable $A_{1'}$, which is the coordinate of $A$ relative to the basis $\{e^{1'}\}$ of $(Z^1)^\perp$. In fact, in this case we get: $$\int_{C^1/Z^1} e^{-S(A)} {\cal D} A = \int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-2{A_{1'}}^2/e^2} dA_{1'} = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}e.$$
So we see that to regularize the path integral for the torus, in ${\mathbb{R}}$ electromagnetism we must kill off both of the Bohm-Aharonov modes, in addition to factoring out gauge freedom. We have seen that the criterion in ${\mathbb{R}}$ electromagnetism for path integrals over the physical configuration space ${\cal A/G}$ to converge is that the first cohomology be trivial: $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
Z = \int_{\cal A/G} e^{-S(A)}{\cal D}A \\
\text{converges for ${\mathbb{R}}$ electromagnetism}
\end{array}\right)
\iff
H^1 = 0$$
More generally, $p$-form electromagnetism has what we might call the [[****]{}$p$-form Bohm-Aharonov effect]{}, but whereas the ordinary Bohm-Aharonov effect applies to regions of spacetime with nontrivial [*first*]{} cohomology, the $p$-form version depends on the $p$th cohomology. We have also seen that getting path integrals in ${\mathbb{R}}$ $p$-form electromagnetism to converge requires killing off all ‘$p$-form Bohm-Aharonov modes’: $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
Z = \int_{\cal A/G} e^{-S(A)}{\cal D}A \\
\text{converges for ${\mathbb{R}}$ $p$-form electromagnetism}
\end{array}\right)
\iff
H^p = 0$$
In fact, when $H^p$ is trivial, we can sometimes simplify the process of taking path integrals further. To see this, note that the homomorphism $d_p:C^p \to C^{p+1}$ induces an isomorphism $$\frac{C^p}{Z^p} {\cong}B^{p+1}.$$ In the case where $H^p$ is trivial, $C^p/Z^p=C^p/B^p$, which is the physical configuration space. If in addition $d_p$ is [*onto*]{}, so that $B^{p+1}=C^{p+1}$, we then have an isomorphism $$\frac{\cal A}{\cal G}=\frac{C^p}{Z^p} {\cong}C^{p+1}.$$ In other words, when there are no Bohm-Aharonov modes, and $d_p$ is surjective, we can just as well do path integrals over the space of curvatures $F$, rather than over the space of $p$-connections. In our first example above, $H^1$ is trivial and every possible curvature is $d$ of some connection, so we could calculate the partition function more easily as: $$Z= \int_{C^2} e^{-\frac{1}{2e^2}\left({F_1}^2 + {F_2}^2\right)} dF_1 dF_2 = 2\pi e^2$$ The value of the partition function is different in this case, but this does not matter since $Z$ is just a normalization factor — what matters is that expected values of observables are the same.
For $p$-form electromagnetism with gauge group ${\mathbb{R}}$, we thus have several choices for what space to integrate over when we do path integrals:
1. $\cal A$, the space of $p$-connections — This is the naïve approach of Section \[sec:survey\], and works almost never: only when there are no nontrivial flat connections.
2. ${\cal A}/{\cal G}$, the space of $p$-connections mod gauge transformations — This works whenever there are no $p$-form Bohm-Aharonov modes, i.e. when spacetime has trivial $p$th cohomology.
3. ${\cal A}/{\cal A}_0$, the space of $p$-connections mod flat $p$-connections. This always gives convergent path integrals, and is the same as ${\cal A}/{\cal G}$ when the $p$th cohomology is trivial. However, in the case of nontrivial cohomology, it means ignoring the $p$-form Bohm-Aharonov modes.
4. ${\cal F}:= C^{p+1}$, the space of curvatures of $p$-connections. In the case where the $p$th cohomology is trivial [*and*]{} $d{\colon}C^p \to C^{p+1}$ is onto, this is equivalent to the previous two options, and generally far easier to calculate with.
5. ${\cal F}_0:= B^{p+1}$, the space of curvatures $F$, subject to the constraint $dF=0$. This is like the previous option, but works even when $d{\colon}C^p \to C^{p+1}$ is not onto. The practical tradeoff is that the constraint makes calculating integrals less straightforward.
The major shortcoming in the case of gauge group ${\mathbb{R}}$ is that none of these options allows us to take any $p$-form Bohm-Aharonov modes into account and get convergent path integrals. We see in Section \[sec:u1\] that this problem is resolved when we switch the gauge group to $U(1)$. We remark that options 4 and 5, while sometimes convenient in the free field setting, are less viable when we add matter, since matter fields typically couple to the $A$ field, not $F$.
Let us look at some examples. We have seen that the torus has nontrivial cohomology. In fact, for purposes of computing cohomology, we could have trimmed down our example to a torus with only one vertex, two edges, and one plaquette: $$\xy
(0,0)*{\includegraphics{torus2-1.ps}};
(-12,12)*{\displaystyle v_1};
(12,12)*{\displaystyle v_1};
(-12,-12)*{\displaystyle v_1};
(12,-12)*{\displaystyle v_1};
(0,12)*{e_1};
(0,-12)*{e_1};
(-12,0)*{e_2};
(12,0)*{e_2};
(0,0)*{p_1};
\endxy$$ Since cohomology is a topological invariant — topologically equivalent spaces have isomorphic cohomology —-we find again the cohomology groups $$H^0{\cong}{\mathbb{R}}\qquad H^1{\cong}{\mathbb{R}}^2 \qquad H^2 {\cong}{\mathbb{R}}.$$ In particular, $H^1$ tells us there are two Bohm-Aharonov modes, just as there were for our two-plaquette torus above, and just as there would be for any other spacetime with the topology of a 2-torus.
As another example, consider a discrete spacetime with the topology of an $n$-sphere, $S^n$. When the gauge group is ${\mathbb{R}}$ this has cohomology groups $$H^k(S^n,{\mathbb{R}}){\cong}\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
{\mathbb{R}}& k=0 \text{ or } n \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{array}\right.$$ Thus, for example, there are no Bohm-Aharonov modes for ordinary electromagnetism on the 2-sphere, since $H^1(S^2)=0$. Yet for the sphere the differential $d_1$ is not surjective. Thus in this case we may do path integrals over the physical configuration space $\cal A/G$, but not over the entire space of curvatures, $C^2$. By contrast, for a Kalb-Ramond field on the 2-sphere, there are 2-form Bohm-Aharonov modes , since $H^2(S^2){\cong}{\mathbb{R}}$. In this case, ${\mathbb{R}}$-electromagnetism gives divergent path integrals unless we kill these modes. But what about the other nontrivial cohomology, $H^0(S^n)$? This evidently corresponds to a Bohm-Aharonov effect for ‘0-form electromagnetism’. We consider this in Section \[sec:zeroform\].
Hodge’s Theorem, Topological Classical Field Theory {#hodge}
---------------------------------------------------
Having quantized lattice $p$-form electromagnetism, let us step back and take a closer look at the classical theory. Recall from Section \[sec:maxwell\] that the vacuum discrete $p$-form Maxwell equations: $$d^\dagger F = 0 \text{ and }
dF = 0$$ have two possible interpretations:
1. Considering the gauge potential $A$ as fundamental, we have seen the positive definiteness of the inner product on $(p+1)$-forms reduces the equations of motion to $F=0$. From this perspective, then, solutions of the vacuum discrete $p$-form Maxwell equations are fundamentally $p$-forms $A$ satisfying $dA=0$, modulo exact $p$-forms. In the global language, solutions are precisely elements of the space of flat $p$-connections modulo gauge transformations. But this is just $$\frac{{\cal A}_0}{\cal G} = \frac{Z^p}{B^p} = H^p,$$ the $p$th cohomology.
2. Considering the electromagnetic field strength $F$ as fundamental, solutions of the vacuum discrete $p$-form Maxwell equations are $(p+1)$-forms $F$ satisfying $$dF = 0 \text{ and } d^\dagger F= 0.$$ The second of these equations says precisely that $F$ is orthogonal to every exact $(p+1)$-form, since the nondegeneracy of the inner product says $d^\dagger F= 0$ if and only if $\langle d^\dagger F, X\rangle= 0$ for every $p$-form $X$, or in other words $\langle F, dX\rangle= 0$ for every exact $(p+1)$-form $dX$. We show below that positive definiteness of the inner product on $p+1$ forms implies that the subspace of closed $(p+1)$-forms $F$ which are also orthogonal to every exact $(p+1)$-form $dX$, is isomorphic to $$H^{p+1},$$ the $(p+1)$st cohomology.
So, from either viewpoint, the classical theory is ‘topological’; but the two viewpoints disagree on which aspect of the topology determines the solutions!
To prove the claim in item 2 above, it is helpful to develop an alternate viewpoint on cohomology — a viewpoint which is useful whenever we have a cochain complex of (possibly indefinite) inner product spaces. When we have such a complex $C$, each of the differentials $d_q{\colon}C^q \to C^{q+1}$ has an adjoint $d_q^\dagger {\colon}C^{q+1} \to C^q$: $$\xymatrix{ C^{q-1} \ar @< 2pt> [r]^{d_{}} &
C^{q} \ar @< 2pt> [l]^{d^\dagger_{}} \ar @< 2pt> [r]^{d} &
C^{q+1} \ar @< 2pt> [l]^{d^\dagger_{}} }$$ The first important observation is that $dd=0$ together with nondegeneracy of the inner product implies $d^\dagger d^\dagger=0$, so the maps $d^\dagger$ also form a complex. We say $\omega \in C^q$ is [**coclosed**]{} if $d^\dagger\omega=0$ or [**coexact**]{} if $\omega= d^\dagger \alpha$ for some $\alpha\in C^{q+1}$. Just as we noted in the special case of $F$ above, a coclosed $q$-form is precisely a $q$-form which is orthogonal to all exact $q$-forms. Similarly, a closed $q$-form is precisely a $q$-form which is orthogonal to all coexact $q$-forms, by the same argument. That is: $$\ker d_q = ({\mathrm{ran}\;}d_q^\dagger)^\perp \qquad \ker d_{q-1}^\dagger = ({\mathrm{ran}\;}d_{q-1})^\perp.$$ We shall combine these to prove the [**Hodge decomposition**]{}[^6] which says we can write $C^q$ as the orthogonal direct sum $$C^q = {\mathrm{ran}\;}d_{q-1} \oplus \ker\Delta_q \oplus {\mathrm{ran}\;}d_q^\dagger.$$ Here $$\Delta_q:= d^\dagger_{q} d_{q} + d_{q-1}d^\dagger_{q-1}$$ is the [**Laplacian**]{} on $C^q$, and a cochain in its kernel is said to be [**harmonic**]{}.
[**Proof of the Hodge Decomposition:**]{} The remarks immediately preceding the statement of the Hodge Decomposition give us two separate direct sum decompositions of $C^q$: $$C^q = \ker d_q \oplus {\mathrm{ran}\;}d_q^\dagger = \ker d_{q-1}^\dagger \oplus {\mathrm{ran}\;}d_{q-1}.$$ The first of these says we can write a given $\omega\in C^q$ uniquely as $\omega = \omega_0 + d^\dagger \beta$ with $\omega_0 \in \ker d_q$. We then use the second direct sum to write $\omega_0 = \omega_h + d\alpha$ with $\omega_h \in \ker d_{q-1}^\dagger$. But in fact, this $\omega_h = \omega_0- d\alpha$ is also in the kernel of $d_q$ since $\omega_0$ and $d\alpha$ both are. We thus have $$\omega = d\alpha + \omega_h + d^\dagger \beta \qquad
\text{with } \omega_h \in (\ker d^\dagger_{q-1})\cap (\ker d_{q})$$ Moreover, this decomposition is unique, since $\omega_h + d^\dagger \beta$ and $d\alpha$ are uniquely determined by $C^q = \ker d_{q-1}^\dagger \oplus {\mathrm{ran}\;}d_{q-1}$, while $\omega_h + d\alpha$ and $d^\dagger \beta$ are uniquely determined by $C^q= \ker d_q \oplus {\mathrm{ran}\;}d_q^\dagger$. The sum is thus direct: $$C^q = {\mathrm{ran}\;}d \oplus (\ker d^\dagger\cap \ker d) \oplus {\mathrm{ran}\;}d^\dagger,$$ and orthogonal since $\omega_h$, $d\alpha$, and $d^\dagger \beta$ are mutually orthogonal.
Now suppose $\omega$ is harmonic. Then $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \langle \omega,(d^\dagger d + dd^\dagger)\omega\rangle \\
&= \langle d^\dagger\omega, d^\dagger \omega\rangle + \langle d\omega, d \omega\rangle . \end{aligned}$$ Up to this point, we have not used that the inner product is positive definite. Using this fact now, we conclude that $$d\omega=0 \text{ and } d^\dagger \omega =0.$$ Conversely, if $\omega$ solves these equations, then obviously $(d^\dagger d + dd^\dagger)\omega=0$, so $\omega$ is harmonic. We thus see that the space of harmonic $q$-forms is the space of closed and coclosed $q$-forms, and the decomposition is established. $\blacksquare$
Recall that the free $p$-form Maxwell’s equations for $F$ simply say that $F$ is closed and coclosed. The above proof thus shows that when we have a positive definite inner product defined on all $(p+1)$-forms, solutions of Maxwell’s equations are precisely the harmonic $(p+1)$-forms. In fact the Hodge decomposition lets us prove a version of [**Hodge’s Theorem**]{}, which says the space of harmonic $q$-forms is canonically isomorphic to the cohomology $H^q$. To see this, write a given $q$-form $\omega$ as $$\omega = d\alpha + \omega_h + d^\dagger \beta$$ with $\omega_h$ harmonic. To understand cohomology in this context, we need to understand what it means for $\omega$ to be closed. But we have observed that a closed form is precisely a form orthogonal to every coexact form $d^\dagger \mu$. Since the Hodge decomposition of $\omega$ is orthogonal, this means $\omega$ is closed precisely when its coexact part $d^\dagger \beta$ vanishes. Thus, noting that ${\mathrm{ran}\;}d_{q-1}$ is just $B^q$, the Hodge decomposition $$C^{q} = B^{q} \oplus \ker \Delta_q \oplus {\mathrm{ran}\;}d^\dagger$$ implies $$Z^{q} = B^{q} \oplus \ker\Delta_q$$ and hence $$H^{q} :=\frac {Z^{q}}{B^{q}} {\cong}\ker\Delta_q.$$ That is, the $q$th cohomology $H^{q}$ is canonically isomorphic to the subspace of harmonic $q$-forms. Identifying these two spaces, we can therefore write: $$C^{q} = dC^{q-1} \oplus H^{q} \oplus d^\dagger C^{q+1}$$ as an alternate version of the Hodge decomposition of $C^q$.
In the case we are most interested in, the case $q=p+1$, we thus see that the solutions of the $p$-form Maxwell equations $$dF = 0 \text{ and } d^\dagger F= 0$$ are $$\ker d \cap \ker d^\dagger = \ker\Delta_{p+1}{\cong}H^{p+1} .$$ That is, when we consider $F$ as the fundamental classical field, solutions of the equations of motion are specified by the $(p+1)$st cohomology $H^{p+1}$: $$dF = 0 \text{ and } d^\dagger F= 0 \qquad \iff \qquad F\in H^{p+1}.$$
[$U(1)$]{} [$p$]{}-Form Electromagnetism and the [$p$]{}-form Bohm-Aharonov Effect {#sec:u1}
==================================================================================
Gauge Groups for $p$-form Electromagnetism: ${\mathbb{R}}$ vs. $U(1)$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have seen that eliminating all of the divergences from path integrals in ${\mathbb{R}}$ $p$-form electromagnetism requires that we factor out not only all of the gauge freedom, but also the Bohm-Aharonov modes. This is undesirable: the Bohm-Aharonov effect is an empirical fact in ordinary 1-form electromagnetism. Neither should we rule out the [*$p$-form*]{} Bohm-Aharonov effect in our calculations. The ultimate solution to the problem of divergent path integrals is to switch our gauge group from ${\mathbb{R}}$ to $U(1)$. We shall see that $U(1)$ electromagnetism cures all divergences, even in cases where the $p$th cohomology is nontrivial! Better yet, $U(1)$ path integrals converge even before we factor out the gauge freedom. The reason for this is simple. The space of $U(1)$ $p$-connections is $${\cal A}(U(1)) = U(1)^{X_p}$$ where $X_p$ is the set of $p$-cells in the lattice. But this is just a product of circles — a torus! Since a torus is compact, $$\int_{U(1)^{X_p}} f(A) e^{-S(A)}{\cal D}A$$ converges for any continuous function $f$ of $A$. Of course, for $f$ to be a physical observable, we still want $f$ to be gauge invariant: $f(A) = f(A+d\phi)$.
Indeed, the switch to $U(1)$ promises to be such an improvement that the reader may well wonder why we have bothered with the ${\mathbb{R}}$ case. As it turns out, the $U(1)$ theory can be obtained most easily from the ${\mathbb{R}}$ theory. In particular, without having developed the ${\mathbb{R}}$ theory, it would be difficult to guess the best action to use in evaluating $U(1)$ path integrals. The reason is that since the curvature lies not in the vector space ${\mathbb{R}}^{X_{p+1}}$ but in the mere group $U(1)^{X_{p+1}}$, we do not have the same analogy between cochains and and differential forms as we had in the ${\mathbb{R}}$ case. In particular, we cannot rely directly on an inner product of cochains for the action as we did in the ${\mathbb{R}}$ case in Section \[sec:action\]. What we will show is that we can turn $p$-form electromagnetism with gauge group ${\mathbb{R}}$ into $p$-form electromagnetism with gauge group $U(1)$, essentially by “wrapping the real line around the circle."
The key to understanding the relationship between the abelian gauge groups ${\mathbb{R}}$ and $U(1)$ is the following ‘short exact sequence’ of homomorphisms: $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & {{\mathbb{Z}}} \ar@{->}[r] & {{\mathbb{R}}} \ar@{->}[r]& {U(1)} \ar[r] & 0
}$$ where the second map is the usual inclusion and the third sends $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ to $e^{2\pi ix}\in U(1)$. Here ‘exactness’ means the same as for the chain and cochain complexes: that the range of one map equals the kernel of the next. In particular, this says we map ${\mathbb{R}}$ to $U(1)$ by winding the line around the circle once every $2\pi$, and that the kernel of this map is precisely ${\mathbb{Z}}$.
In comparing different gauge groups, it is convenient to write the group of $k$-form fields not simply as $C^k$ but more explicitly as $$C^k(G) = \hom (C_k, G),$$ i.e. homomorphisms from the group of $k$-chains to the gauge group $G$.
Now given any ${\mathbb{R}}$ $p$-connection $$\begin{aligned}
A{\colon}C_p \to {\mathbb{R}}\\\end{aligned}$$ we get a $U(1)$ $p$-connection $$\hat A:= e^{2\pi i A}{\colon}C_p \to U(1)$$ by composition with the homomorphism ${\mathbb{R}}\to U(1)$. We thus get a map $$\begin{aligned}
\hom(C_p,{\mathbb{R}}) &\to \hom(C_p,U(1)) \\
{A} &\mapsto {\hat A}\end{aligned}$$ and the fact that the above sequence of abelian groups is exact implies that the kernel of this map is $\hom(C_p,{\mathbb{Z}})$. Moreover, since $C_p$ is free, every $U(1)$ $p$-connection comes from an ${\mathbb{R}}$ $p$-connection in precisely this way. Given a $p$-connection $A{\colon}C_p\to U(1)$, map each generator $c$ in the basis $X_p$ of $C_p$ to some $\tilde A(c) \in {\mathbb{R}}$ with $\exp(2\pi i \tilde A(c)) = A(c)$. This defines an ${\mathbb{R}}$ $p$-connection $\tilde A$ which ‘lifts’ $A$: $$\xymatrix{
& C_p \ar@{.>}[dl]_{\tilde A} \ar[d]^A \\
{\mathbb{R}}\ar[r] &U(1) \ar[r]& 0
}.$$ That is, we have the identity: $${\hat {\tilde A}} = A.$$
In fact, each of the sequences $$\xymatrix{
0\ar[r] & {\hom(C_k,{\mathbb{Z}})} \ar[r] &{\hom(C_k,{\mathbb{R}})} \ar[r] &{\hom(C_k,U(1))} \ar[r] & 0
}$$ is exact, thus giving a short exact sequence of chain maps: $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & {\hom(C_n,{\mathbb{Z}})} \ar[r] & {\hom(C_n,{\mathbb{R}})} \ar[r] & {\hom(C_n,U(1))} \ar[r] & 0 \\
{} & { \vdots} \ar[u]^{d} & { \vdots} \ar[u]^{d} & { \vdots} \ar[u]^{d} \\
0 \ar[r] & {\hom(C_1,{\mathbb{Z}})} \ar[r] \ar[u]^d & {\hom(C_1,{\mathbb{R}})} \ar[r]\ar[u]^d & {\hom(C_1,U(1))} \ar[u]^d \ar[r] &0 \\
0 \ar[r] & {\hom(C_0,{\mathbb{Z}})} \ar[r] \ar[u]^d & {\hom(C_0,{\mathbb{R}})} \ar[r]\ar[u]^d & {\hom(C_0,U(1))} \ar[u]^d \ar[r] & 0}$$ which we may write more succinctly as $$\xymatrix{
0\ar[r] & {\hom(C_\bullet,{\mathbb{Z}})} \ar[r] &{\hom(C_\bullet,{\mathbb{R}})} \ar[r] &{\hom(C_\bullet,U(1))} \ar[r] & 0
}.$$ Lattice $p$-form electromagnetism with abelian gauge group $G$ is all about the cochain complex $\hom(C_\bullet, G)$. We may thus express the physical content of the above exact sequence of chain maps by saying there is a projection from the theory with gauge group ${\mathbb{R}}$ to the theory with gauge group $U(1)$, as we wanted, and that the kernel of this projection is a theory with gauge group ${\mathbb{Z}}$. Metaphorically: $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] &
{\left(
{\xy
(0,7.5)*{\text{lattice $p$-form}};
(0,2.5)*{\text{electromagnetism}};
(0,-2.5)*{\text{with gauge group}};
(0,-7.5)*{{\mathbb{Z}}};
\endxy}
\right)}
\ar[r] &
{\left(
{\xy
(0,7.5)*{\text{lattice $p$-form}};
(0,2.5)*{\text{electromagnetism}};
(0,-2.5)*{\text{with gauge group}};
(0,-7.5)*{{\mathbb{R}}};
\endxy}
\right)}
\ar[r] &
{\left(
{\xy
(0,7.5)*{\text{lattice $p$-form}};
(0,2.5)*{\text{electromagnetism}};
(0,-2.5)*{\text{with gauge group}};
(0,-7.5)*{U(1)};
\endxy}
\right)}
\ar[r] &
0
}$$ is exact.
One critical implication of the exact sequence of cochain complexes is that two ${\mathbb{R}}$ $p$-connections $A,A'\in \hom(C_p,{\mathbb{R}})$ which are gauge equivalent, say $$A- A' = d\phi \qquad \phi\in\hom(C_{p-1},{\mathbb{R}}),$$ project down to $U(1)$ $p$-connections $\hat A,\hat A'\in\hom(C_p,U(1))$ which are gauge equivalent: $$\hat A- \hat A' = d\hat \phi \qquad \hat\phi\in\hom(C_{p-1},U(1)).$$ Briefly, ${\mathbb{R}}$ gauge equivalence implies $U(1)$ gauge equivalence.
But in some cases, there is a genuine difference between the two choices of gauge group. A simple example is a space which is sometimes called an ‘$m$-fold dunce cap’, $DC_m$. This can be constructed from one vertex $v$, one edge $e$, and one plaquette $p$ which is sewn along its boundary around the looped edge in such a way that it wraps around $m$ times: $$\xy
(0,0)*{\includegraphics{dunce-1.ps}};
(0,0)*{p};
(0,-13)*{e};
(0,12.5)*{e};
(11,6)*{e};
(11,-6)*{e};
(-11,6)*{e};
(14,0)*{v};
(-14,0)*{v};
(-8,11)*{v};
(8,11)*{v};
(8,-11)*{v};
(-8,-11)*{v};
\endxy$$ The dunce cap has cohomology groups $$H^0(DC_m, {\mathbb{R}}) {\cong}{\mathbb{R}}\qquad H^1(DC_m, {\mathbb{R}}) =0 \qquad H^2(DC_m, {\mathbb{R}}) {\cong}0$$ for $G={\mathbb{R}}$, but $$H^0(DC_m, U(1)) {\cong}U(1) \qquad H^1(DC_m, U(1)) {\cong}{\mathbb{Z}}/m \qquad H^2(DC_m, U(1)) = 0$$ for $G=U(1)$. The significant difference is in the first cohomology. The fact that $H^1$ is trivial in the ${\mathbb{R}}$ case says every ${\mathbb{R}}$-valued 1-cocycle is a 1-coboundary. Said another way, all flat ${\mathbb{R}}$ connections on $DC_m$ are gauge equivalent: $$dA=dA' = 0 \implies d(A-A')=0 \implies A-A' = d\phi.$$ In fact, this result is not surprising given our particular construction of $DC_m$ — there is only [*one*]{} flat ${\mathbb{R}}$ connection, the zero connection. But in the $U(1)$ case, $H^1$ is a cyclic group of order $m$. It is not hard to see why. There are $m$ flat $U(1)$ connections on $DC_m$, given by assigning to the edge $e$ any one of the $m$ distinct $m$th roots of unity in $U(1)$.
Gaussian Integrals on a Torus
-----------------------------
In the $U(1)$ version of lattice electromagnetism, the holonomy of the connection takes values on the circle $U(1)$. To do path integrals, we need the analog of a Gaussian on a circle, which we obtain from the ordinary Gaussian by wrapping the real line around the circle. In particular, since $$\frac{e^{-x^2/2\sigma^2} dx}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}$$ is a probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}$, $$\label{circlegaussian}
\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} \frac{e^{-(\theta + 2n\pi)^2/2\sigma^2} d\theta}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}$$ is a probability measure on $S^1=U(1)$ which we shall refer to as a [**circular Gaussian**]{}. We can use this measure to calculate the expected value of a function $f{\colon}U(1)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ of the random variable $\theta$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f \rangle &= \int_0^{2\pi} f(\theta)
\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} \frac{e^{-(\theta + 2n\pi)^2/2\sigma^2} d\theta}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}}
\int_{2n\pi}^{2(n+1)\pi} f(\theta) e^{-\theta^2/2\sigma^2} d\theta \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(\theta) e^{-\theta^2/2\sigma^2} d\theta \end{aligned}$$ What this calculation shows is that integrating a function $f{\colon}U(1)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ against the measure in (\[circlegaussian\]) is the same as extending $f$ to a periodic function $f{\colon}{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ and then integrating this against the usual Gaussian measure.
Since a periodic function on ${\mathbb{R}}$ (or equivalently, a function on the circle) can be expanded in a Fourier series, we should work out the expected values for each element of the Fourier basis $\{e^{im\theta}\}$. For any $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle e^{im\theta}\rangle &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{im\theta} e^{-\theta^2/2\sigma^2} d\theta \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-(\theta^2-2im\sigma^2\theta)/2\sigma^2} d\theta \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-(\theta^2-2im\sigma^2\theta-m^2\sigma^4)/2\sigma^2}
e^{-m^2\sigma^2/2} d\theta \\
&= \frac{e^{-m^2\sigma^2/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-(\theta-im\sigma^2)^2/2\sigma^2}
d(\theta-im\sigma^2) \\
&= \frac{e^{-m^2\sigma^2/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} \cdot \sqrt{2\pi}\sigma\\
&= e^{-m^2\sigma^2/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that this expected value is real, even though $e^{im\theta}$ is complex. The imaginary part is zero on average, since the imaginary parts $\sin(m\theta)$ are odd about the circle’s origin.
In fact what we are calling circular Gaussians are actually famous special functions in their own right, though they are usually presented in a slightly different form. Using the Fourier coefficient $\langle e^{imx}\rangle$ above, one can expand the circular Gaussian itself in the basis $\{e^{im\theta}\}$, resulting in the identity: $$\label{circ_theta}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} e^{-(\theta + 2n\pi )^2/2\sigma^2}
= \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} e^{-n^2\sigma^2/2}e^{in\theta } .$$ The form on the right side of this equality makes it easier to recognize that our circular Gaussian with ‘standard deviation’ $\sigma^2$ is really: $$\frac{1}{2\pi} \vartheta\left(\frac{\theta }{2\pi},i\frac{\sigma^2}{2\pi}\right)$$ where $$\vartheta(z,\tau)= \sum_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}}e^{\pi i n^2 \tau}e^{2\pi inz}$$ is the [**theta function**]{} [@Mumford].
When it is convenient, we continue to refer to this theta function loosely as a ‘circular Gaussian’, and write it as “$e^{-\theta^2/2\sigma^2}$" even though this is not technically the exponential of anything. We engage in this gross abuse of notation because it is suggestive of how one actually calculates [*integrals*]{} using the corresponding ‘theta measure’ — by expanding the circle to a line and integrating an ordinary Gaussian.
The higher dimensional version of the above calculations follow the same form. Suppose we have a Gaussian $$e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}x\cdot Q x } = e^{- {\frac{1}{2}}Q^{ij}x_i x_j }$$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^N$. Following the prescription we used for the circular Gaussian above, we wrap each of the $N$ coordinates around a circle: $$\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}^N}e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{ij}(\theta_i+2\pi n_i)(\theta_j+2\pi n_j)}$$ to obtain an analog of a Gaussian on a torus, what we might call a [**toroidal Gaussian**]{}. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle e^{im^k\theta_k}\rangle &= \sqrt{\frac{\det(Q^{ij})}{(2\pi)^N}}
\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}^N}\int_{U(1)^N} e^{im^k\theta_k}
e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{ij}(\theta_i+2\pi n_i)(\theta_j+2\pi n_j)} d\theta\\
&= \sqrt{\frac{\det(Q^{ij})}{(2\pi)^N}}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} e^{im^k\theta_k} e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{ij}\theta_i\theta_j} d\theta \\
&= \sqrt{\frac{\det(Q^{ij})}{(2\pi)^N}}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{ij}(\theta_i\theta_j -2iQ^{-1}_{jk} m^k\theta_i )} d\theta \\
&= \sqrt{\frac{\det(Q^{ij})}{(2\pi)^N}} e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{-1}_{kl}m^km^l}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{ij}(\theta_i\theta_j -2iQ^{-1}_{jk} m^k\theta_i -Q^{-1}_{ik}Q^{-1}_{jl}m^km^l)}
d\theta \\
&= \sqrt{\frac{\det(Q^{ij})}{(2\pi)^N}} e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{-1}_{kl}m^km^l}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{ij}(\theta_i -iQ^{-1}_{ik} m^k)(\theta_j -iQ^{-1}_{jl} m^l)}
d\theta \\
&= e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{-1}_{kl}m^km^l} .\end{aligned}$$
Using this and proceeding as in the 1-dimensional case, we obtain the identity $$\label{tor_theta}
\sqrt{\frac{\det Q}{(2\pi)^N}}
\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}^N}e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{ij}(\theta_i+2\pi n_i)(\theta_j+2\pi n_j)}
= \frac{1}{(2\pi)^N}
\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}^N} e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}Q^{-1}_{ij}n^i n^j} e^{in^k\theta_k},$$ which reduces to (\[circ\_theta\]) in the case $N=1$, $Q=1/\sigma^2$. The right side is again a [**theta function**]{}, this time its multivariable generalization: $$\frac{1}{(2\pi)^N} \vartheta \left(\frac{\theta}{2\pi}, i\frac{Q^{-1}}{2\pi} \right)$$ Here $$\vartheta( z, \Omega):= \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}^N} e^{\pi i n\cdot \Omega n + 2\pi i n\cdot z}$$ where $z\in {\mathbb{C}}^N$, and $\Omega$ is a symmetric $N\times N$ complex matrix with positive definite complex part.[@Mumford] Again, we continue to write this theta function as “$e^{-{\frac{1}{2}}\theta \cdot Q\theta}$" and think of it as a ‘toroidal Gaussian’ when convenient, since this is evocative of the analogy to Gaussians on ${\mathbb{R}}^N$.
$U(1)$ Path Integrals {#u1path}
---------------------
Recall that for gauge group ${\mathbb{R}}$, our action for discrete $p$-form electromagnetism is given by $$S(A) = \frac{1}{2e^2} \langle F, F \rangle = \frac{1}{2e^2} h^{ij} F_i F_j$$ where $h^{ij}$ is the matrix of the inner product relative to the basis of $(p+1)$-cochains consisting of dual $(p+1)$-cells. As discussed in the previous subsection, making the transition from ${\mathbb{R}}$ to $U(1)$ involves replacing the ordinary Gaussian $\exp(-S)$ in the real variables $F_i$ by a ‘toroidal Gaussian’ in the $U(1)$-valued variables $F_i$: $$\label{u1S}
\begin{split}
e^{-S(A)} &= \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{N}} e^{-\frac{1}{2e^2} h^{ij} (F_i - 2n_i \pi)(F_j - 2n_j \pi)} \\
&= \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{N}} e^{-\frac{1}{2e^2} h^{ij} (A(\partial x_i) - 2n_i \pi)(A(\partial x_j) - 2n_j \pi)}
\end{split}$$ where $N=|X_{p+1}|$ is the number of $(p+1)$-cells in the spacetime, which we now assume to be finite. Note that we do not define the [*action*]{} $S$ but only the analog of its exponential $e^{-S}$, which is all we need for doing path integrals.
For the sake of comparison, it is perhaps best at this point to return to our old two-plaquette spacetime from Section \[sec:survey\]: $$\usebox{\twoface}$$ The corresponding chain complex is still as constructed in Section \[ncomplex\] (and later used in Section \[cohomology1\]), but our gauge field $A$ is now a $U(1)$-valued 1-cochain: $$A \in \hom(C_1,U(1)).$$ Thinking of $U(1)$ as the real numbers mod $2\pi$, if $$[A_i]\in {\mathbb{R}}/2\pi{\mathbb{Z}}{\cong}U(1)$$ is the value of $A$ on the edge $e_i$, then using the action from Section \[pplus1\] in equation (\[u1S\]) we obtain $$e^{-S(A)} = \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}^2} e^{-(A_2-A_1-2n_1\pi)^2/2e^2V_1 -(A_3-A_2-2n_2\pi)^2/2e^2V_2}$$ where $A_i$ is any representative of the class $[A_i]$. Conveniently, the fact that the matrix of the inner product is diagonal in this case lets us split $e^{-S}$ up into one term for each plaquette: $$e^{-S(A)} = e^{-S(A|_{p_1})}e^{-S(A|_{p_2})}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-S(A|_{p_1})} &= \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} e^{-(A_2-A_1-2n\pi)^2/2e^2V_1} \\
e^{-S(A|_{p_2})} &= \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} e^{-(A_3-A_2-2n\pi)^2/2e^2V_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Note the correspondence: since the path integral in the gauge group ${\mathbb{R}}$ case involves a product of Gaussians, one for the holonomy around the boundary of each plaquette, the path integral for the $U(1)$ case involves a product of theta functions — the ‘circular Gaussians’ we defined above.
We are ready to calculate the partition function for our example: $$\begin{aligned}
Z &= \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}
\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} e^{-(A_2-A_1-2n\pi)^2/2e^2V_1}
\sum_{m\in {\mathbb{Z}}} e^{-(A_3-A_2-2m\pi)^2/2e^2V_2} dA_3 dA_2 dA_1 \\
&= \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}
\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} e^{-(A_2-A_1-2n\pi)^2/2e^2V_1}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-(A_3-A_2)^2/2e^2V_2} dA_3 dA_2 dA_1 \\
&= \sqrt{2\pi V_2}e \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}
\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} e^{-(A_2-A_1-2n\pi)^2/2e^2V_1}
dA_2 dA_1 \\
&= \sqrt{2\pi V_2}e \int_0^{2\pi}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-(A_2-A_1)^2/2e^2V_1}
dA_2 dA_1 \\
&=(2\pi e)^2\sqrt{V_1 V_2}\end{aligned}$$ The partition function is finite, in contrast to the ${\mathbb{R}}$ case.
In the $U(1)$ case there is actually a nice geometric interpretation of the coupling constant $1/e^2$. Looking back carefully at the relationship between Gaussians and theta functions, we see that the square of the electric charge may be reinterpreted as the [*radius*]{} of the circle $U(1)$. If we take this radius to be effectively infinite, so that the circle becomes a line, then we are back in the realm of ${\mathbb{R}}$ electromagnetism with [*unit*]{} electric charge. This helps explain the factor $(2\pi e)^2$ in our result for the partition function above: as the electric charge becomes infinite, the partition function effectively diverges, as we verified is Section \[sec:survey\] that it does in the ${\mathbb{R}}$ case.
It is worth noting that the split of $e^{-S}$ into the product $\prod e^{-S(p_i)}$ of plaquette actions happens more generally whenever the inner product is diagonal, and in particular in the case of $p$-form electromagnetism in $p+1$ dimensions. The partition function for $U(1)$ $p$-form lattice electromagnetism in the special case of $p+1$ dimensions is thus $$\begin{aligned}
Z &= \int_{U(1)^{X_p}} \prod_{c\in C^{p+1}} e^{-S(A|c)} {\cal D}A \\
&=\int_{U(1)^{X_p}} \prod_{c\in C^{p+1}} \sum_{n \in{\mathbb{Z}}} e^{-(A(\partial c)-2n\pi )^2/2e^2{\mathrm{vol}}(c) } {\cal D}A.\end{aligned}$$
The Free Scalar Field and 0-Form {#sec:zeroform}
=================================
The alert reader may have noticed that the formalism for lattice $p$-form electromagnetism developed in the previous sections does not seem to apply equally to the case $p=0$. In particular, there seems to be no notion of gauge invariance in the 0-form case. By extending our notion of $n$-complex we now correct this discrepancy. Lest the reader think this an esoteric digression of purely mathematical interest, we note that $0$-form electromagnetism is really just scalar field theory! Indeed, the $0$-form Maxwell equation $$d^\dagger d \phi = 0$$ really just says, in the Riemannian signature we have been using, $$\nabla^2 \phi = 0,$$ or in the more familiar Lorentzian case: $$\Box \phi = 0.$$
The field $\phi$ in free scalar field theory — the ‘gauge field’, though the theory is too simple to be considered a ‘gauge theory’ by most — is just a $G$-valued 0-cochain in the lattice context: $$\phi \in \hom(C_0,G),$$ i.e. it assigns to each vertex an element of the gauge group $G={\mathbb{R}}$ or $U(1)$. But this is just what we called a ‘gauge transformation’ in electromagnetism. To figure out $0$-form electromagnetism, let us therefore think again of our motivating example — ordinary $1$-form electromagnetism, taking the gauge group to be ${\mathbb{R}}$ again for simplicity.
One key point about gauge transformations in electromagnetism is that different connections can induce the same curvature. But further thought along these lines reveals that this phenomenon is not at all unique to connections. Indeed, if we move one notch down the chain, different scalar potentials may give rise to the same connection. Texts on electromagnetic theory usually summarize this observation by saying the potential is only defined up to an additive constant. In fact, adding a constant to the potential is like “gauge transforming the potential." Better yet, it is like making a “meta-gauge transformation between gauge transformations." People don’t usually talk about a choice of origin of the potential in these terms, perhaps because it is too simple, but this really is a primitive example of the ‘ghosts of ghosts’ one might read about in string theory papers.
To make this idea precise, we use the relationship between the connection $A$ and potential (or scalar field) $\phi$ as a model for that between potential and what we might call [**prepotential**]{}. This seems to demand we add a new term, some $C^{-1}$, to our cochain complex, along with a new differential $d_{-1}{\colon}C^{-1}\rightarrow C^{0}$. Then a meta-gauge transformation of a scalar potential $\phi$ by a meta-potential $u\in C^{-1}$ should look like: $$\phi\mapsto \phi + d_{-1}u.$$
What should $C^{-1}$ and $d_{-1}$ look like? Usually we only think of adding a constant to the potential, but that is really only because of our peculiar fondness of connected spacetimes. In general, we can add a [*local*]{} constant to $\phi$ without affecting $d\phi$, so $C^{-1}$ can have as many degrees of freedom as there are connected components in the lattice. In fact, we might as well take $C_{-1}$ to be the free abelian group generated by the set of connected components of the lattice, and let $C^{-1}=\hom(C_{-1},{\mathbb{R}})$ be its dual.
Now to make $\phi\mapsto \phi + d_{-1}u$ act as an adjustment of the origin of $\phi$ in each connected component, we simply define $d_{-1}u{\colon}C_0\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ to be the map which assigns to each vertex (i.e. each basis element) in $C_0$ the value of $u{\colon}C_{-1}\rightarrow
{\mathbb{R}}$ on the connected component in which that vertex lies. That is, given a vertex $v \in C_0$, if we denote its connected component by $\partial v$, then $d_{-1}u(v):=u(\partial v)$. This, of course, defines a new boundary map $\partial_{-1}{\colon}C_0\rightarrow C_{-1}$ — it is just the adjoint of $d_{-1}$.
Putting all of this together, we arrive at a new [‘augmented’]{} chain complex and cochain complex $$\begin{aligned}
0 \buildrel \partial_{-1} \over \longleftarrow
&C_{-1} \buildrel \partial_{0} \over \longleftarrow
C_{0} \buildrel \partial_{1} \over \longleftarrow
C_{1} \buildrel \partial_{2} \over \longleftarrow
\cdots \buildrel \partial_{n} \over \longleftarrow
C_{n} \\
&C^{-1} \buildrel d_{-1} \over \longrightarrow
C^{0} \buildrel d_{0} \over \longrightarrow
C^{1} \buildrel d_{1} \over \longrightarrow
\cdots \buildrel d_{n-1} \over \longrightarrow
C^{n} \buildrel d_{n} \over \longrightarrow
0\end{aligned}$$
What we have just seen is that the natural meaning of the notion ‘boundary of a vertex’ is just the connected component in which the vertex lies. It is interesting to note that at this level the old motto “the boundary of a boundary is zero" just says that the two endpoints of an edge lie in the same connected component! As a final remark, note that we cannot continue extending the complex further left. Since each connected component contains (i.e. is the boundary of) some vertex, $\partial_0$ is onto, so $\partial\partial=0$ implies the range of $\partial_{-1}$ must be trivial. Phrased from the dual perspective, there can be no nontrivial gauge transformations in ‘$(-1)$-form electromagnetism’.
Discretization Independence in [$p+1$]{} Dimensions {#sec:vft}
===================================================
Recall from Section \[pplus1\] that when the gauge group is ${\mathbb{R}}$ and spacetime is $(p+1)$-dimensional, the action in lattice $p$-form electromagnetism in $p+1$ dimensions takes a particularly simple form. Namely, it just involves the sum of $F^2= (dA)^2$ over all $(p+1)$-cells, weighted by the volume of each cell. $$S(A) = \frac{1}{2e^2} \sum_{x\in X_{p+1}} \frac{F(x)^2}{{\rm vol}(x)}$$ In this case we have the beautiful result that the theory does not depend on the details of the discretization! In fact, there is a strong sense in which the quantum theory of $p$-form electromagnetism in $p+1$ dimensions is almost topological: it’s only nontopological degree of freedom is the [*total volume*]{} of spacetime. It is thus what we might call a [**volumetric quantum field theory**]{}.
To begin seeing why the $p$-form theory in $(p+1)$ dimensions is volumetric, consider splitting a $(p+1)$-cell of volume $V$ in two by slicing through it with a new $p$-cell, leaving some fraction of the original volume on either side. Schematically: $$\xy
(-20,0) *{
\xy
(0,0)*\xycircle(10,10){-};
(0,0)*{V};
\endxy};
{\ar (-5,0)*{}; (5,0)*{}};
(20,0) *{
\xy
(0,0)*\xycircle(10,10){-};
(-10,0)*{\bullet};(10,0)*{\bullet} **\dir{-};
(0,5)*{V_1};
(0,-5)*{V_2};
(0,-13)*{V_1+V_2 = V};
(0,13)*{\phantom{V_1+V_2 = V}};
\endxy}
\endxy$$ We wish to compare the curvature $F_0$ on the original $(p+1)$-cell to the sum $F= F_1 + F_2$ in the finer discretization. According to the action above, the curvature on the original cell is a Gaussian random variable with probability measure $$\mu_{F_0}=\frac{e^{-F_0^2/V}}{\sqrt{\pi V}} dF_0$$ where we suppress the coupling constant $1/2e^2$ in this section to avoid cluttering our calculations unnecessarily.
On the other hand, the joint probability measure for the random variables $F_1$ and $F_2$ is $$\mu_{F_1,F_2} =\frac{e^{-F_1^2/V_1}e^{-F_2^2/V_2}}{\pi\sqrt{V_1 V_2}} dF_1 dF_2.$$ Making the change of variables $$\begin{array}{ll}
F=F_1+F_2\\
G=F_1-F_2
\end{array}$$ we can rewrite this as a measure for $F$ and $G$: $$\mu_{F,G} =\frac{ e^{-\frac{1}{4}(F+G)^2/V_1}e^{-\frac{1}{4}(F-G)^2/V_2}}
{2 \pi\sqrt{ V_1 V_2}} dF dG.$$ where the $2$ in the denominator comes from the Jacobian $$\left| \frac{\partial(F_1,F_2)}{\partial(F,G)} \right|= \frac{1}{2}.$$
To get a measure for $F$, we now have only to integrate out the $G$-dependence from $\mu_{F,G}$. Collecting terms, using $V=V_1+V_2$, and then completing the square in $G$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{F,G} &=\frac{e^{-F^2/V}}{2 \pi\sqrt{ V_1 V_2}}
e^{-{\frac{1}{4}}\frac{V}{V_1V_2}(G-\frac{V_2-V_1}{V}F)^2} dF dG\end{aligned}$$ Integrating out the dependence on $G$ then gives a normalized measure for $F = F_1+F_2$: $$\mu_F =\frac{e^{-F^2/V}}{\sqrt{\pi V}}dF,$$ which is the same as $\mu_{F_0}$.
What this calculation shows is that we are free to rediscretize our spacetime by knocking down or inserting new $(p+1)$-cells, and that we will always get the same results, as long as we only ask questions that can be asked for either discretization. In the end, the only degree of freedom besides the topology should be the total volume of the spacetime. This result could be made more precise. To complete the argument, one would need to establish a complete set of ‘moves’ which allow passage from one discretization to any other, and then show that the theory is invariant under these moves, as we have done for the move described above. Since it is special to the case of $p+1$ dimensions, however, we instead focus on a more general description which works in arbitrary dimensions. This is the subject of the next section.
Chain Field Theory {#sec:chain}
==================
Electromagnetism is not a topological quantum field theory. In Section \[sec:vft\] we began to see that the special case of pure $p$-form electromagnetism in $(p+1)$ dimensions is [*almost*]{} topological — it requires only one nontopological datum: the volume of spacetime. But it is interesting to see to what extent our more general theory of $p$-form electromagnetism in $n$-dimensional spacetime (including ordinary electromagnetism in 4 dimensions) can be given a TQFT-like description. If we pick an inner product on ${\mathbb{R}}$-valued $(p+1)$-cochains and define the action as in Section \[sec:action\], then this goal can indeed be realized to a large extent. Before diving in, we warn the reader that this section requires a slight jump in mathematical sophistication. In particular, we need to assume an acquaintance with category theory, referring the reader to reference [@MacLane] for details not presented here.
In topological quantum field theory, ‘space’ at any given time is a compact $(n-1)$-dimensional manifold, whereas spacetime is an $n$-dimensional cobordism connecting two slices of space. This is easiest to visualize when $n=2$, where space is necessarily just a union of circles, and a cobordism between one slice of space and another is a 2-manifold with boundary[^7] having these two slices of space as the two components of its boundary, like this: $$\xy
(0,0)*{\usebox{\cob}};
(40,20)*{S};
(40,-20)*{S'};
(40,0)*{M};
\endxy$$ A TQFT assigns to each $(n-1)$-manifold $S$ representing space, its Hilbert space of states $Z(S)$, and to each cobordism $M{\colon}S\to S'$ between $(n-1)$-manifolds a linear operator $Z(M){\colon}Z(S)\to Z(S')$, which we can think of as a ‘time evolution’ operator.
More precisely, a TQFT is a symmetric monoidal functor [@MacLane] $$Z{\colon}{n{\rm Cob}}\to {{\rm Hilb}}$$ from the category of smooth $n$-dimensional cobordisms to the category of Hilbert Spaces.
Since we’ve described discrete spacetime in electromagnetism using chain complexes, we would like to define a [**chain field theory**]{} to be a symmetric monoidal functor $$Z{\colon}{n{\rm Chain}}\to {{\rm Hilb}}$$ where ${n{\rm Chain}}$ is a category patterned after the category ${n{\rm Cob}}$, but with manifolds replaced by chain complexes. However, as we have already noted, electromagnetism is not merely topological. Consequently, the category ${n{\rm Chain}}$ will have a richer structure than ${n{\rm Cob}}$. In particular, $p$-form electromagnetism as described in the previous sections relies on having an inner product on $(p+1)$-forms.
Accordingly, an object $S$ in the category ${n{\rm Chain}}$ should be an $(n-1)$-complex (in the sense of Definition \[def:ncomplex\]):[^8] $$\xymatrix{
0 & S_0 \ar[l] & S_1 \ar[l] & {\cdots} \ar[l] & S_{n-1} \ar[l] & {\phantom{S_n}}
}$$ equipped with an inner product on ${\mathbb{R}}$-valued $(p+1)$-cochains: $$\langle \phantom{\psi},\phantom{\psi} \rangle_{S} {\colon}\hom(S_{p+1},{\mathbb{R}})\times\hom(S_{p+1},{\mathbb{R}}) \to {\mathbb{R}}.$$ To make our path integrals well defined, we demand that an object $S$ have finitely many cells, so that, in particular, the dimension of $S_{p+1}$ is finite.
To define a morphism from $S$ to $S' \in {n{\rm Chain}}$, let $M$ be an $n$-complex, also with finitely many cells, whose chain complex $M_\bullet$ is equipped with injective chain maps $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^i & M_\bullet & S'_\bullet \ar[l]_{i'}
}$$ sending basis elements to basis elements. That is, for each $k\in \{0,1,\ldots,n-1\} $ we have subgroup inclusions $i{\colon}S_k \to M_k$ and $i'{\colon}S'_k\to M_k$ such that the following diagram is commutative. $$\xymatrix{
0 & S_0 \ar[l] \ar[d]_i & S_1 \ar[l] \ar[d]_i & {\cdots} \ar[l] & S_{n-1} \ar[l] \ar[d]_i \\
0 & M_0 \ar[l] & M_1 \ar[l] & {\cdots} \ar[l] & M_{n-1} \ar[l] & M_n \ar[l] \\
0 & S'_0 \ar[u]^{i'} \ar[l] & S'_1 \ar[u]^{i'} \ar[l] & {\cdots} \ar[l] & S'_{n-1} \ar[u]^{i'} \ar[l]
}$$ We also equip $M$ with an inner product on ${\mathbb{R}}$-valued $(p+1)$-cochains: $$\langle \phantom{\psi},\phantom{\psi} \rangle_{M} {\colon}\hom(M_{p+1},{\mathbb{R}})\times\hom(M_{p+1},{\mathbb{R}}) \to {\mathbb{R}}.$$ and demand that $M$ preserve the inner products from $S$ and $S'$ in the following sense. First, since $M_{p+1}$ is free, we can think of $S^{p+1}= \hom(S_{p+1},{\mathbb{R}})$ as a subgroup of $M^{p+1}=\hom(M_{p+1},{\mathbb{R}})$ simply by extending any $\omega \in S^{p+1}$ trivially to $M^{p+1}$. That is, $\omega$ becomes a member of $M^{p+1}$ by letting it be zero on $M^{p+1}\backslash S^{p+1}$. We then demand that the inner product $\langle -,- \rangle_{M}$ is precisely $\langle -,- \rangle_{S}$ when restricted to $S^{p+1}\times S^{p+1}$.
A morphism in ${n{\rm Chain}}$ will be defined as a certain equivalence class of the gadgets described in the previous paragraph. Suppose we have two such gadgets from $S$ to $S'$: $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^i & M_\bullet & S'_\bullet \ar[l]_{i'}
}$$ and $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^j & M'_\bullet & S'_\bullet \ar[l]_{j'}
}$$ We say $M$ and $M'$ are equivalent, written $M\sim M'$, if there exists an isomorphism of chain complexes $$\phi {\colon}M_\bullet \to M'_\bullet$$ preserving both the chosen bases of the $M_k$ and the inner product on $M^p$, such that the diagram $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^i \ar[dr]_j & M_\bullet \ar[d]_\phi & S'_\bullet \ar[l]_{i'} \ar[dl]^{j'} \\
& M'_\bullet
}$$ commutes. Finally we define a morphism $$[M]{\colon}S \to S'$$ in ${n{\rm Chain}}$, which we call a [**chain cobordism**]{}, to be the equivalence class under the relation $\sim$ of all gadgets $S_\bullet \longrightarrow M_\bullet \longleftarrow S'_\bullet$. Following standard practice, we will generally drop the brackets from $[M]$, writing simply $M$ for our chain cobordism, blurring the distinction between the equivalence class and a representative.
Now if $M{\colon}S \to S'$ and $N{\colon}S' \to S''$ are chain cobordisms, we must describe a rule for composing them. Our mental picture of composing two cobordisms between manifolds as stacking them on top of each othersuggests composing $M$ and $N$ by stacking them to form the larger diagram $$\xymatrix{
0 & S_0 \ar[l] \ar[d]_i & S_1 \ar[l] \ar[d]_i & {\cdots} \ar[l] & S_{n-1} \ar[l] \ar[d]_i \\
0 & M_0 \ar[l] & M_1 \ar[l] & {\cdots} \ar[l] & M_{n-1} \ar[l] & M_n \ar[l] \\
0 & S'_0 \ar[u]^{i'} \ar[l] \ar[d]_j & S'_1 \ar[u]^{i'} \ar[l] \ar[d]_j & {\cdots} \ar[l] & S'_{n-1} \ar[u]^{i'} \ar[l] \ar[d]_j \\
0 & N_0 \ar[l] & N_1 \ar[l] & {\cdots} \ar[l] & N_{n-1} \ar[l] & N_n \ar[l] \\
0 & S''_0 \ar[u]^{j'} \ar[l] & S''_1 \ar[u]^{j'} \ar[l] & {\cdots} \ar[l] & S''_{n-1} \ar[u]^{j'} \ar[l]
}$$ Of course, while this image is helpful conceptually, this diagram does not give us a new chain cobordism according to the definition given above. When we compose two cobordisms between manifolds, we don’t [*just*]{} stack them on top of each other; we must glue their boundaries together in such a way that we get a new cobordism — in particular, a manifold with boundary! Similarly, when we compose our chain cobordisms $M{\colon}S\to S'$ and $N{\colon}S'\to S''$, we must get a new cobordism $NM{\colon}S\to S''$ $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^i & (NM)_\bullet & S''_\bullet \ar[l]_{i'}
}$$ by “gluing $M$ and $N$ together along $S$." Thinking of $M$ and $N$ as the physical lattices whence they derive, we want $NM$ to have as $n$-cells all of the $n$-cells of both $M$ and $N$. This leads us to define $$(NM)_n := M_n \oplus N_n.$$ Likewise, $NM$ should have all lower dimensional faces of both $M$ and $N$, except that we identify cells in $M$ and $N$ if they come from the same cell in $S$ under the gluing maps $$\xymatrix{
M_\bullet & S'_\bullet \ar[l]_{i'}
\ar[r]^j & N_\bullet
}.$$ The natural way to accomplish this is to let $$(NM)_k := \frac{M_k \oplus N_k}{\langle i'(c) - j(c) | c\in S'_k\rangle} \qquad k= 0, 1, \ldots, n-1.$$ In words, each $NM_k$ is the direct sum $M_k\oplus N_k$ [*modulo*]{} relations that say $c\in M_k\subset M_k\oplus N_k$ and $c'\in N_k \subset M_k\oplus N_k$ are equivalent if they are equal as elements of $S'_k$. In particular, the diagram $$\label{pushout}
\xymatrix{
S'_\bullet \ar[r]^j \ar[d]_{i'} & N_\bullet \ar[d] \\
M_\bullet \ar[r] & (NM)_\bullet }$$ commutes, where the unlabeled arrows are the obvious injections. Moreover this is the [*best*]{} way to make such a commutative square, in the sense that if $K_\bullet$ is any other chain complex of abelian groups equipped with chain maps $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that $$\xymatrix{
S'_\bullet \ar[r]^j \ar[d]_{i'} & N_\bullet \ar[d]^\alpha \\
M_\bullet \ar[r]_\beta & K_\bullet }$$ commutes, then there exists a unique chain map $(NM)_\bullet \to K_\bullet$ making $$\xymatrix{
S'_\bullet \ar[r]^j \ar[d]_{i'} & N_\bullet \ar[d] \ar@/^/[ddr]^\alpha \\
M_\bullet \ar[r] \ar@/_/[drr]_\beta & (NM)_\bullet \ar@{.>}[dr] \\
& & K_\bullet}$$ commute. Category theorists express this ‘universal property’ of $NM$ by saying the diagram (\[pushout\]) is a [**pushout square**]{} [@MacLane]. We mention this here because the pushout property streamlines the proofs of Theorems \[nChain\] and \[chainFT\], below. Note that the $(NM)_k$ are still [*free*]{}, since the direct product of free abelian groups is free and identifying two basis elements of a free abelian group gives a free abelian group.
We must define the inner product on $(p+1)$-forms on the composite $NM$. Since $NM$ consists of all of the cells of $N$ and $M$, there is a canonical way to do this. Given $F,G \in \hom((NM)_{p+1},{\mathbb{R}})$, we define: $$\label{comp-ip}
\langle F,G\rangle_{NM} = \langle F|_N, G|_N \rangle_{N} + \langle F|_M, G|_M \rangle_{M}
- \langle F|_{S'}, G|_{S'} \rangle_{S'}$$ Here the first two terms are just the inner products on $M$ and $N$, while the third term corrects for double counting on the common boundary $S'$ of $M$ and $N$. Specifically, if $x_i$ and $x_j$ are both $(p+1)$-cells in $S'$, then since $S'$ is a subcomplex of both $M$ and $N$, each of the first terms in the inner product contains a term of the form $\langle x^i,x^j\rangle$. Subtracting $\langle F|_{S'}, G|_{S'} \rangle_{S'}$ thus eliminates the extra $\langle x^i,x^j\rangle$ term.
The reader already convinced, or else willing to accept on faith, that ${n{\rm Chain}}$ as we have described it does indeed form a category may skip ahead to Theorem \[chainFT\], where we prove the main result. For the more rigorously oriented, we collect some of the remaining technical details in the proof of the following theorem.
\[nChain\] ${n{\rm Chain}}$ is a symmetric monoidal category.
[**Proof:**]{} To show ${n{\rm Chain}}$ is a category, we must show that composition of morphisms is well-defined (i.e. that it respects equivalence classes), that it is associative, and that identity morphisms exist.
Suppose $M\sim M'$ are two representatives of a chain cobordism from $S$ to $S'$, and $N\sim N'$ representatives of a cobordism from $S'$ to $S''$. We must show that $NM\sim N'M'$. By the equivalence relation $\sim$, there exist basis-preserving isomorphisms $$\phi {\colon}M_\bullet \to M'_\bullet \qquad \psi{\colon}N_\bullet \to N'_\bullet$$ such that the following diagrams commute: $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^i \ar[dr]_j & M_\bullet \ar[d]_\phi & S'_\bullet \ar[l]_{i'} \ar[dl]^{j'} \\
& M'_\bullet
}
\qquad
\xymatrix{
S'_\bullet \ar[r]^k \ar[dr]_\ell & N_\bullet \ar[d]_\psi & S''_\bullet \ar[l]_{k'} \ar[dl]^{\ell'} \\
& N'_\bullet
}$$ Here is where pushouts come in handy. By the fact that $NM$ and $N'M'$ are both pushouts, there exist unique morphisms $\sigma$ and $\tau$ making the following diagrams commute: $$\xymatrix{
S'_\bullet \ar[r]^k \ar[d]_{i'} \ar@/^2em/[rr]^\ell \ar@/_2em/[dd]_{j'}
& N_\bullet \ar[r]^\psi \ar[d] & N'_\bullet \ar[dd] \\
M_\bullet \ar[r]\ar[d]_\phi & (NM)_\bullet \ar@{.>}[dr]^\sigma \\
M'_\bullet \ar[rr] & & (N'M')_\bullet
}
\qquad
\xymatrix{
S'_\bullet \ar[r]^\ell \ar[d]_{j'} \ar@/^2em/[rr]^k \ar@/_2em/[dd]_{i'}
& N'_\bullet \ar[r]^{\psi^{-1}} \ar[d] & N_\bullet \ar[dd] \\
M_\bullet '\ar[r]\ar[d]^{\phi^{-1}} & (N'M')_\bullet \ar@{.>}[dr]^\tau \\
M_\bullet \ar[rr] & & (NM)_\bullet
}$$ We now use a standard trick of category theory to see that these unique $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are isomorphisms, and in fact inverses of each other. Using the uniqueness part of the pushout property we know the identity chain map $(NM)_\bullet {\buildrel 1 \over \longrightarrow} (NM)_\bullet$ is the only morphism for which the diagram $$\xymatrix{
S'_\bullet \ar[r]^j \ar[d]_{i'} & N_\bullet \ar[d] \ar@/^/[ddr] \\
M_\bullet \ar[r] \ar@/_/[drr] & (NM)_\bullet \ar@{.>}[dr]^{1} \\
& & (NM)_\bullet}$$ commutes. But the diagram also commutes if the dotted arrow is the map $\tau \circ \sigma$, and therefore $\tau \circ\sigma = 1$. An identical argument shows that $\sigma\circ\tau$ is the identity chain map $(N'M')_\bullet {\buildrel 1 \over \longrightarrow} (N'M')_\bullet$. We thus have an isomorphism $\sigma{\colon}(NM)_\bullet \to (N'M')_\bullet$ such that the diagram $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r] \ar[dr] & (NM)_\bullet \ar[d]_\sigma & S''_\bullet \ar[l] \ar[dl] \\
& (N'M')_\bullet
}$$ commutes. It is not hard hard to check that $\sigma$ preserves the inner product on $p$-cochains, so that we have $NM\sim N'M'$
Now suppose we have three chain cobordisms $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^i& M_\bullet & S'_\bullet \ar[l]_{i'}
}\quad
\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^j& M'_\bullet & S''_\bullet \ar[l]_{j'}
}\quad
\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^k& M''_\bullet & S'''_\bullet \ar[l]_{k'}
}$$ Showing that composition is associative involves constructing an isomorphism $$((M''M')M))_\bullet \buildrel \alpha\over \longrightarrow (M''(M'M))_\bullet$$ such that the diagram $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r] \ar[dr] & ((M''M')M))_\bullet \ar[d]_\alpha & S'''_\bullet \ar[l] \ar[dl] \\
& (M''(M'M))_\bullet
}$$ commutes, so that the two parenthesizations are equal as equivalence classes. In fact, $\alpha$ is just the obvious isomorphism. Checking the details is tedious but not difficult. In fact, the equivalence relation in the definition of chain cobordism was motivated entirely by the need for associativity.
The identity morphism from $S$ to $S$ consists of two identity chain maps $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^1& S_\bullet & S_\bullet \ar[l]_1
}$$ which in expanded notation is the diagram $$\xymatrix{
0 & S_0 \ar[l] \ar[d]_1 & S_1 \ar[l] \ar[d]_1 & {\cdots} \ar[l] & S_{n-1} \ar[l] \ar[d]_1 \\
0 & S_0 \ar[l] & S_1 \ar[l] & {\cdots} \ar[l] & S_{n-1} \ar[l] & 0 \ar[l] \\
0 & S_0 \ar[u]^{1} \ar[l] & S'_1 \ar[u]^{1} \ar[l] & {\cdots} \ar[l] & S_{n-1} \ar[u]^{1} \ar[l]
}$$ Here we explicitly write in the position $S_n = 0$ in the middle row just to emphasize that the we are thinking of $S$ both as an [*object*]{}, an $(n-1)$-complex, and as a [*morphism*]{}, an $n$-complex. We write this identity morphism as $1_S{\colon}S\to S$. To see that this does satisfy the left and right identity axioms, suppose $M{\colon}S\to S'$, $N{\colon}S\to S''$. Then it is a routine exercise to check that the diagrams $$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[dr] \ar[r] & (MS)_\bullet \ar[d] & S'_\bullet \ar[dl]\ar[l] \\
& M_\bullet
} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\xymatrix{
S'_\bullet \ar[dr] \ar[r] & (SN)_\bullet \ar[d] & S_\bullet \ar[dl]\ar[l] \\
& N_\bullet
}$$ commute, where the vertical arrows are the obvious isomorphisms induced by the inclusions of $S$ into $M$ and $N$.
This completes the proof that ${n{\rm Chain}}$ is a category. A [*monoidal*]{} category is a category with a ‘tensor product’ so we must describe this product in ${n{\rm Chain}}$. In ${n{\rm Cob}}$ the tensor product is just the disjoint union of spaces; in ${n{\rm Chain}}$ the obvious analog is the direct sum of chain complexes, at both object and morphism levels. Given objects $S$ and $C$, define $S\oplus C$ to be the chain complex $S_\bullet \oplus C_\bullet$, with inner product on $p$-cochains given by $$\langle -, - \rangle = \langle -, - \rangle_{S} + \langle -, - \rangle_{C}.$$ Similarly, for morphisms $M{\colon}S \to S'$ and $N{\colon}C \to C'$ define $$M\oplus N{\colon}S\oplus C \to S'\oplus C'$$ to be the class of basis preserving and inner product preserving chain maps $$S_\bullet \oplus C_\bullet \longrightarrow M_\bullet \oplus N_\bullet
\longleftarrow S'_\bullet \oplus C'_\bullet.$$ The identity object for $\oplus$ is the trivial chain complex $0_\bullet$: $$\xymatrix{ 0 & 0 \ar[l] & {\cdots} \ar[l] & 0 \ar[l] }$$ and the associator and unit laws are inherited from the obvious abelian group isomorphisms $(G\oplus H)\oplus K {\cong}G\oplus (H\oplus K)$ and $G\oplus 0{\cong}G {\cong}0\oplus G$.
Making ${n{\rm Chain}}$ a [*symmetric*]{} monoidal category requires that we also specify a ‘symmetry’ or ‘braiding’ which lets us switch the order in the tensor product. This comes from the abelian group isomorphisms $G\oplus H {\cong}H \oplus G$ in an obvious way. Checking that these constructions actually yield a symmetric monoidal category involves checking certain ‘coherence laws’ guaranteeing the associator, unit laws and braiding get along appropriately. This a lengthy process, but not a difficult one. We refer the reader to [@MacLane] for the detailed definitions of monoidal and symmetric monoidal categories. $\blacksquare$
\[chainFT\] Lattice $p$-form electromagnetism gives a chain field theory.
Before proving this theorem, we remark that for cobordisms we must modify our definition of the [**action**]{} slightly. The idea of the modified action we shall use for cobordisms $M{\colon}S\to S'$ is that the action on $p$-cells in the ‘boundary’ $S+S'$ should only count [*half*]{} as much as the action on cells in the interior. This keeps us from ‘overcounting’ the action when we compose two cobordisms $S\buildrel M \over \longrightarrow S' \buildrel M' \over \longrightarrow S''$. If $M{\colon}S\to S'$ is a chain cobordism, let us rename our old naïve action $\tilde S$, so that $$\tilde S(A) = -\frac{1}{2e^2} h^{ij}F(x_i) F(x_j)$$ in the ${\mathbb{R}}$ case. If $A$ is a $p$-connection on the spacetime cobordism $M{\colon}S \to S'$, we then define the action on $M$ to be $$S(A) = \tilde S(A) - {\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A|_S) - {\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A|_{S'}).$$
In the $U(1)$ case, we don’t define the action, but only its ‘exponential’ — the theta function in equation (\[u1S\]) in Section \[u1path\]. $$e^{-\tilde S(A)} =
\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{N}} e^{-\frac{1}{2e^2} h^{ij} (A(\partial x_i) - 2n_i \pi)(A(\partial x_j) - 2n_j \pi)}$$ This leads us to define for a $p$-connection $A$ on $M{\colon}S \to S'$, $$e^{-S(A)} := e^{-\tilde S(A)} e^{{\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A|_S)} e^{{\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A|_{S'})}.$$ where, $e^{{\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S}$ just denotes the obvious thing—the reciprocal of the square root of the theta function “$e^{-S}$".
[**Proof of Theorem \[chainFT\]:**]{} To define a functor $$Z{\colon}{n{\rm Chain}}\to {{\rm Hilb}}$$ we must specify what $Z$ does to objects and morphisms. When space is the $(n-1)$-complex $S$, the classical configuration space of $p$-form electromagnetism with gauge group $U(1)$ is the space of $p$-connections on $S$ modulo gauge transformations: $$\frac{{\cal A}(S)}{{\cal G}(S)} = \frac{C^p(S,U(1))}{B^p(S,U(1))}$$ Quantization gives the Hilbert space of states, the space of all square-integrable functions on classical field configurations. We thus define $$Z(S) := L^2\left(\frac{{\cal A}(S)}{{\cal G}(S)}\right).$$
Now $Z$ must also assign to each morphism $M{\colon}S \to S'$ in ${n{\rm Chain}}$ a linear map $Z(M){\colon}Z(S) \to Z(S')$ between Hilbert spaces, corresponding to ‘time evolution’ of states on the slice $S$ of space to the slice $S'$. To determine $Z(M)$ it suffices to specify, for any $\psi\in Z(S) =L^2({\cal A}(S)/{\cal G}(S))$ and $\phi\in Z(S') =L^2({\cal A}(S')/{\cal G}(S'))$ the transition probability $$\langle \phi, Z(M) \psi \rangle =
\int_{{\cal A}(M)} \bar \phi(A |_{S'})\psi(A |_{S}) e^{-S(A)} {\cal D}A$$ where for convenience we absorb the normalization factor into the definition of the measure ${\cal D}A$ — we can do this since the partition function converges when the gauge group is $U(1)$. Also because we are using $U(1)$, factoring out gauge transformations is not necessary for the path integral to make sense. Hence we integrate over ${\cal A}(M)$ rather than ${\cal A}(M)/{{\cal G}(M)}$. Since $U(1)$ is compact and the integrand is gauge invariant, the result is the same.
To show functoriality we must show that this definition of $Z$ respects identity morphisms and composition. First suppose we apply $Z$ to the identity cobordism $1_S{\colon}S\to S$, i.e.$$\xymatrix{
S_\bullet \ar[r]^{1} & S_\bullet & S_\bullet \ar[l]_{1}
}$$ Then given two states $\psi, \phi \in Z(S) = L^2({\cal A}(S)/{\cal G}(S))$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \phi, Z(1_S) \psi \rangle &=
\int_{{\cal A}(S)}\bar \phi(A|_S)\psi(A |_S) e^{-S(A)} {\cal D}A \\
&= \int_{{\cal A}(S)}\bar \phi(A|_S)\psi(A |_S) {\cal D}A
= \langle \phi,\psi \rangle \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that for the identity cobordism $1_S$, we have $$e^{-S(A)} = e^{-\tilde S(A)} e^{{\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A)} e^{{\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A)} = 1$$ Hence $Z(S)$ is the identity on $Z(S) = L^2({\cal A}(S)/{\cal G}(S))$.
As usual, showing that $Z$ respects composition is the nontrivial part of showing $Z$ is a functor. Suppose we have two composable morphisms in ${n{\rm Chain}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
M{\colon}& S \to S' \\
M'{\colon}& S' \to S''.\end{aligned}$$ Since $M'M$ is a pushout, the diagram $$\xymatrix{
S'_p \ar[r]^{} \ar[d]_{} & M_p \ar[d] \ar@/^/[ddr]^{A} \\
M'_p \ar[r] \ar@/_/[drr]^{A'} & (M'M)_p \ar@{.>}[dr]^{A^\circ} \\
& & U(1)}$$ shows that a $p$-connection $A^\circ$ on the composite $M'M$ is precisely a $p$-connection $A$ on $M$ together with a $p$-connection $A'$ on $M'$ such that $A'$ and $A$ agree when restricted to the common boundary $S'$. To enforce this agreement on $S'$ in path integrals, we will use a delta function $\delta( A|_{S'}- A'|_{S'})$. If $ \{ \eta_\lambda : \lambda \in \Lambda \} $ is an orthonormal basis of $L^2({\cal A}(S')/{\cal G}(S'))$, then expanding our delta function gives $$\label{delta}
\begin{split}
\delta( A|_{S'}- A|_{S'})
&=\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda}
\left\langle \eta_\lambda(A'|_{S'}), \delta( A|_{S'}- A'|_{S'})\right \rangle \,\eta_\lambda(A' |_{S'}) \\
&=
\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda}
\left( \int \bar \eta_\lambda(A'|_{S'}) \delta( A|_{S'}- A'|_{S'}) {\cal D}A'\right)
\eta_\lambda(A' |_{S'}) \\
&=
\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda}
\bar \eta_\lambda(A|_{S'}) \eta_\lambda(A' |_{S'})
\end{split}$$
Now to show $Z(M'M) = Z(M')Z(M)$, it suffices to show $$\langle \phi, Z(M'M)\psi \rangle = \langle \phi, Z(M')Z(M)\psi \rangle$$ for all $\psi \in Z(S)$ and $\phi \in Z(S'')$. We have: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \phi, Z&(M')Z(M)\psi \rangle \\
\qquad &=
\int_{{\cal A}(M')} \bar \phi(A' |_{S''})(Z(M)\psi)(A' |_{S'}) e^{-S(A')} {\cal D}A' \\
&=
\int_{{\cal A}(M')} \bar \phi(A' |_{S''})
\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda}\langle \eta_\lambda, Z(M)\psi\rangle\eta_\lambda(A' |_{S'}) e^{-S(A')} {\cal D}A' \\
&=
\int_{{\cal A}(M')} \int_{{\cal A}(M)} \bar
\phi(A' |_{S''})\psi(A|_{S})
\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda} \bar \eta_\lambda(A|_{S'}) \eta_\lambda(A' |_{S'}) e^{-S(A)} e^{-S(A')}
{\cal D}A{\cal D}A' \\
&=
\int_{{\cal A}(M'M)} \bar
\phi(A^\circ|_{S''})\psi(A^\circ|_{S}) e^{-S(A^\circ)} {\cal D}A^\circ \\
&= \langle \phi, Z(M'M)\psi \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ as desired. Here we have used the expansion (\[delta\]) and the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-S(A)}e^{-S(A')} = e^{-S(A^\circ)}.\end{aligned}$$ This is comes from the definition of the action on a cobordism in the case where the gauge group is ${\mathbb{R}}$. Using this and the definition (\[comp-ip\]) of the inner product for a composite of cobordisms, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
S(A) + S(A') &= \tilde S(A) + \tilde S(A')
- {\frac{1}{2}}\left(\tilde S(A|_{S'}) + \tilde S(A'|_{S'})\right)
- {\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A|_S) - {\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A'|_{S''}) \\
&= \tilde S(A^\circ|_M) + \tilde S(A^\circ|_{M'})
- \tilde S(A^\circ|_{S'})
- {\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A^\circ|_S) - {\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A^\circ|_{S''}) \\
&= \tilde S(A^\circ)
- {\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A^\circ|_S) - {\frac{1}{2}}\tilde S(A^\circ|_{S''}) \\
& = S(A^\circ).\end{aligned}$$ The result follows in the case where the gauge group is $U(1)$ from the relationship between Gaussians and theta functions. This completes the proof that $Z$ is a functor.
The essential features of a [*symmetric monoidal*]{} functor are a natural isomorphism $$\Phi{\colon}Z(-){\otimes}Z(-) \stackrel \sim \Longrightarrow Z(-\oplus -)$$ between the functors $$\begin{aligned}
Z(-){\otimes}Z(-)&{\colon}{n{\rm Chain}}\times {n{\rm Chain}}\to {{\rm Hilb}}\\
\text{and }\; Z(-\oplus -)&{\colon}{n{\rm Chain}}\times {n{\rm Chain}}\to {{\rm Hilb}}\end{aligned}$$ and an isomorphism $$\phi {\colon}1_{{\rm Hilb}}\stackrel \sim \longrightarrow Z(0_{{n{\rm Chain}}})$$ between the identity in ${{\rm Hilb}}$ and $Z$ applied to the identity in ${n{\rm Chain}}$. The existence of $\phi$ is obvious: $Z(0)$ is the space of $L^2$ functions on a one-point set, i.e. complex numbers, and ${\mathbb{C}}$ is the identity for the tensor product of Hilbert spaces. To complete the proof that the functor is symmetric monoidal, one must work out what $\Phi$ is and check that $\Phi$ and $\phi$ satisfy the required coherence laws. We leave these details to the reader, whom we again refer to Mac Lane’s textbook [@MacLane] for the definitions. $\blacksquare$
Appendix: Gaussian Integration {#appendix-gaussian-integration .unnumbered}
==============================
The fundamental integral is the definite integral of the Gaussian function $e^{-x^2/2}$ over all of ${\mathbb{R}}$: $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2/2} dx =\sqrt{2\pi}.$$ More generally, if we consider the Gaussian $e^{-x^2/2\sigma^2}$, with [**standard deviation**]{} $\sigma$, a simple change of variables shows that $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2/2\sigma^2} dx =\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma.$$ This gives us the usual normalizing constant for a one-dimensional Gaussian probability distribution. Thus, using the properly normalized measure, $$\frac{e^{-x^2/2\sigma^2}\,dx}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma},$$ we can calculate expected values of random variables. Given a function $f$ of the Gaussian random variable $x$, the expected value of $f$ is given by: $$\langle f \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x)e^{-x^2/2\sigma^2}\,dx$$ In general, such integrals are of course hard to carry out. Since any reasonably nice function can be approximated by polynomials, however, we will be content to calculate $\langle x^n\rangle$. It is not hard to show, using integration by parts and the fact that odd functions integrate to zero, that $$\langle x^n \rangle :=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} x^{n} e^{-x^2/2\sigma^2} dx
=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\sigma^{n}(n-1)!! & \textrm{$n$ even}\\
0 & \textrm{$n$ odd}
\end{array}\right.
.$$ Here, the double factorial $(n-1)!!$ means $(n-1)\cdot(n-3)\cdots (5)\cdot(3)\cdot(1)$, and we evidently need to define $(-1)!!=1$ for the formula to be consistent with our original Gaussian integral.
Next we generalize Gaussian integration to more than one dimension. The simplest case is the totally symmetric Gaussian bump, which has an obvious solution: $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty
\cdots\int_{-\infty}^\infty
e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x_1^2+ \cdots +x_n^2)}
dx_1 \cdots dx_n
= \prod_{k=1}^{n} \sqrt{2\pi}
= (2\pi)^{n/2},$$ which we can also write using the standard inner product on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ as $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} e^{-\frac{1}{2}\langle x,x \rangle} d^n x
= (2\pi)^{n/2}.$$ Often, however, we want to do similar integrals where the argument of the exponential is some more general quadratic function of the $x_i$. It is a basic result of linear algebra that any quadratic form $q{\colon}V \to {\mathbb{R}}$ on an inner product space $V$ may be written as $$q( x)= \langle x , Q x \rangle$$ where $Q$ is a self-adjoint linear operator $V\rightarrow V$, i.e. a symmetric matrix[^9]. The matrix $Q$ is called positive whenever the quadratic form $q$ is positive.
We now calculate $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}\langle x,Qx \rangle} d^{n}x$$ where $Q$ is a symmetric, positive definite $n\times n$ matrix. To do this, note that the positivity of $Q$ implies $Q$ has a unique positive square root — this is just the finite dimensional version of the square root lemma of functional analysis (cf. Reed and Simon [@RS] p. 196). That is, there is a positive definite matrix $B$ with $B^2=Q$. Moreover, since $Q$ is symmetric, so is B, so we can write $$\langle x,Qx \rangle =
\langle x,BBx \rangle =
\langle B^\dagger x,Bx \rangle =
\langle Bx,Bx\rangle,$$ where the adjoint $B^\dagger$ in the present case is simply the matrix transpose. To do the above integral, we can thus make the change of variables $y=Bx$, or in component form $y^i = B^i_j x^j$. Using the proper Jacobian for the transformation, and the fact that $\det(B)=\sqrt{\det(Q)}$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}\langle x,Qx \rangle} d^{n}x
&=\sqrt{\frac{(2\pi)^n}{\det(Q)}}.\end{aligned}$$ To calculate expected values: If $$\ell_1,\ell_2,\ldots, \ell_m {\colon}{\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}$$ are $m$ (not necessarily distinct) linear functionals on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ then we have the following simple formula for calculating the expected value of their product: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \ell_1 \ell_2 \ldots \ell_m \rangle &=
\sqrt{\frac{\det(Q)}{(2\pi)^n}}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}} \ell_1(x) \ell_2(x) \ldots \ell_m(x) e^{-\frac{1}{2}\langle x,Qx \rangle} d^{n}x \\
&=
\sum_\text{pairings}\prod_{\text{ pairs }\ell_i, \ell_j} \langle \ell_i Q^{-1}, \ell_j \rangle\end{aligned}$$ The proof of this relies on the facts that both sides of this expression are linear in each of the $\ell_i$, and two multilinear functionals agree if and only if they agree when all of the linear factors are the same.
In particular, for $m=2$, if we take $Q$ to be the identity on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ so that we are back to the symmetric Gaussian bump, we have a formula which, aside from the comma on the right side, looks like a tautology: $$\langle \ell_1 \ell_2 \rangle = \langle \ell_1,\ell_2 \rangle.$$ For $m=4$ we have $$\langle \ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3 \ell_4 \rangle =
\langle \ell_1,\ell_2 \rangle \langle \ell_3,\ell_4 \rangle +
\langle \ell_1,\ell_3 \rangle \langle \ell_2,\ell_4 \rangle +
\langle \ell_1,\ell_4 \rangle \langle \ell_2,\ell_3 \rangle$$ where the $3$ terms correspond to the $3= (4-1)!!$ distinct pairings of $\ell_1, \ldots,\ell_4$: $$\xy
(-30,0)*{\xy
(-5,5)*{\ell_1}="A";
(5,5)*{\ell_2}="B";
(-5,-5)*{\ell_3}="C";
(5,-5)*{\ell_4}="D";
"A"+(2,0);"B"+(-2,0)**\dir{-};
"C"+(2,0);"D"+(-2,0)**\dir{-};
\endxy};
(0,0)*{\xy
(-5,5)*{\ell_1}="A";
(5,5)*{\ell_2}="B";
(-5,-5)*{\ell_3}="C";
(5,-5)*{\ell_4}="D";
"A"+(0,-2);"C"+(0,2)**\dir{-};
"B"+(0,-2);"D"+(0,2)**\dir{-};
\endxy};
(30,0)*{\xy
(-5,5)*{\ell_1}="A";
(5,5)*{\ell_2}="B";
(-5,-5)*{\ell_3}="C";
(5,-5)*{\ell_4}="D";
"A";(-.5,.5)**\dir{-};
(.5,-.5);"D" **\dir{-};
"B";"C"**\dir{-};
\endxy};
\endxy$$ Note that the number of distinct pairings of $m$ objects is zero when $m$ is odd and $(m-1)!!$ when $m$ is even, so in the one-dimensional case where each of the linear functionals is just the identity map $x\mapsto x$ and $Q$ is just the number $1/\sigma^2$, the formula reduces to $$\langle x^m \rangle =
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\sigma^{n}(n-1)!! & \textrm{$n$ even}\\
0 & \textrm{$n$ odd}
\end{array}\right .$$ as we found before.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I thank John Baez for numerous discussions on this subject. This paper would not have been written without all I learned from John before and during its writing. I also thank Jeffrey Morton, Hendryk Pfeiffer, and Urs Schreiber for useful discussions or correspondence. Some of the early conversation which led to this work took place on the newsgroup sci.physics.research, and I wish to acknowledge those who followed along and participated. Among them, I must single out Eric Forgy as having been particularly enthusiastic and helpful.
[10]{}
J. C. Baez, Spin foam models, [*Class. Quantum Grav. *]{}[**15**]{} (1998), 1827–1858. arXiv:gr-qc/9709052.
J. C. Baez, An introduction to spin foam models of quantum gravity and BF theory, in [*Geometry and Quantum Physics*]{}, eds. Helmut Gausterer and Harald Grosse, Springer, Berlin, 2000. arXiv:gr-qc/9905087.
J. C. Baez and J. P. Muniain, [*Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity*]{}, Series on Knots and Everything – Vol. 4, World Scientific, Singapore, 1994.
J. C. Baez and U. Schreiber, Higher gauge theory: 2-connections on 2-bundles, arXiv:hep-th/0412325.
T. Bartels, Higher gauge theory: 2-bundles, arXiv:math.CT/0410328.
J.-L. Brylinski, [*Loop Spaces, Characteristic Classes and Geometric Quantization*]{}, Birkhauser, 1993.
M. C. Álvarez, [*Loop Quantization versus Fock Quantization of $p$-Form Electromagnetism on Static Spacetimes*]{}, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Riverside, 2004. arXiv:math-ph/0412032.
I. Ciufolini and J. A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation and Inertia*]{}, Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1995.
E. Forgy and U. Schreiber, Discrete differential geometry on causal graphs, July 2004, arXiv:math-ph/0407005.
R. Forman, [Combinatorial differential topology and geometry]{}, in [*New Perspectives in Algebraic Combinatorics*]{}, MSRI Publications, vol. 38, 1999.\
http://www.msri.org/publications/books/Book38/contents.html
R. Geroch, [*Mathematical Physics*]{}, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1985.
M. Grandis and L. Mauri, Cubical sets and their site, [*Theory and Applications of Categories*]{} [**11**]{}, No. 8 (2003), 185-211.\
http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/11/8/11-08abs.html
M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, [*Superstring Theory*]{}, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1987.
M. J. Greenberg and J. R. Harper, [*Algebraic Topology: A First Course*]{}, Revised, Perseus, 1981.
A. Hatcher [*Algebraic Topology*]{}, Cambridge, 2002.\
http://www.math.cornell.edu/$\sim$hatcher/AT/ATpage.html
C. Hog-Angeloni, W. Metzler, and A. Sieradski, [*Two-dimensional Homotopy and Combinatorial Group Theory*]{}, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 197, Cambridge U.Press, Cambridge, 1993.
J. Hudson, [*Piecewise Linear Topology*]{}, W. A.Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts, 1969.
M. Kalb and P. Ramond, Classical direct interstring action, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**9**]{}, No. 8 (1974) 2273-2284.
M. Mackaay and R. Picken, Holonomy and parallel transport for abelian gerbes, arXiv:math.DG/0007053.
S. Mac Lane, [*Categories for the Working Mathematician*]{}, 2 Ed., Springer, 1998.
J. P. May, [*Simplicial Objects in Algebraic Topology*]{}, University of Chicago Press,Ê1992.
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{}, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1973.
I. Montvay and G. Münster, [*Quantum Fields on a Lattice*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
D. Mumford, [*Tata Lectures on Theta I*]{}, Progrss in Mathematics, vol. 28, Birkhäuser, 1982.
H. Pfeiffer, Higher gauge theory and a non-abelian generalization of $p$-form electromagnetism, arXiv:hep-th/0304074.\
F. Girelli and H. Pfeiffer, Higher Gauge Theory — Differential versus integral formulation, arXiv:hep-th/0309173.
M. Reed and B. Simon, [*Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics*]{}, Vol I: [*Functional Analysis*]{}, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Academic Press, London, 1980
C. Rourke and B. Sanderson, [*Introduction to Piecewise-Linear Topology*]{}, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1972.
E. Witten, On quantum gauge theories in two dimensions, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**141**]{} (1991) 153–209.
A. Zee, [*Quantum Field Theory In A Nutshell*]{}, Princeton, 2003.
[^1]: A version with better graphics and some related materials can be obtained at http://math.ucr.edu/$\sim$derek/pform
[^2]: Note that $X_n$ can be empty. Thus an $n$-complex is trivially also an $(n+1)$-complex.
[^3]: In many books, one sees the free electromagnetic Lagrangian written as ${1\over 2}F\wedge\star F$, or in index notation as ${\frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}$, without the coupling constant $(1/e^2)$. This means either that the authors have hidden the coupling constant elsewhere, usually by defining the covariant derivative to be $D_\mu = \partial_\mu - ieA_\mu$, or that they are interested only in the [*classical*]{} theory, where constant multiples of the action have no effect. After quantization, the magnitude of $e$ scales the probability of large vacuum fluctuations.
[^4]: For more on discrete differential geometry, we refer the reader to the papers by Forgy and Schreiber [@FS] and Forman [@Forman], and to additional references which they cite.
[^5]: This equation corresponds to the two nontrivial vacuum Maxwell equations, which say $\nabla \cdot \vec E = 0$ and $\nabla \times \vec B = \frac{\partial \vec E}{\partial t} $. The other two equations come from the tautology $dF=0$, just as with differential forms.
[^6]: There are more sophisticated versions of the Hodge decomposition, such as the usual version on the deRham complex, and the ‘Kodaira decomposition’ for complexes of operators that are only densely defined [@Carrion]. We supply the proof of this simple version here because it is illuminating. Proofs of fancier versions are the same in essential structure, though some nontrivial analysis is involoved.
[^7]: More properly, a cobordism is a diffeomorphism class of such 2-manifolds with boundary.
[^8]: Here we begin a notational practice which we continue throughout this section. Since we will be dealing with multiple complexes, representing both space and spacetime, we denote, for example, $C_k(S,{\mathbb{R}})$ or $C_k(S,U(1))$ by the shorthand $S_k$ rather than $C_k$.
[^9]: In a more general setting, a self-adjoint linear operator is represented by a [*hermitian*]{} matrix, but since in this paper we are concerned with real vector spaces, the adjoint is merely the transpose.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Regenerating codes (RCs) can significantly reduce the repair-bandwidth of distributed storage networks. Initially, the analysis of RCs was based on the assumption that during the repair process, the newcomer does not distinguish (among all surviving nodes) which nodes to access, i.e., the newcomer is oblivious to the set of helpers being used. Such a scheme is termed the [*blind helper selection (BHS)*]{} scheme. Nonetheless, it is intuitive in practice that the newcomer should choose to access only those “good” helpers. In this two-part paper, a new characterization of the effect of choosing the helper nodes in terms of the storage-bandwidth tradeoff is given. Specifically, the answer to the following fundamental question is provided: Under what condition does proactively choosing the helper nodes improve the storage-bandwidth tradeoff?
Through a graph-based analysis, this Part I paper answers this question by providing a necessary and sufficient condition under which optimally choosing good helpers strictly improves the storage-bandwidth tradeoff. A low-complexity helper selection solution, termed the *family helper selection (FHS)* scheme, is proposed and the corresponding storage/repair-bandwidth curve is characterized. This Part I paper also proves that under some design parameters, the FHS scheme is indeed optimal among all helper selection schemes. In the Part II paper, an explicit construction of an exact-repair code is proposed that achieves the minimum-bandwidth-regenerating (MBR) point of the FHS scheme. The new exact-repair code can be viewed as a generalization of the existing *fractional repetition* code.
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: 'When Can Helper Node Selection Improve Regenerating Codes? Part I: Graph-Based Analysis'
---
Distributed storage, regenerating codes, family helper selection schemes, helper nodes, fractional repetition codes, network coding
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
need for storing very large amounts of data reliably is one of the major reasons that has pushed for distributed storage systems. Examples of distributed storage systems include data centers [@ghemawat2003google] and peer-to-peer systems [@rhea2001maintenance; @bhagwan2004total]. One way to protect against data loss is by replication coding, i.e, if a disk in the network fails, it can be replaced and its data can be recovered from a replica disk. Another way is to use maximum distance separable (MDS) codes. Recently, regenerating codes (RCs) [@dimakis2010network] have been proposed to further reduce the repair-bandwidth of MDS codes.
One possible mode of operation is to let the *newcomer*, the node that replaces the failed node, [*always*]{} access/connect to all the remaining nodes. On the other hand, under some practical constraints we may be interested in letting the newcomer communicate with only a subset of the remaining nodes, termed the [*helpers*]{}. For example, reducing the number of helpers decreases I/O overhead during repair and thus mitigates one of the performance bottlenecks in cloud storage systems. In the original storage versus repair-bandwidth analysis of RCs [@dimakis2010network], it is assumed that the newcomer does not distinguish/choose its helpers. We term such a solution the [*blind helper selection (BHS) scheme.*]{} Nonetheless, it is intuitive that the newcomer should choose to access only those “good” helpers of the remaining nodes.
The idea of choosing good helpers in RCs has already been used in constructing exact-repair codes as in [@el2010fractional; @papailiopoulos2012simple] that are capable of outperforming RCs with BHS in [@dimakis2010network] in some instances.[^1] Under the subject of [*locally repairable codes (LRCs)*]{} some additional progress has been done with the goal of minimizing the storage [@gopalan2012locality; @kamath2014codes; @papailiopoulos2012locally]. In the literature of LRCs, helper selection is not blindly decided but is judiciously chosen/fixed (see Section \[sec:comparison\] for an in-depth comparison with these references). We note that there are at least two classes of helper selection schemes:[^2] The [*stationary helper selection (SHS)*]{} schemes, which are more practical and are currently used in all existing literatures [@el2010fractional; @gopalan2012locality; @papailiopoulos2012locally; @kamath2014codes]; and the [*dynamic helper selection*]{} (DHS) schemes, which are the most general form of helper selection.
However, a complete characterization of the effect of choosing the helper nodes in RCs, including SHS and DHS, on the storage-bandwidth tradeoff is still lacking. This motivates the following open questions: Under what condition is it beneficial to proactively choose the helper nodes (including SHS and DHS)? Is it possible to analytically quantify the benefits of choosing the good helpers? Specifically, the answers to the aforementioned fundamental questions were still unknown.
In this paper, we answer the first question by providing a necessary and sufficient condition under which optimally choosing the helpers strictly improves the storage-bandwidth tradeoff. By answering such a fundamental information-theoretic question, our answers will provide a rigorous benchmark/guideline when designing the next-generation smart helper selection solutions.
The main contribution of this work is two-fold. Firstly, we prove that, under a certain condition, even the best optimal helper selection can do no better than the simplest BHS scheme. Using information-theoretic terminology, this answers the [*converse*]{} part of the problem. Secondly, we prove that when those conditions are not satisfied, we can always design a helper selection scheme that strictly outperforms BHS, the [*achievability*]{} part of the problem. For the achievability part, we propose a new low-complexity solution, termed the [*family helper selection (FHS) scheme*]{}, that is guaranteed to harvest the benefits of (careful) helper selection when compared to a BHS solution. We then characterize analytically the storage-bandwidth tradeoff of the FHS scheme and its extension, the family-plus helper selection scheme, and prove that they are *optimal* (as good as any helper selection one can envision) in some cases and [*weakly optimal*]{} in general, see Sections \[sec:achievability\_result\] and \[sec:optimality\_result\]). We also note that even though the purpose of introducing FHS and its extension is to prove the achievability part in theory, the FHS schemes have the same complexity as the existing BHS solution [@dimakis2010network] and demonstrate superior performance for practical system parameters.
In this Part I, we focus exclusively on the graph-based analysis of helper selection. In Part II [@part2], we provide an explicit construction of an exact-repair code that can achieve the minimum-bandwidth-regenerating (MBR) points of the family and family-plus helper selection schemes predicted by the graph-based analysis. The new MBR-point code in Part II is termed the *generalized fractional repetition* code, which can be viewed as a generalization of the existing fractional repetition codes [@el2010fractional].
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:prob\_stat\] motivates the problem and introduces key definitions and notation. Section \[sec:comparison\] compares our setup to existing code setups. Section \[sec:preview\] gives a preview of our main results in this paper. Section \[sec:results\] states the main results of this paper. Section \[sec:converse\] states and proves the converse part of our main results. Section \[sec:achievability\] states and proves the achievability part by proposing the FHS scheme and its extension and analyzing their performance. Section \[sec:conc\] concludes this paper.
Problem Statement {#sec:prob_stat}
=================
The Parameters of a Distributed Storage Network
-----------------------------------------------
[**Parameters $n$ and $k$:**]{} We denote the total number of nodes in a storage network by $n$. For any $1\leq k\leq n-1$, we say that a code can satisfy the reconstruction requirement if any $k$ nodes can be used to reconstruct the original data/file. For example, consider a network of 7 nodes. A $(7,4)$ Hamming code can be used to protect the data. We say that the Hamming code can satisfy the reconstruction requirement for $k=6$. Specifically, any 6 nodes can construct the original file. By the same definition, the Hamming code can also satisfy the reconstruction requirement for $k=5$ and $k=4$, but cannot satisfy the reconstruction requirement for $k=3$. The smallest $k$ of the $(7,4)$ Hamming code is thus $k^*=4$. In general, the value of $k$ is related to the [*desired*]{} protection level of the system while the value of $k^*$ is related to the [*actual*]{} protection level offered by the specific distributed storage code implementation.
For example, suppose the design requirement is $k=6$. We can still opt for using the $(7,4)$ Hamming code to provide the desired level of protection. However, using the $(7,4)$ Hamming code may be an overkill since the $(7,4)$ Hamming code has $k^*=4$ and it is possible to just use a single-parity bit to achieve $k=6$. For any valid code construction, we always have $k\geq k^*$, meaning that the design requirement must be met by the actual protection level. However, for some specific types of construction, it is possible to have $k>k^*$. Also see the subsequent discussion in the next paragraph.
[**Parameter $d$:**]{} We denote the number of nodes that a newcomer can access during repair by $d$. For example, [@dimakis2010network] proposes the concept of RCs that achieves the design goal $(n,k,d)=(10,7,9)$. Specifically, each newcomer can access $d=9$ helpers and any $k=7$ nodes can be used to reconstruct the original file. At the same time, [@dimakis2010network] also provides RCs to achieve the design goal when $(n,k,d)=(10,7,5)$. However, those RCs can be an overkill in this scenario of $(n,k,d)=(10,7,5)$ since any RC construction in [@dimakis2010network] that can achieve $(n,k,d)=(10,7,5)$ can always achieve $k^*= d=5$. As a result, even though the high-level design goal is to only protect against $10-7=3$ failures, the RC in [@dimakis2010network] cannot take advantage of this relatively low protection-level requirement since it always has $k^*\leq d=5$, which is strictly smaller than the design requirement $k=7$.
Note that the above observation does not mean that the system designer should never use the RCs [@dimakis2010network] when the design goal is $(n,k,d)=(10,7,5)$. The reason is that these RCs with BHS have many other advantages that may be very appealing in practice, e.g., some very efficient algebraic code construction methods [@shah2012interference], allowing repair with $n-d$ simultaneous failures, and admitting efficient collaborative repair when more than one node fails [@shum2013cooperative]. The fact that $k^*\leq d$ for any RCs in [@dimakis2010network] simply means that when the requirement is $(n,k,d)=(10,7,5)$, the system designer should be aware that the RCs with BHS in [@dimakis2010network] do not take full advantage of the relatively loose required protection level since we have in this scenario $k>d\geq k^*$.
In this work, we focus on the design target $k$ instead of the actual performance parameter $k^*$, since given the same $k$, the actual $k^*$ value may depend on how we implement the codes. For example, when locally repairable codes [@gopalan2012locality] are used, it is possible to design a system with $k=k^*>d$. However, when RCs are used together with BHS, we may have $k>d\geq k^*$. As we will see later, when RCs are used together with some carefully designed helper selection schemes, we may again achieve $k=k^*>d$. For any given $(n,k,d)$ values, the goal of this paper is to compare the best performance of any possible helper selection scheme that can still satisfy the desired $(n,k,d)$ values regardless whether they offer over-protection ($k> k^*$) or not.
[**The parameter tuple $(n,k,d)$ and other notation:**]{} From the above definitions, the $n$, $k$, and $d$ values must satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
2\leq n,\quad 1\leq k\leq n-1,\quad\text{and}\quad 1\leq d\leq n-1.\label{eq:ccw1}\end{aligned}$$ In all the results in this work, we assume [*implicitly*]{} that the $n$, $k$, and $d$ values satisfy . The overall file size is denoted by $\mathcal{M}$. The storage size for each node is $\alpha$, and during the repair process, the newcomer requests $\beta$ amount of traffic from each of the helpers. The total repair-bandwidth is thus $\gamma\stackrel{\Delta}{=}d\beta$. We use the notation $(\cdot)^+$ to mean $(x)^+=\max(x,0)$. We also define the indicator function as follows $$\begin{aligned}
1_{\{B\}}=
\begin{cases}1, \mbox{ if condition $B$ is true} \\
0, \mbox{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
In this work, we consider exclusively single failure at any given time. The setting of multiple simultaneous failed nodes [@el2010fractional; @shum2013cooperative; @kamath2014codes] is beyond the scope of this work. We consider the multiple failures scenario in a separate work, see [@arxiv_multiple].
Dynamic Versus Stationary Helper Selection Schemes {#sec:hs}
--------------------------------------------------
In general, the helper selection at current time $\tau$ can depend on the history of the failure patterns and the helper choices for all the previous time slots 1 to $(\tau-1)$. We call such a general helper selection scheme [*the dynamic helper selection (DHS)*]{}. Mathematically, the helper set decision at time $\tau$ can be written in function form as $D_\tau(\{F_l\}_{l=1}^{\tau})$ that takes $F_l$, the failed node at time $l$, for all $l=1$ to $\tau$ and returns the set of helpers for the latest newcomer. The function $D_\tau(\cdot)$ can be designed independently for each time slot $\tau=1,2,\cdots$. One can see that the DHS schemes are the most general form of helper selection.
A sub-class of the DHS schemes is the set of *stationary helper selection (SHS)* schemes that assign fixed helper sets of $d$ nodes to each node. The idea is that, for a given node failure, the same helper set is used at any time instant and thus the name stationary. Mathematically, in SHS, each node $i$ is associated with a set of indices $D_i$ where the size of $D_i$ is $d$. Whenever node $i$ fails, the newcomer (for node $i$) simply accesses those helpers $u\in D_i$ and requests $\beta$ amount of data from each helper.
It is not hard to see that SHS is indeed a subset of DHS by observing that any SHS is a DHS with the helper set decision at time $\tau$ being $$\begin{aligned}
D_\tau(\{F_l\}_{l=1}^{\tau})=D_{i}~\text{if $F_\tau=i$}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Also note that while DHS allows different $D_\tau(\cdot)$ for different $\tau$, the helper set collection $\{D_i:\text{all nodes i}\}$ of SHS is fixed.
Our FHS scheme described in Section \[subsec:desc\_fr\] is an example of a SHS scheme. Since our FHS scheme, along with its extension, are sufficient to prove the achievability part of Proposition \[prop:comparison\], we do not have to design a DHS scheme for that purpose. More specifically, we have proved that whenever there exists a DHS scheme that strictly outperforms BHS, there always exists another SHS scheme that strictly outperforms BHS. As a result, at least when considering only single node failure, there is no clear advantage of DHS over SHS. However, for the multiple failures scenario, we have shown in a separate work [@arxiv_multiple] that it is possible to have DHS$\succ$SHS$=$BHS. Specifically, under some scenarios, only DHS can strictly outperform BHS while the best SHS design is no better than the simple BHS solution.
The Information-Flow Graph and the Corresponding Graph-Based Analysis {#subsec:ifg_existing}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As in [@dimakis2010network], the performance of a distributed storage system can be characterized by the concept of information flow graphs (IFGs). IFGs depict the storage in the network and the communication that takes place during repair. For readers who are not familiar with IFGs, we provide its detailed description in Appendix \[app:ifg\].
Intuitively, each IFG reflects one unique history of the failure patterns and the helper selection choices from time $1$ to $(\tau-1)$ [@dimakis2010network]. Consider any given helper selection scheme $A$ which can be either dynamic or stationary. Since there are infinitely many different failure patterns (since we consider $\tau=1$ to $\infty$), there are infinitely many IFGs corresponding to the same given helper selection scheme $A$. We denote the collection of all such IFGs by $\mathcal{G}_A(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$. We define $\mathcal{G}(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)=\bigcup_{\forall A}\mathcal{G}_A(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ as the union over all possible helper selection schemes $A$. We sometimes drop the input argument and use $\mathcal{G}_A$ and $\mathcal{G}$ as shorthands.
Given an IFG $G\in\mathcal{G}$ and a data collector $t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)$, we use $\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)$ to denote the [*minimum cut value*]{} [@west2001introduction] separating $s$, the root node (source node) of $G$, and $t$.
The key reason behind representing the repair problem by an IFG is that it casts the problem as a multicast scenario [@dimakis2010network]. This allows for invoking the results of network coding in [@ahlswede2000network], [@ho2006random]. More specifically, for any helper scheme $A$ and given system parameters $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$, the results in [@ahlswede2000network] prove that the following condition is *necessary* for the RC with helper selection scheme $A$ to satisfy the reliability requirement $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\geq \mathcal{M}. \label{eq:condition}\end{aligned}$$ If we limit our focus to the BHS scheme, then the above necessary condition becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\geq \mathcal{M}.\label{eq:condition-BR}\end{aligned}$$ An important contribution of [@dimakis2010network] is a closed-form expression of the left-hand side (LHS) of $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \min((d-i)^+\beta,\alpha),\label{eq:ex_low_b}\end{aligned}$$ which allows us to numerically check whether is true.
Reference [@wu2010existence] further proves that is not only necessary but also sufficient for the existence of a blind RC with some finite field $\operatorname{GF}(q)$ that satisfies the reliability requirement. Namely, as long as “the right-hand side (RHS) of $\geq \mathcal{M}$" is true, then there exists a RC that meets the system design parameters $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ even for the worst possible helper selection scheme (since we take the minimum over $\mathcal{G}$).
In contrast with the existing results on the BHS scheme, this work focuses on any given helper selection scheme $A$ and we are thus interested in the bandwidth-storage tradeoff specified in instead of . For example, the Minimum Bandwidth Regenerating (MBR) and Minimum Storage Regenerating (MSR) points of a given helper selection scheme $A$ can be defined by
For any given $(n,k,d)$ values, the MBR point $(\alpha_{\text{MBR}}, \beta_{\text{MBR}})$ of a helper scheme $A$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{\text{MBR}}\stackrel{\Delta}{=}\min \{\beta: (\alpha,\beta)\text{ satisfies \eqref{eq:condition} and } \alpha=\infty\}\label{eq:MBR-beta-def}\\
\alpha_{\text{MBR}}\stackrel{\Delta}{=}\min \{\alpha: (\alpha,\beta)\text{ satisfies \eqref{eq:condition} and } \beta=\beta_{\text{MBR}}\}.\label{eq:MBR-alpha-def}\end{aligned}$$
For any given $(n,k,d)$ values, the MSR point $(\alpha_\text{MSR}, \beta_{\text{MSR}})$ of a helper scheme $A$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{\text{MSR}}\stackrel{\Delta}{=}\min \{\alpha: (\alpha,\beta)\text{ satisfies \eqref{eq:condition} and } \beta=\infty\}\label{eq:MSR-def}\\
\beta_{\text{MSR}}\stackrel{\Delta}{=}\min \{\beta: (\alpha,\beta)\text{ satisfies \eqref{eq:condition} and } \alpha=\alpha_{\text{MSR}}\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Specifically, the MBR and MSR are the two extreme ends[^3] of the bandwidth-storage tradeoff curve in .
By comparing and , we note that it is possible mathematically that when focusing on $\mathcal{G}_A$ ($\mathcal{G}_A$ is by definition a strict subset of $\mathcal{G}$) we may have $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)> \min_{G\in \mathcal{G}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t). \label{eq:outperform}\end{aligned}$$ If is true, then the given helper selection scheme $A$ strictly outperforms the BHS solution. Whether (or under what condition) is true is the main focus of this work.
Optimality and Weak Optimality of a Helper Selection Scheme {#sec:optimality}
-----------------------------------------------------------
For future reference, we define the following optimality conditions.
\[def:scheme-optimal\] For any given $(n,k,d)$ value, a helper selection scheme $A$ is *absolutely optimal*, or simply *optimal*, if for any DHS scheme $B$ the following is true $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\geq \min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_B}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for all $(\alpha,\beta)$ combinations. That is, scheme $A$ has the best $(\alpha,\beta)$ tradeoff curve among all DHS schemes and thus allows for the protection of the largest possible file size.
\[def:collection-scheme-optimal\] A class/collection of helper selection schemes $\mathcal{A}=\{A_1,A_2,\cdots\}$ is optimal if for any $(n,k,d)$ values, we can always find one $A\in\mathcal{A}$ such that $A$ is optimal.
By the above definitions, it is thus of significant practical/theoretic interest to find an optimal helper selection scheme $A$ for a given $(n,k,d)$ value, and to characterize the smallest optimal helper scheme class $\mathcal{A}$.
While we have been able to devise an optimal helper selection scheme $A$ for some $(n,k,d)$ combinations, see our results in Section \[sec:results\], the problem of finding a small optimal helper scheme class $\mathcal{A}$ remains unsolved. Instead, we will characterize a small class of helper schemes that is [*weakly optimal:*]{}
\[def:scheme-weakly-optimal\] For any given $(n,k,d)$ value, a helper selection scheme $W$ is *weakly optimal*, if the Boolean statement “there exists a DHS scheme $A$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)> \min_{G\in \mathcal{G}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for some $(\alpha_1,\beta_1)$” implies $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_W}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)> \min_{G\in \mathcal{G}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for some $(\alpha_2,\beta_2)$.
Comparing Definitions \[def:scheme-optimal\] and \[def:scheme-weakly-optimal\], the difference is that the absolute optimality needs to be the best among all DHS schemes, while the weak optimality definition uses the BHS as a baseline and only requires that if the optimal scheme $A^*$ can strictly outperform the BHS scheme, then so can a weakly optimal scheme $W$.
Following the same logic, we can define a weakly optimal collection of helper selection schemes:
\[def:collection-scheme-weakly-optimal\] A class/collection of helper selection schemes $\mathcal{W}=\{W_1,W_2,\cdots\}$ is weakly optimal if for any $(n,k,d)$ value, we can always find one $W\in\mathcal{W}$ such that $W$ is weakly optimal.
From Graph-Based Analysis to Explicit Code Construction
-------------------------------------------------------
This Part I of our work focuses exclusively on the graph-based analysis. As discussed in Section \[subsec:ifg\_existing\], the graph-based analysis only gives a necessary condition (cf. [@dimakis2010network]) while the sufficient condition needs to be proved separately through explicit code construction (cf. [@wu2010existence]). Although the graph-based analysis only gives a necessary condition, in the literature of distributed storage, there is not yet any example in which the min-cut-based characterization is provably not achievable by any finite field, which is an evidence of the power/benefits of graph-based analysis.
To complement the necessary conditions derived by the graph-based min-cut analysis in this Part I, we have proved the following (partial) sufficiency statement in Part II [@part2] of this work.
> For any $(n,k,d)$ value, consider the two helper selection schemes proposed in this work, termed the family and the family plus helper selection schemes. With a sufficiently large finite field, we can explicitly construct an [*exact-repair*]{} code with $(\alpha,\beta)$ equal to the MBR point $(\alpha_{\text{MBR}},\beta_{\text{MBR}})$ computed by the min-cut-based analysis , , and . That is, [*the necessary condition is also sufficient for the MBR point $(\alpha_{\text{MBR}},\beta_{\text{MBR}})$ of the tradeoff curve.*]{}
As will be discussed in Section \[subsec:fhs\_analysis\], the MBR point is the point when good helper selection results in the largest improvement over the BHS scheme. Since our focus is on studying the benefits of helper selection, the above partial statement proved in Part II is sufficient for our discussion.
Comparison with Existing Codes {#sec:comparison}
==============================
Original RC [@dimakis2010network; @wu2009reducing; @rashmi2009explicit; @shah2012interference; @rashmi2011optimal] Locally Repairable Codes [@gopalan2012locality; @papailiopoulos2012locally; @kamath2014codes; @rawat2012optimal; @kamath2013explicit] Dynamic Helper Selection
------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair Mode Functional/Exact-Repair Exact-Repair Functional-Repair
Helper Selection Blind Stationary (Fixed over time) Dynamic (helper choices may depend on failure history)
$(n,k,d)$ range Designed for $k\leq d$. Designed for $k>d$. Allow for arbitrary $(n,k,d)$ values
Contribution Storage/repair-bandwidth tradeoff for the worst possible helper selection Storage/repair-bandwidth characterization for the specific stationary helper selection of the proposed exact-repair local code, which may/may not be optimal First exploration of the storage/repair-bandwidth tradeoff for the optimal dynamic helper selection
\[tab:comparison\]
Recall that RCs are distributed storage codes that minimize the repair-bandwidth (given a storage constraint). In comparison, codes with local repair or (when with all-symbol locality) [*locally repairable codes (LRC)*]{}, recently introduced in [@gopalan2012locality], are codes that minimize the number of helpers participating in the repair of a failed node. LRCs were proposed to address the disk I/O overhead problem that the repair process may entail on a storage network since the number of helpers participating in the repair of a failed node is proportional to the amount of disk I/O needed during repair. Subsequent development has been done on LRCs in [@papailiopoulos2012locally; @kamath2014codes; @rawat2012optimal; @kamath2013explicit].
In Table \[tab:comparison\], we compare the setting of the original RCs, LRCs, and the DHS considered in this work. As first introduced in [@dimakis2010network], original RCs were proposed under the functional-repair scenario, i.e., nodes of the storage network are allowed to store any combination of the original packets as long as the reliability requirement is satisfied. In subsequent works [@wu2009reducing; @rashmi2009explicit; @shah2012interference; @rashmi2011optimal; @cadambe2013asymptotic; @shah2012distributed], RCs were considered under the exact-repair scenario in which nodes have to store the same original packets at any given time. In contrast, LRCs are almost always considered under the exact-repair scenario. However, in this work, for RCs with DHS, we consider functional-repair as the mode of repair as we aim at understanding the absolute benefits/limits of helper selection in RCs. Albeit our setting is under functional-repair, in Part II, we are able to present an explicit construction of exact-repair codes that achieve the optimal or weakly optimal MBR point of the functional-repair.
Table \[tab:comparison\] also compares the three scenarios in terms of the helper selection mechanisms. The original RCs are codes that do not perform helper selection at all, i.e., BHS, while LRCs are codes that can perform SHS only. In this work, we consider the most general setting in which codes are allowed to have DHS.
Moreover, as shown in Table \[tab:comparison\], the $(n,k,d)$ range of operation of each of the three code settings is different. The original RCs were designed for storage networks with large $d$ values, whereas LRCs are designed for small $d$ values. In contrast, this work allows for arbitrary $(n,k,d)$ values and studies the benefits of helper selection under different $(n,k,d)$ values.
The comparison above illustrates the main differences in the setup and contributions between the three scenarios. The original RCs are concerned with the storage/repair-bandwidth tradeoff for the worst possible helper selection. LRCs, on the other hand, are concerned with only data storage (ignoring repair-bandwidth) of the codes when restricting to SHS and exact-repair. Some recent developments [@kamath2014codes; @kamath2013explicit] in LRCs consider using RCs in the construction of the codes therein (as local codes) in an attempt to examine the repair-bandwidth performance of LRCs. This approach, however, is not guaranteed to be optimal in terms of storage/repair-bandwidth tradeoff.
In this work, we present the first exploration of the optimal storage-bandwidth tradeoff for RCs that allow [*dynamic helper selection (DHS)*]{} for arbitrary $(n,k,d)$ values. The closest setting in the existing literature is in [@hollmann2014minimum]. That work finds upper bounds on the file size $\mathcal{M}$ when $\alpha=d\beta$ and $\alpha=\beta$ for functional-repair with DHS. However, [@hollmann2014minimum] considers the case of $k=n-1$ only. Also, it is not clear whether the provided upper bounds for $k=n-1$ are tight or not. A byproduct of the results of this work shows that the upper bounds in [@hollmann2014minimum] are tight in some cases and loose in others, see Corollary \[cor:existing\_loose\] and Propositions \[prop:optimal\_2\] and \[prop:family-plus\_optimal\].
Preview Of The Results {#sec:preview}
======================
In the following, we give a brief preview of our results through concrete examples to illustrate the main contributions of this work. Although we only present here specific examples as a preview, the main results in Section \[sec:results\] are for general $(n,k,d)$ values.
*Result 1:* For $(n,k,d)=(6,3,4)$, RCs with BHS are absolutely optimal, i.e., there exists no RCs with DHS that can outperform BHS.
*Result 2:* For $(n,k,d)=(6,4,4)$, the RCs with the new family helper selection (FHS) scheme proposed in this paper are absolutely optimal in terms of the storage-bandwidth tradeoff among all RCs with DHS, also see Definition \[def:scheme-optimal\]. In Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(6-4-4)\], the storage-bandwidth tradeoff curve of the FHS scheme, the optimal helper selection scheme, is plotted against the BHS scheme with file size $\mathcal{M}=1$. In Part II, we provide an explicit construction of an exact-repair code that can achieve $(\alpha,\gamma)=(\frac{4}{11},\frac{4}{11})$, the MBR point of the storage-bandwidth tradeoff curve of the FHS scheme in Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(6-4-4)\]. If we take a closer look at Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(6-4-4)\], there are 3 corner points on the FHS scheme curve and they are $(\alpha,\gamma)=(0.25,1)$, $(\frac{2}{7},\frac{4}{7})$, and $(\frac{4}{11},\frac{4}{11})$. Since the two corners $(\alpha,\gamma)=(0.25,1)$ and $(\frac{2}{7},\frac{4}{7})$ can be achieved by the scheme in [@wu2010existence] and the new corner point $(\alpha,\gamma)=(\frac{4}{11},\frac{4}{11})$ is proved to be achievable in Part II, we can thus achieve the entire optimal tradeoff curve in Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(6-4-4)\] by space-sharing while no other scheme can do better, as stated in Proposition \[prop:optimal\_main\].[^4]
![Storage-bandwidth tradeoff curves of RCs with BHS versus RCs with the absolutely optimal scheme (FHS) for $(n,k,d)=(6,4,4)$ and file size $\mathcal{M}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:storage_vs_bandwidth_(6-4-4)"}](storage_vs_bandwidth_6-4-4){width="47.50000%"}
*Result 3:* For $(n,k,d)=(5,3,2)$, the proposed FHS scheme again outperforms the BHS scheme, and is provably optimal.[^5] We note that BHS is inherently inefficient in this example since BHS always has $k^*\leq d$ and thus overprotects the data when $d<k$. However, for this particular $(n,k,d)$ combination we do not have any other existing scheme that can be used as a baseline. For that reason, we still compare to BHS in this example for the sake of illustration. Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(5-3-2)\] shows a tradeoff curve comparison between the FHS scheme and the BHS scheme. An interesting phenomenon is that the tradeoff curve of the FHS scheme has only one corner point $(\alpha,\gamma)=(0.5,0.5)$ and we can achieve this point by an exact-repair scheme, see Part II [@part2]. Note that this exact-repair scheme for $(\alpha,\gamma)=(0.5,0.5)$ has the same storage consumption as the MSR point of the original RC ($(\alpha,\gamma)=(0.5,1)$) while using strictly less than the bandwidth of the MBR point of the original RC ($(\alpha,\gamma)=(\frac{2}{3},\frac{2}{3})$). Since the provably optimal FHS scheme has only a single corner point, it means that we can achieve minimum-storage (the MSR point) and minimum-bandwidth (the MBR point) simultaneously.
![Storage-bandwidth tradeoff curves of RCs with BHS versus RCs with the absolutely optimal scheme (FHS) for $(n,k,d)=(5,3,2)$ and file size $\mathcal{M}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:storage_vs_bandwidth_(5-3-2)"}](storage_vs_bandwidth_5-3-2){width="47.50000%"}
*Result 4:* For $(n,k,d)=(20,10,10)$, we do not know what is the absolutely optimal DHS scheme. On the other hand, the FHS scheme again outperforms the BHS scheme. Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(20-10-10)\] shows a tradeoff curve comparison between the FHS scheme and the BHS scheme.
![Storage-bandwidth tradeoff curves of RCs with BHS versus RCs with FHS for $(n,k,d)=(20,10,10)$ and file size $\mathcal{M}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:storage_vs_bandwidth_(20-10-10)"}](storage_vs_bandwidth_20-10-10){width="47.50000%"}
*Result 5:* For $(n,d)=(60,10)$, we do not know what is the absolutely optimal DHS scheme. However, in Fig. \[fig:k\_vs\_gamma\_(60-10)\], we plot a $k$ versus repair-bandwidth curve to compare the BHS scheme to the FHS scheme while restricting to the MBR point. Examining Fig. \[fig:k\_vs\_gamma\_(60-10)\], we can see that the BHS scheme performs poorly compared to FHS as $k$ grows larger. When $k=d=10$, the FHS scheme only uses $73.33\%$ of the bandwidth of the BHS scheme.
![The $k$ value versus repair-bandwidth $\gamma$ curve comparison at the MBR point for $(n,d)=(60,10)$ and file size $\mathcal{M}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:k_vs_gamma_(60-10)"}](k_vs_gamma_60-10){width="47.50000%"}
*Result 6:* Although the main focus of this work is to investigate the benefits of helper selection, a byproduct of our results is a new explicit construction of exact-repair codes for arbitrary $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ values satisfying $\alpha=d\beta$. This code construction is presented in Part II of this work. Numerically, the proposed codes demonstrate good performance in all $(n,k,d)$ cases. Analytically, it achieves the absolutely optimal MBR points, among all DHS schemes, for all $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ values satisfying (i) $n\neq 5$, $k=n-1$, and $d=2$; (ii) $n$ is even, $k=n-1$, and $d=3$; (iii) $n\notin \{7,9\}$, $k=n-1$, and $d=4$; (iv) $n$ is even, $n\notin \{8,14\}$, $k=n-1$, and $d=5$; and (v) $n\notin \{10,11,13\}$, $k=n-1$, and $d=6$. This result is the combination of Proposition \[prop:family-plus\_optimal\] and the explicit code construction in Part II.
The Main Results {#sec:results}
================
The main result in this paper is the answer to the question “When is it beneficial to choose the good helpers?”. This is stated as a necessary and sufficient condition in the following proposition.
\[prop:comparison\] (*The converse:*) If at least one of the following two conditions is true: (i) $d=1$, $k=3$, and $n$ is odd; and (ii) $k\leq \left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$, then BHS is absolutely optimal, see Definition \[def:scheme-optimal\]. That is, even the best DHS scheme has identical performance to the BHS.
(*The achievability:*) For any $(n,k,d)$ values that satisfy neither (i) nor (ii), there exists a DHS scheme and a pair of $(\alpha,\beta)$ values such that we can protect a file of size strictly larger than that of BHS.
The converse and the achievability of the above proposition are formally stated and proved in Sections \[sec:converse\] and \[sec:achievability\], respectively. The converse is proved by a new min-cut based analysis. The achievability is proved by analyzing a new scheme termed the family helper selection (FHS) scheme, along with its extension, described in Sections \[subsec:desc\_fr\] and \[sec:family-plus\].
We have two other major results that state the optimality of our new FHS schemes.
\[prop:optimal\_main\] For any $(n,k,d)$ values satisfying simultaneously the following three conditions (i) $d$ is even, (ii) $n=d+2$, and (iii) $k=\frac{n}{2}+1$; the FHS scheme is absolutely optimal.
\[prop:optimal\_2\_main\] For any $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ values satisfying simultaneously the following two conditions (i) $k=n-1$, (ii) we can rewrite $n=\sum_{b=1}^B n_b$ for positive integers $n_b$ satisfying $n_b\bmod(n_b-d)=0$ for all $b=1,\cdots, B$, the extension of the proposed FHS scheme, see Section \[sec:family-plus\], achieves the minimum repair bandwidth among all DHS schemes. More explicitly, our proposed scheme has the $(\alpha,\beta)$ value satisfying $\beta=\min_{\text{all possible codes }} \beta_{\text{MBR}}$.
Propositions \[prop:optimal\_main\] and \[prop:optimal\_2\_main\] will be restated and proved in Propositions \[prop:optimal\] and \[prop:optimal\_2\], respectively, in Section \[sec:achievability\].
The Converse {#sec:converse}
============
Before proving the converse result, we introduce the following definition and lemma.
\[def:m\_set\] A set of $m$ active storage nodes (input-output pairs) of an IFG is called an $m$-set if the following conditions are satisfied simultaneously. (i) Each of the $m$ active nodes has been repaired at least once; and (ii) jointly the $m$ nodes satisfy the following property: consider any two distinct active nodes $x$ and $y$ in the $m$-set and, without loss of generality, assume that $x$ was repaired before $y$. Then there exists an edge in the IFG that connects $x_\text{out}$ and $y_\text{in}$.
\[lem:set\] Fix a helper selection scheme $A$. Consider an arbitrary $G\in \mathcal{G}_A(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ such that each active node in $G$ has been repaired at least once. Then there exists a $\left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$-set in $G$.
We prove this lemma by proving the following stronger claim: Consider any integer value $m\geq 1$. There exists an $m$-set in every group of $(m-1)(n-d)+1$ active nodes that have been repaired at least once in the past. Since the $G$ we consider has $n$ active nodes and each of them has been repaired at least once, the above claim implies that $G$ must contain a $\left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$-set.
We prove this claim by induction on the value of $m$. When $m=1$, by the definition of the $m$-set, any group of 1 active node in $G$ forms a 1-set. The claim thus holds naturally.
Suppose the claim is true for all $m<m_0$, we now claim that in every group of $(m_0-1)(n-d)+1$ active nodes of $G$ there exists an $m_0$-set. The reason is as follows. Given an arbitrary, but fixed group of $(m_0-1)(n-d)+1$ active nodes, we use $y$ to denote the youngest active node in this group (the one which was repaired last). Obviously, there are $(m_0-1)(n-d)$ active nodes in this group other than $y$. On the other hand, since any newcomer accesses $d$ helpers out of $n-1$ surviving nodes during its repair, node $y$ was able to “avoid” connecting to at most $(n-1)-d$ surviving nodes (the remaining active nodes). Therefore, out of the remaining $(m_0-1)(n-d)$ active nodes in this group, node $y$ must be connected to at least $(m_0-1)(n-d)-(n-1-d)=(m_0-2)(n-d)+1$ of them. By induction, among those $\geq (m_0-2)(n-d)+1$ nodes, there exists an $(m_0-1)$-set. Since, by our construction, $y$ is connected to [*all*]{} nodes in this $(m_0-1)$-set, node $y$ and this $(m_0-1)$-set jointly form an $m_0$-set. The proof of this claim is complete and hence the proof of Lemma \[lem:set\].
In the following proposition, we restate the converse part of Proposition \[prop:comparison\] and prove it.
\[prop:converse\] If at least one of the following two conditions is true: (i) $d=1$, $k=3$, and $n$ is odd; and (ii) $k\leq \left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$, then for any arbitrary DHS scheme $A$ and any arbitrary $(\alpha,\beta)$ values, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:neg}
\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G) } \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\min ((d-i)^+\beta,\alpha),\end{aligned}$$ that is, BHS is absolutely optimal.
Assume condition (ii) holds and consider an IFG $G\in \mathcal{G}_A$ in which every active node has been repaired at least once. By Lemma \[lem:set\], there exists a $\left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d} \right\rceil$-set in $G$. Since condition (ii) holds, we can consider a data collector of $G$ that connects to $k$ nodes out of this $\left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d} \right\rceil$-set. Call this data collector $t$. If we focus on the edge cut that separates source $s$ and the $k$ node pairs connected to $t$, one can use the same analysis as in [@dimakis2010network Lemma 2] and derive “$\operatorname{mincut}(s,t)\leq \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\min ((d-i)^+\beta,\alpha)$” for the given $G\in G_A$ and the specific choice of $t$. By further taking the minimum over all $t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)$ and all $G\in \mathcal{G}_A$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:worse_br}
\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G) } \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\leq \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\min((d-i)^+\beta,\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, since by definition $\mathcal{G}_A\subseteq \mathcal{G}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G) } \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\geq \min_{G\in\mathcal{G}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G) } \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t). \label{eq:new2_better}\end{aligned}$$ Then by , , and , we have proved that whenever condition (ii) holds, the equality is true.
Now, assume condition (i) holds. We first state the following claim and use it to prove .
\[clm:vertex-cut\] For any given DHS scheme $A$ and the corresponding collection of IFGs $\mathcal{G}_A$, we can always find a $G^*\in \mathcal{G}_A$ that has a set of 3 active nodes, denoted by $x$, $y$, and $z$, such that the following three properties hold simultaneously: (a) $x$ is repaired before $y$ and $y$ is repaired before $z$; (b) $(x_\text{out},y_\text{in})$ is an edge in $G^*$; and (c) either $(x_\text{out}, z_\text{in})$ is an edge in $G^*$ or $(y_\text{out},z_\text{in})$ is an edge in $G^*$.
Suppose the above claim is true. We let $t^*$ denote the data collector that is connected to $\{x,y,z\}$. By properties (a) to (c) we can see that node $x$ is a vertex-cut separating source $s$ and the data collector $t^*$. The min-cut value separating $s$ and $t^*$ thus satisfies $\operatorname{mincut}_{G^*}(s,t^*)\leq\min(d\beta,\alpha)=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\min((d-i)^+\beta,\alpha)$, where the inequality follows from $x$ being a vertex-cut separating $s$ and $t^*$ and the equality follows from that condition (i) being true implies $d=1$ and $k=3$. By the same arguments as used in proving the case of condition (ii), we thus have when condition (i) holds.
We prove Claim \[clm:vertex-cut\] by explicit construction. Start from any $G\in \mathcal{G}_A$ with all $n$ nodes having been repaired at least once. We choose one arbitrary active node in $G$ and denote it by $w^{(1)}$. We let $w^{(1)}$ fail and denote the newcomer that replaces $w^{(1)}$ by $y^{(1)}$. The helper selection scheme $A$ will choose a helper node (since $d=1$) and we denote that helper node as $x^{(1)}$. The new IFG after this failure and repair process is denoted by $G^{(1)}$. By our construction $x^{(1)}$, as an existing active node, is repaired before the newcomer $y^{(1)}$ and there is an edge $(x^{(1)}_\text{out},y^{(1)}_\text{in})$ in $G^{(1)}$.
Starting now from $G^{(1)}$, we choose another $w^{(2)}$ which is not one of $x^{(1)}$ and $y^{(1)}$ and let this node fail. Such $w^{(2)}$ always exists since $n$ is odd by condition (i). We use $y^{(2)}$ to denote the newcomer that replaces $w^{(2)}$. The helper selection scheme $A$ will again choose a helper node based on the history of the failure pattern. We denote the new IFG (after the helper selection chosen by scheme $A$) as $G^{(2)}$. If the helper node of $y^{(2)}$ is $x^{(1)}$, then the three nodes $(x^{(1)},y^{(1)}, y^{(2)})$ are the $(x,y,z)$ nodes satisfying properties (a), (b) and the first half of (c). If the helper node of $y^{(2)}$ is $y^{(1)}$, then the three nodes $(x^{(1)},y^{(1)}, y^{(2)})$ are the $(x,y,z)$ nodes satisfying properties (a), (b) and the second half of (c). In both cases, we can stop our construction and let $G^*=G^{(2)}$ and we say that the construction is complete in the second round.
Suppose neither of the above two is true, i.e., the helper of $y^{(2)}$ is neither $x^{(1)}$ nor $y^{(1)}$. Then, we denote the helper of $y^{(2)}$ by $x^{(2)}$. Note that after this step, $G^{(2)}$ contains two disjoint pairs of active nodes such that there is an edge $(x^{(m)}_\text{out}, y^{(m)}_\text{in})$ in $G^{(2)}$ for $m=1,2$.
We can repeat this process for the third time by failing a node $w^{(3)}$ that is none of $\{x^{(m)},y^{(m)}:\forall m=1,2\}$. We can always find such a node $w^{(3)}$ since $n$ is odd when condition (i) holds. Again, let $y^{(3)}$ denote the newcomer that replaces $w^{(3)}$ and the scheme $A$ will choose a helper for $y^{(3)}$. The new IFG after this failure and repair process is denoted by $G^{(3)}$. If the helper of $y^{(3)}$ is $x^{(m)}$ for some $m=1,2$, then the three nodes $(x^{(m)},y^{(m)}, y^{(3)})$ are the $(x,y,z)$ nodes satisfying properties (a), (b) and the first half of (c). If the helper node of $y^{(3)}$ is $y^{(m)}$ for some $m=1,2$, then the three nodes $(x^{(m)},y^{(m)}, y^{(3)})$ are the $(x,y,z)$ nodes satisfying properties (a), (b) and the second half of (c). In both cases, we can stop our construction and let $G^*=G^{(3)}$ and we say that the construction is complete in the third round. If neither of the above two is true, then we denote the helper of $y^{(3)}$ by $x^{(3)}$, and repeat this process for the fourth time and so on.
We now observe that since $n$ is odd, if the construction is not complete in the $m_0$-th round, we can always start the $(m_0+1)$-th round since we can always find a node $w^{(m_0+1)}$ that is none of $\{x^{(m)},y^{(m)}:\forall m=1,2,\cdots, m_0\}$. On the other hand, we cannot repeat this process indefinitely since we only have a finite number of $n$ active nodes in the network. Therefore, the construction must be complete in the $\tilde{m}$-th round for some finite $\tilde{m}$. If the helper of $y^{(\tilde{m})}$ is $x^{(m)}$ for some $m=1,2,\cdots \tilde{m}-1$, then the three nodes $(x^{(m)},y^{(m)}, y^{(\tilde{m})})$ are the $(x,y,z)$ nodes satisfying properties (a), (b) and the first half of (c). If the helper node of $y^{(\tilde{m})}$ is $y^{(m)}$ for some $m=1,2,\cdots, \tilde{m}-1$, then the three nodes $(x^{(m)},y^{(m)}, y^{(\tilde{m})})$ are the $(x,y,z)$ nodes satisfying properties (a), (b) and the second half of (c). Let $G^*=G^{(\tilde{m})}$ denote the final IFG. The explicit construction of $G^*$ and the corresponding $(x,y,z)$ nodes is thus complete.
To illustrate Proposition \[prop:converse\], consider $(n,k,d)=(6,3,4)$. We have that $k=3\leq \left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil=3$, i.e., condition (ii) of Proposition \[prop:converse\] is satisfied, implying Result 1 in Section \[sec:preview\] that BHS is absolutely optimal.
The Achievability {#sec:achievability}
=================
In this section, we restate the achievability result of Proposition \[prop:comparison\] and prove it. Before we do that, we first describe and analyze our low-complexity schemes, the family and the family-plus helper selection schemes, that will be used later to prove the achievability.
The Family Helper Selection Scheme and Its Notation {#subsec:desc_fr}
---------------------------------------------------
{width="7.1in"}
[**The description of the family helper selection (FHS) scheme:**]{} We propose a new helper selection scheme, which is termed the *family helper selection (FHS) scheme* and is a sub-class of SHS schemes. To describe the FHS scheme, we first arbitrarily sort all storage nodes and denote them by $1$ to $n$. We then define a [*complete family*]{} as a group of $(n-d)$ physical nodes. The first $(n-d)$ nodes are grouped as the first complete family and the second $(n-d)$ nodes are grouped as the second complete family and so on. In total, there are $\left\lfloor \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor$ complete families. The remaining $n\bmod(n-d)$ nodes are grouped as an [*incomplete family*]{}. The helper set $D_i$ of any node $i$ in a complete family contains all the nodes [*not*]{} in the same family of node $i$. That is, a newcomer only seeks help from [*outside*]{} its family. The intuition is that we would like each family to preserve as much information (or equivalently as diverse information) as possible. To that end, we design the helper selection sets such that each newcomer refrains from requesting help from its own family. For any node in the incomplete family,[^6] we set the corresponding $D_i=\{1,\cdots, d\}$. The description of the FHS scheme is complete.
For example, suppose that $(n,d)=(8,5)$. There are $2$ complete families, $\{1,2,3\}$ and $\{4,5,6\}$, and $1$ incomplete family, $\{7,8\}$. See Fig. \[fig:fhs\] for illustration. The FHS scheme for this example is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:fhs\]. Let us say node $4$ fails. The corresponding newcomer will access nodes $\{1,2,3,7,8\}$ for repair since nodes 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 are outside the family of node 4. If node $7$ (a member of the incomplete family) fails, then the newcomer will access nodes $1$ to $5$ for repair.
[**Notation that is useful when analyzing the FHS scheme:**]{} The above description of the FHS is quite simple. On the other hand, to facilitate further analysis, we need the following notation as well. By the above definitions, we have in total $\left\lceil\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$ number of families, which are indexed from $1$ to $\left\lceil\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$. However, since the incomplete family has different properties from the complete families, we replace the index of the incomplete family with $0$. Therefore, the family indices become from $1$ to $c\stackrel{\Delta}{=}\left\lfloor\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor$ and then $0$, where $c$ is the index of the last Complete family. If there is no incomplete family, we simply omit the index $0$. Moreover, by our construction, any member of the incomplete family has $D_i=\{1,\cdots, d\}$. That is, it will request help from [*all*]{} the members of the first $(c-1)$ complete families, [*but only from*]{} the first $d-(n-d) (c-1)=n\bmod(n-d)$ members of the last complete family. Among the $(n-d)$ members in the last complete family, we thus need to distinguish those members who will be helpers for incomplete family members, and those who will not. Therefore, [*we add a negative sign to the family indices of those who will “not” be helpers for the incomplete family.*]{}
From the above discussion, we can now list the family indices of the $n$ nodes as an $n$-dimensional [*family index vector*]{}. Consider the same example as above where $(n,d)=(8,5)$. There are two complete families, nodes 1 to 3 and nodes 4 to 6. Nodes 7 and 8 belong to the incomplete family and thus have family index 0. The third member of the second complete family, node $6$, is not a helper for the incomplete family members, nodes $7$ and $8$, since $D_7=D_8=\{1,\cdots, d\}=\{1,2,\cdots, 5\}$. Therefore, we replace the family index of node 6 by $-2$. In sum, the [*family index vector*]{} of this $(n,d)=(8,5)$ example becomes $(1,1,1,2,2,-2, 0,0)$. Mathematically, we can write the family index vector as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\overbrace{1,\cdots, 1}^{n-d}, \right. \overbrace{2,\cdots, 2}^{n-d}&, \cdots, \overbrace{ c, \cdots, c}^{ n\bmod(n-d)},\nonumber\\
&\left.\overbrace{ -c, \cdots, -c}^{n-d-(n\bmod(n-d))} , \overbrace{0,\cdots, 0}^{n\bmod (n-d)}\right).\label{eq:ccw5}\end{aligned}$$
A [*family index permutation*]{} is a permutation of the family index vector defined in , which we denote by $\pi_f$. Continuing from the previous example, one instance of family index permutations is $\pi_f=(1,1,0,2,0,-2,1,2)$. A *rotating family index permutation (RFIP)* $\pi_f^*$ is a special family index permutation that puts the family indices of in an $(n-d)\times \left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$ table column-by-column and then reads it row-by-row. Fig. \[fig:rfip\] illustrates the construction of the RFIP for $(n,d)=(8,5)$. The input is the family index vector $(1,1,1,2,2,-2,0,0)$ and the output is the RFIP $\pi_f^*=(1,2,0, 1,2,0,1,-2)$.
![The construction of the RFIP for $(n,d)=(8,5)$.[]{data-label="fig:rfip"}](rfip){width="47.50000%"}
Analysis of the Family Helper Selection Scheme {#subsec:fhs_analysis}
----------------------------------------------
We analyze in this section the performance of the FHS scheme. Recall that FHS is a special example of the SHS. In the following, we first provide a lower bound on the performance of any given SHS scheme that will later be used in the analysis of FHS.
\[prop:low\_b\_gen\] Consider any SHS scheme $A$ and denote its collection of helper sets by $\{D_1,D_2,\dots,D_n\}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}(s,t)\geq \min_{\mathbf{r}\in R}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha) \label{eq:low_b_gen},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{r}$ is a $k$-dimensional integer-valued vector, $R=\{(r_1,r_2,\cdots,r_k):\forall i \in\{1,\cdots,k\}, 1\leq r_i\leq n\}$, and $z_i(\cdot)$ is a function $z_i:\{1,\cdots, n\}^k\mapsto \mathbb{N}$ defined as $z_i(\mathbf{r})=|\{a\in D_{r_i}:\exists j<i, a=r_j\}|$, where $\mathbb{N}$ is the set of all positive integers and $D_{r_i}$ is the helper set of node $r_i$. For example, suppose $n=6$, $k=4$, $D_3=\{1,4\}$, and $\mathbf{r}=(1,2,1,3)$, then we have $r_4=3$ and $z_4(\mathbf{r})=|\{a\in D_3:\exists j<4, a=r_j\}|= 1$.
The proof of Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_gen\] is relegated to Appendix \[app:low\_b\_gen\].
Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_gen\] above establishes a lower bound on the cut capacity of any SHS scheme. Therefore, when designing any SHS scheme, one simply needs to choose $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ values and the helper sets $D_i$ so that the RHS of is no less than the file size $\mathcal{M}$. However, since we do not have equality in , the above construction is sufficient but not necessary. That is, we may be able to use smaller $\alpha$ and $\beta$ values while still guaranteeing that the resulting regenerating code with the given SHS meets the reliability requirement.
When we focus on the FHS scheme introduced in Section \[subsec:desc\_fr\], a special SHS scheme, the inequality can be further sharpened to the following equality.
\[prop:low\_b\] Consider any given FHS scheme $F$ with the corresponding IFGs denoted by $\mathcal{G}_F(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_F} \min_{t\in\operatorname{DC}(G)}&\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t) = \nonumber\\
&\min_{\forall \pi_f} \sum_{i=1}^{k}\min \left(\left(d-y_i(\pi_f)\right)\beta,\alpha\right),\label{eq:low_b}\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi_f$ can be any family index permutation and $y_i(\pi_f)$ is computed as follows. If the $i$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ is $0$, then $y_i(\pi_f)$ returns the number of $j$ satisfying both (i) $j<i$ and (ii) the $j$-th coordinate $>0$. If the $i$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ is not $0$, then $y_i(\pi_f)$ returns the number of $j$ satisfying both (i) $j<i$ and (ii) the absolute value of the $j$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ and the absolute value of the $i$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ are different. For example, if $\pi_f=(1,2,-2,1,0,0,1,2)$, then $y_6(\pi_f)= 3$ and $y_8(\pi_f)= 5$.
The proof of Proposition \[prop:low\_b\] is relegated to Appendix \[app:low\_b\_proof\].
In general, the minimum cut of an IFG may exist in the interior of the graph. When computing the min-cut value in the LHS of , we generally need to exhaustively consider all possible cuts for any $G\in {\mathcal{G}}_A$, which is why we have to choose $\mathbf{r}\in R$ in that allows for repeated values in the coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ and we can only prove the inequality (lower bound) in .
Recall that the family index permutation $\pi_f$ is based on the family index vector of all “currently active nodes.” Proposition \[prop:low\_b\] thus implies that when focusing on the FHS scheme $F$, we can reduce the search scope and consider only those cuts that directly separate $k$ currently active nodes from the rest of the IFG (see ). This allows us to compute the corresponding min-cut value with equality.
Combining Proposition \[prop:low\_b\] and , we can derive the new storage-bandwidth tradeoff ($\alpha$ vs. $\beta$) for the FHS scheme. For example, Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(20-10-10)\] plots $\alpha$ versus $\gamma\stackrel{\Delta}{=}d\beta$ for the $(n,k,d)$ values $(20,10,10)$ with file size $\mathcal{M}=1$. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(20-10-10)\], the MBR point (the smallest $\gamma$ value) of the FHS scheme uses only $73.33\%$ (a ratio of $\frac{11}{15}$) of the repair-bandwidth of the MBR point of the BHS scheme ($\gamma_{\operatorname{MBR}}=\frac{2}{15}$ vs. $\frac{2}{11}$). It turns out that for any $(n,k,d)$ values, the biggest improvement of FHS over BHS always happens at the MBR point.[^7] The intuition is that choosing the good helpers is most beneficial when the per-node storage $\alpha$ is no longer a bottleneck (thus the MBR point).
The RHS of involves taking the minimum over a set of $\mathcal{O}\left(\left(\frac{n}{n-d}\right)^k\right)$ entries. As a result, computing the entire storage-bandwidth tradeoff is of complexity $\mathcal{O}\left(\left(\frac{n}{n-d}\right)^k\right)$. The following proposition shows that if we are interested in the most beneficial point, the MBR point, then we can compute the corresponding $\alpha$ and $\beta$ values in polynomial time.
\[prop:mbr\] For the MBR point of , i.e., when $\alpha$ is sufficiently large, the minimizing family index permutation is the RFIP $\pi_f^*$ defined in Section \[subsec:desc\_fr\]. That is, the $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ values of the MBR point can be computed by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma}
\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}}=\gamma_{\operatorname{MBR}}=d\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}=\frac{d\mathcal{M}}{\sum_{i=1}^{k} (d-y_i(\pi_f^*)) }.\end{aligned}$$
The proof of Proposition \[prop:mbr\] is relegated to Appendix \[app:mbr\_proof\].
Using Proposition \[prop:mbr\] above, we can find the MBR point of the FHS tradeoff curve in Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(20-10-10)\]. This is done by first finding the RFIP $\pi_f^*=(1,2,1,2,\dots,1,2)$, and then finding ${\sum_{i=1}^{k} (d-y_i(\pi_f^*))}=75$. Recall that $\mathcal{M}$ is assumed to be 1 in Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(20-10-10)\]. Using , we thus get that $\gamma_{\operatorname{MBR}}=\frac{2}{15}$.
Unfortunately, we do not have a general formula for the least beneficial point, the MSR point, of the FHS scheme. Our best knowledge for computing the MSR point is the following
\[prop:msr\] For arbitrary $(n,k,d)$ values, the minimum-storage of is $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}= \frac{\mathcal{M}}{\min(d,k)}$. If the $(n,k,d)$ values also satisfy $d\geq k$, then the corresponding $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k(d-k+1)}$. If $d<k$, then the corresponding $\beta_{\text{MSR}}$ can be upper bounded by $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}\leq \frac{\mathcal{M}}{d}$.
The proof of Proposition \[prop:msr\] is relegated to Appendix \[app:msr\_proof\].
By Proposition \[prop:msr\], we can quickly compute $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}$ and $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}$ when $d\geq k$. If $d<k$, then we still have $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{\min(d,k)}$ but we do not know how to compute the exact value of $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}$ other than directly applying the formula in Proposition \[prop:low\_b\].
If we compare the expressions of Proposition \[prop:msr\] and the MSR point of the BHS scheme[^8], Proposition \[prop:msr\] implies that the FHS scheme does not do better than the BHS scheme at the MSR point when $d\geq k$. However, it is still possible that the FHS scheme can do better than the BHS scheme at the MSR point when $d<k$. One such example is the example we considered in Section \[sec:preview\] when $(n,k,d)=(5,3,2)$. For this example, we have $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{2}$, $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{4}$, and $\gamma_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{2}$ for the FHS scheme where $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{4}$ is derived by searching over all family index permutations $\pi_f$ in . For comparison, the BHS scheme has $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{2}$, $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{2}$, and $\gamma_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\mathcal{M}$. This shows that the FHS scheme can indeed do better at the MSR point when $d<k$ in terms of the repair-bandwidth although we do not have a closed-form expression for this case.
The Family-plus Helper Selection Scheme {#sec:family-plus}
---------------------------------------
In the FHS scheme, there are $\left\lfloor\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor$ complete families and $1$ incomplete family (if $n\bmod (n-d)\neq 0$). For the scenario in which the $n$ and $d$ values are comparable, we have many complete families and the FHS solution harvests almost all of the benefits of choosing good helpers, also see Proposition \[prop:optimal\_main\] for the case of $n=d+2$. However, when $n$ is large but $d$ is small, we have only one complete family and one incomplete family. Therefore, even though the FHS scheme can still outperform the BHS scheme, the performance of the FHS scheme is far from optimal due to having only $1$ complete family. In this section, we propose the [*family-plus helper selection*]{} scheme that further improves the storage-bandwidth tradeoff when $n$ is large but $d$ is small.
The main idea is as follows. We first partition the $n$ nodes into several disjoint groups of $2d$ nodes and one disjoint group of $n_{\text{remain}}$ nodes. The first type of groups is termed the regular group while the second group is termed the remaining group. If we have to have one remaining group (when $n\bmod (2d)\neq 0$), then we enforce the size of the remaining group to be as small as possible but still satisfying $n_\text{remain}\geq 2d+1$. For example, if $d=2$ and $n=8$, then we will have 2 regular groups and no remaining group since $n\bmod (2d)=0$. If $d=2$ and $n=9$, then we choose $1$ regular group $\{1,2,3,4\}$ and $1$ remaining group $\{5,6,7,8,9\}$ since we need to enforce $n_\text{remain}\geq 2d+1$.
After the partitioning, we apply the FHS scheme to the individual groups. For example, if $d=2$ and $n=8$, then we have two regular groups $\{1,2,3,4\}$ and $\{5,6,7,8\}$. Applying the FHS scheme to the first group means that nodes $1$ and $2$ form a family and nodes $3$ and $4$ form another family. Whenever node $1$ fails, it will access helpers from outside its family, which means that it will access nodes $3$ and $4$. Node $1$ will never request help from any of nodes $5$ to $8$ as these nodes are not in the same group as node $1$. Similarly, we apply the FHS scheme to the second group $\{5,6,7,8\}$. All the FHS operations are always performed within the same group.
Another example is when $d=2$ and $n=9$. In this case, we have 1 regular group $\{1,2,3,4\}$ and 1 remaining group $\{5,6,7,8,9\}$. In the remaining group, $\{5,6,7\}$ will form a complete family and $\{8,9\}$ will form an incomplete family. If node 6 fails, it will request help from both nodes 8 and 9. If node 9 fails, it will request help from nodes $\{5,6\}$, the first $d=2$ nodes of this group. Again, all the repair operations for nodes 5 to 9 are completely separated from the operations of nodes 1 to 4. The above scheme is termed the *family-plus helper selection scheme*.
One can easily see that when $n\leq 2d$, there is only one group and the family-plus helper selection scheme collapses to the FHS scheme. When $n>2d$, there are approximately $\frac{n}{2d}$ regular groups, each of which contains two complete families. Therefore, the construction of the family-plus helper selection scheme ensures that there are many complete families even for the scenario of $n\gg d$.
Analysis of the Family-plus Scheme
----------------------------------
In the following proposition, we characterize the performance of the family-plus helper selection scheme.
\[prop:low\_b\_plus\] Consider any given $(n,k,d)$ values and the family-plus helper selection scheme $F^+$. Suppose we have $B$ groups in total (including both regular and remaining groups) and each group has $n_b$ number of nodes for $b=1$ to $B$. Specifically, if the $b$-th group is a regular group, then $n_b=2d$. If the $b$-th group is a remaining group (when $n\bmod (2d)\neq 0$), then $n_b=n-2d(B-1)$. We use ${\mathcal{G}}_{F^+}(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ to denote the collection of IFGs generated by the family-plus helper selection scheme. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:low_b_plus}
\min_{G\in{\mathcal{G}_{F^+}}} &\min_{t\in\operatorname{DC}(G)} \operatorname{mincut}(s,t) = \nonumber \\
& \min_{\mathbf{k}\in K} \sum_{b=1}^{B} \min_{H_b\in {\mathcal{G}_F}(n_b, k_b,d,\alpha,\beta)} \min_{t_b\in \operatorname{DC}(H_b)} \operatorname{mincut}_{H_b}(s, t_b),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{k}$ is a $B$-dimensional integer-valued vector, $K=\{(k_1,k_2,\cdots, k_B): \forall b\in\{1,\cdots, B\}, 0\leq k_b\leq n_b, \sum_{b=1}^{B}k_b=k\}$. Note that for any given $\bf{k}$, the RHS of can be evaluated by Proposition \[prop:low\_b\].
Observe that any IFG $G\in{\mathcal{G}_{F^+}}$ is a union of $B$ parallel IFGs that are in ${\mathcal{G}_F}(n_b,\cdot,d,r,\alpha,\beta)$ where “$\cdot$” means that we temporarily ignore the placement of the data collectors. For any data collector $t$ in $G_{F^+}$, we use $k_b$ to denote the number of active nodes that $t$ accesses in group $b$. Therefore, the $\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)$ is simply the summation of the $\operatorname{mincut}_{H_b}(s,t_b)$ for all $b\in \{1,\cdots, B\}$ where $t_b$ corresponds to the “sub-data-collector” of group $b$ and $H_b$ is the $b$-th parallel IFG. Since we run the original FHS scheme in each of the $b$-th group, $H_b$ is a member of $\mathcal{G}_F(n_b,k_b,d,\alpha,\beta)$. By further minimizing over all possible data collectors $t$ (thus minimizing over $\{k_b\}$), we get .
To evaluate the RHS of , we have to try all possible $\mathbf{k}$ vectors and for each $\mathbf{k}$, we need to evaluate each of the $B$ summands by Proposition \[prop:low\_b\], which requires checking all $n_b!$ different family index permutations. Fortunately, for the MBR point of the family-plus helper selection scheme, we can further simplify the computation complexity following similar arguments as used in Proposition \[prop:mbr\].
\[cor:mbr\_plus\] The MBR point of the family-plus helper selection scheme is $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}}=\gamma_{\operatorname{MBR}}=d\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}$ can be computed by solving the following equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma_plus}
\Bigg(&1_{\{n\bmod(2d)\neq 0\}}\cdot \sum_{i=0}^{\min(k,2d-1)-1}\left(d-i+\left\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\right\rfloor\right)+\nonumber\\
&d^2\left\lfloor \frac{(k-n_l)^+}{2d}\right\rfloor+ \sum_{i=0}^{q}\left(d-i+\left\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\right\rfloor\right)\Bigg) \beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}=\mathcal{M},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{M}$ is the file size, $$\begin{aligned}
&q=((k-n_l)^+\bmod(2d))-1, \text{ and}\nonumber\\
&n_l=
\begin{cases}
n_{\text{remain}},& \text{ if } n\bmod(2d)\neq 0\\
0,& \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The proof of Corollary \[cor:mbr\_plus\] is relegated to Appendix \[app:mbr\_plus\_proof\].
![The $k$ value versus repair-bandwidth $\gamma$ curve comparison between FHS, family-plus, and BHS at the MBR point for $(n,d)=(60,10)$ and file size $\mathcal{M}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:k_vs_gamma_(60-10)_plus"}](k_vs_gamma_60-10_plus){width="47.50000%"}
In Fig. \[fig:k\_vs\_gamma\_(60-10)\_plus\], we plot the $k$ vs. $\gamma$ curves for the BHS, the FHS, and the family-plus helper selection schemes for the case of $(n,d)=(60,10)$ using Proposition \[prop:mbr\], and Corollary \[cor:mbr\_plus\], respectively. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:k\_vs\_gamma\_(60-10)\_plus\], when $k>d$, the BHS scheme stops improving any further since RCs with BHS always have $k^*\leq d$ and thus overprotect the data when the protection-level requirement $k>d$. Therefore, BHS is not able to take advantage of the looser protection-level requirement when $k>d$. In contrast, the bandwidth consumption of FHS continues to decrease until the improvement stops when $k>2d$. The reason is that, for $(n,d)=(60,10)$, FHS only has two families. The family-plus scheme, on the other hand, divides $n=60$ nodes into 3 groups and each group has 2 complete families (6 families in total). As a result, the family-plus scheme can continue harvesting the looser and looser protection-level requirement even when $k>2d$ and the bandwidth consumption keeps decreasing continuously.
For example, when $k=40$, the repair-bandwidth of the family-plus helper selection scheme is only $28\%$ of the repair-bandwidth of the BHS scheme (cf. the repair-bandwidth of the FHS scheme is $58\%$ of the repair-bandwidth of the BHS scheme). This demonstrates the benefits of the family-plus helper selection scheme, which creates as many complete families as possible by further partitioning the nodes into several disjoint groups.
The Achievability Result and the Corresponding Proof {#sec:achievability_result}
----------------------------------------------------
We are now ready to use the FHS scheme and the family-plus helper selection scheme to prove the achievability result of Proposition \[prop:comparison\].
\[prop:weak\] Consider a family-plus helper selection scheme denoted by $F^+$ and its corresponding collection of IFGs ${\mathcal{G}}_{F^+}(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$. For any $(n,k,d)$ values satisfying neither of the (i) and (ii) conditions in Proposition \[prop:comparison\], there exists a pair $(\alpha,\beta)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:weak}
\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_{F^+}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G) } \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)>\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\min((d-i)^+\beta,\alpha).\end{aligned}$$
Since the family-plus scheme is strictly better than the BHS scheme when $(n,k,d)$ satisfies neither of the (i) and (ii) conditions in Proposition \[prop:comparison\], the achievability result of Proposition \[prop:comparison\] is thus proved. Also, Proposition \[prop:weak\] immediately implies that the collection of family-plus helper selection schemes is weakly optimal, also see Definition \[def:collection-scheme-weakly-optimal\].
The first step in our proof is to show that whenever $\alpha=d\beta$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fpr_vs_fr}
\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_{F^+}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)} \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)&\geq\nonumber\\
\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_{F}}&\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G) } \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{G}_F$ is the collection of IFGs of an FHS scheme $F$. That is, when $\alpha=d\beta$, the additional step of partitioning nodes into sub-groups in the family-plus scheme will monotonically improve the performance when compared to the original FHS scheme without partitioning. Therefore, the family-plus scheme is no worse than the FHS scheme when $\alpha=d\beta$. The proof of is relegated to Appendix \[app:weak\_proof\].
Equation can now be used to prove . If neither (i) nor (ii) of Proposition \[prop:comparison\] is true, one can verify by exhaustively considering all scenarios that one of the following three cases must hold: (a) $d\geq 2$ and $k> \left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$; (b) $d=1$, $k> 2$, and even $n$; and (c) $d=1$, $k>3$, and odd $n$.
For case (a), we first note that since $k> \left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$, we must also have $d\leq n-2$. Otherwise we will have $k>n$, which contradicts . We then observe[^9] that whenever $2\leq d\leq n-2$ we must have $d> \left\lceil\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil-1$. As a result, in case (a) we have that $\min(d+1,k)> \left\lceil\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$. We now apply the FHS scheme to case (a), not the family-plus scheme. Since there are exactly $\left\lceil\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$ families in FHS, among the first $\min(d+1,k)$ indices of a family index permutation $\pi_f$ there is at least one family index that is repeated. Jointly, this observation, Proposition \[prop:low\_b\], and the MBR point formula in imply that for the MBR point that has $\alpha=d\beta$, the min-cut value of the FHS scheme is strictly larger than the min-cut value of the BHS scheme. Since shows that the family-plus scheme is no worse than the FHS scheme in the MBR point, we have proved Proposition \[prop:weak\] for case (a).
For both cases (b) and (c), since $n>k$ by , we have $n\geq 4$. Since $d=1$ in both cases (b) and (c), the construction of the family-plus scheme thus will generate at least 2 groups. That is, the value of $B$ in Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_plus\] must satisfy $B\geq 2$. Moreover, in case (b), we have no remaining group since $n$ is even. Therefore, since $k>2$, for any $\mathbf{k}\in K$ defined in Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_plus\], there are at least two distinct $b$ values with $k_b\geq 1$. In case (c), we have $k>3=n_{\text{remain}}$ (note that $n_{\text{remain}}=3$ since we have that $2d+1\leq n_{\text{remain}}\leq 4d-1$ by construction). Therefore, similarly, for any $\mathbf{k}\in K$ defined in Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_plus\], there are at least two distinct $b$ values with $k_b\geq 1$.
Using the above observation (at least two distinct $b$ values having $k_b\geq 1$) and in Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_plus\], we have that in both cases (b) and (c) $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in{\mathcal{G}_{F^+}}} \min_{t\in\operatorname{DC}(G)} \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\geq 2\min(d\beta,\alpha)> \min(\beta,\alpha),\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows from: (i) considering only those $b$ values with $k_b\geq 1$; (ii) plugging in the min-cut formula in Proposition \[prop:low\_b\]; and (iii) only counting the first term “$i=1$” when summing up for all $i=1$ to $k_b$. The second inequality follows from the assumption that $d=1$ in both cases (b) and (c) and the fact that both $\beta$ and $\alpha$ must be strictly positive. By noticing that for cases (b) and (c) the RHS of is indeed $\min(\beta,\alpha)$, the proof is complete for cases (b) and (c) as well.b
The Optimality of the FHS and the Family-plus Schemes {#sec:optimality_result}
-----------------------------------------------------
In the following, we prove that the FHS scheme is indeed optimal for some $(n,k,d)$ values.
\[prop:optimal\] For the $(n,k,d)$ values satisfying simultaneously the following three conditions (i) $d$ is even, (ii) $n=d+2$, and (iii) $k=\frac{n}{2}+1$; we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tight}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_F}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t) \geq \min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)} \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\end{aligned}$$ for any arbitrary DHS scheme $A$ and any arbitrary $(\alpha,\beta)$ values.
The proof of Proposition \[prop:optimal\] is relegated to Appendix \[app:optimal\_proof\].
Proposition \[prop:optimal\] is the formal version of Proposition \[prop:optimal\_main\] in Section \[sec:results\]. Note that for any $(n,k,d)$ values satisfying conditions (i) to (iii) in Proposition \[prop:optimal\], they must also satisfy neither (i) nor (ii) in Proposition \[prop:comparison\]. As a result, by Proposition \[prop:comparison\], there exists some helper selection scheme that strictly outperforms the BHS scheme. Proposition \[prop:optimal\] further establishes that among all those schemes strictly better than the BHS scheme, the FHS scheme is indeed optimal. To illustrate that, consider the example of $(n,k,d)=(6,4,4)$. Using Proposition \[prop:comparison\], we know that for this combination of parameters there exists a scheme that can do better than the BHS scheme. Now, it is not hard to check that this combination of parameters also satisfies all the conditions (i), (ii), and (iii) of Proposition \[prop:optimal\]. Thus, we know, and as was stated in Result 2 of Section \[sec:preview\], that the FHS scheme is absolutely optimal for $(n,k,d)=(6,4,4)$.
We also note that [@hollmann2014minimum Theorem 5.4] proves that when $k=n-1$ and $\alpha=\beta$, no DHS scheme can protect a file of size $>\frac{nd\alpha}{d+1}$. It was not clear whether such a bound is tight or not. Proposition \[prop:optimal\] can be used to prove that the bound in [@hollmann2014minimum Theorem 5.4] is actually loose for some $(n,k,d)$ combinations.
\[cor:existing\_loose\] When $(n,k,d)=(4,3,2)$ and $\alpha=\beta$, no DHS scheme can protect a file of size $\mathcal{M}>2\alpha$, for which [@hollmann2014minimum Theorem 5.4] only proves that no scheme can protect a file of size $\mathcal{M}>\frac{8\alpha}{3}$.
By Proposition \[prop:low\_b\], when $(n,k,d)=(4,3,2)$ and $\alpha=\beta$, the FHS scheme can protect a file of size $2\alpha$. We then notice that $(n,k,d)=(4,3,2)$ satisfies Proposition \[prop:optimal\] and, therefore, the FHS scheme is absolutely optimal. As a result, no scheme can protect a file of size $\mathcal{M}>2\alpha$.
Proposition \[prop:optimal\] shows that for certain $(n,k,d)$ value combinations, the FHS scheme is optimal for the entire storage-bandwidth tradeoff curve. If we only focus on the MBR point, we can also have the following optimality results.
\[prop:optimal\_2\] Consider $k=n-1$ and $\alpha=d\beta$. For the $(n,k,d)$ values satisfying $n\bmod(n-d)=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tight_2}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_F}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)&=\frac{n\alpha}{2} \nonumber\\
&\geq \min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)} \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\end{aligned}$$ for any arbitrary DHS scheme $A$.
The proof of Proposition \[prop:optimal\_2\] is relegated to Appendix \[app:optimal\_2\].
Proposition \[prop:optimal\_2\] establishes again that the FHS scheme is optimal in the MBR point ($\alpha=d\beta$), among all DHS schemes, whenever $k=n-1$ and $n\bmod(n-d)=0$. Since Proposition \[prop:optimal\_2\] is based on FHS, we can generalize Proposition \[prop:optimal\_2\] by considering the family-plus scheme. We then have
\[prop:family-plus\_optimal\] Consider $k=n-1$ and $\alpha=d\beta$ and a family-plus helper selection scheme that divides $n$ nodes into $B$ groups with $n_1$ to $n_B$ nodes. If $n_b\bmod(n_b-d)=0$ for all $b=1$ to $B$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tight_2_plus}
\min_{G\in {\mathcal{G}_{F^+}}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)&=\frac{n\alpha}{2} \nonumber\\
&\geq \min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)} \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\end{aligned}$$ for any arbitrary DHS scheme $A$.
This result is the formal version of Proposition \[prop:optimal\_2\_main\] in Section \[sec:results\]. The proof of Proposition \[prop:family-plus\_optimal\] is relegated to Appendix \[app:family-plus\_optimal\_proof\].
Thus far, our family-plus scheme assumes all but one group have $n_b=2d$ nodes and the remaining group has $n_b=n_{\text{remain}}\geq 2d+1$ nodes. One possibility for further generalization is to allow arbitrary $n_b$ choices. It turns out that Proposition \[prop:family-plus\_optimal\] holds even for any arbitrary choices of $n_b$ values. For example, for the case of $(n,k,d)=(19,18,4)$ and $\alpha=d\beta$, the generalized family-plus scheme is absolutely optimal if we divide the 19 nodes into 3 groups of $(n_1,n_2,n_3)=(8,6,5)$.
By allowing arbitrary ways of partitioning $n=\sum_b n_b$, the MBR optimality of the family-plus schemes can be proved for a wider range of $(n,k,d)$ values. For example, one can prove that for any $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ values satisfying $n\neq 5$, $k=n-1$, $d=2$, and $\alpha=d\beta$, we can always find some $(n_1,\cdots,n_B)$ such that the generalized family-plus helper selection scheme is absolutely optimal. See Result 6 in Section \[sec:preview\] for some other $(n,k,d)$ value combinations for which the generalized family-plus scheme is optimal.
Compared to the existing results, [@dimakis2010network] showed that when $k=d=n-1$, the optimal MBR point satisfies $\frac{n\alpha}{2}=\mathcal{M}$ with repair-bandwidth $\gamma=d\beta=\frac{2\mathcal{M}}{n}$ and an exact-repair scheme achieving this MBR point is provided in [@shah2012distributed]. Our results show that for any $(n,k,d)$ satisfying $k=n-1$ but $d\neq n-1$, as long as we also have $n_b\bmod(n_b-d)=0$ for all $b=1$ to $B$, the optimal MBR point of the family-plus scheme is absolutely optimal and again satisfies $\frac{n\alpha}{2}=\mathcal{M}$ with a repair-bandwidth also of $\frac{2\mathcal{M}}{n}$. An exact-repair scheme that achieves this MBR point for any $k=n-1$ is provided in Part II [@part2].
Before closing this section, we should mention that a similar scheme to the family-plus helper selection scheme was devised in [@papailiopoulos2012locally] for LRCs when $n$ is a multiple of $(d+1)$. In that scheme the nodes are divided into groups of $(d+1)$ nodes. Whenever a node fails, its set of helpers is the set of $d$ remaining nodes in the same group. This can be viewed as a special example of the generalized family-plus helper selection scheme by choosing $n_b=d+1$ for all $b=1$ to $B$. Each group thus has $\frac{n_b}{n_b-d}=n_b=d+1$ complete families and each family contains only $n_b-d=1$ node. Therefore, all our analysis can be applied to the construction in [@papailiopoulos2012locally] and used to rederive the MBR characterization results of that scheme.
In summary, our construction and the corresponding tradeoff curve analysis hold for arbitrary ways[^10] of partitioning $n$ nodes into separate groups of $n_b$ nodes, $b=1$ to $B$. This thus significantly broadens the scope of application.
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
In practice, it is natural that the newcomer should access only those “good” helpers. This paper has provided a necessary and sufficient condition under which optimally choosing good helpers improves the storage-bandwidth tradeoff. We have also analyzed a new class of low-complexity solutions termed the *family helper selection scheme*, including its storage-bandwidth tradeoff, the expression of its MBR point, and its (weak) optimality. In Part II [@part2], we will construct an explicit exact-repair code, the *generalized fractional repetition code*, that can achieve the MBR point of this scheme.
The main goal of this work is to characterize, for the first time in the literature, when can DHS improve RCs. We thus considered the scenario of single failures only in a similar way as in the original RC paper [@dimakis2010network]. Since a practical system can easily have multiple failures, as ongoing work, we are studying the helper selection problem under the multiple failures scenario. See [@arxiv_multiple] for our current results in this direction.
The Information Flow Graph {#app:ifg}
==========================
We provide in this appendix the description of the information flow graph (IFG) that was first introduced in [@dimakis2010network].
![An example of the information flow graph with $(n,k,d)=(4,2,2)$.[]{data-label="fig:ifg"}](ifg){width="45.00000%"}
As shown in Fig \[fig:ifg\], an IFG has three different kinds of nodes. It has a single *source* node $s$ that represents the source of the data object. It also has nodes $x_{\operatorname{in}}^i$ and $x_{\operatorname{out}}^i$ that represent storage node $i$ of the IFG. A storage node is split into two nodes so that the IFG can represent the storage capacity of the nodes. We often refer to the pair of nodes $x_{\operatorname{in}}^i$ and $x_{\operatorname{out}}^i$ simply by storage node $i$. In addition to those nodes, the IFG has *data collector* (DC) nodes. Each data collector node is connected to a set of $k$ active storage nodes, which represents the party that is interested in extracting the original data object initially produced by the source $s$. Fig. \[fig:ifg\] illustrates one such data collector, denoted by $t$, which connects to $k=2$ storage nodes. A more detailed description of the IFG is provided as follows.
The IFG evolves with time. In the first stage of an information flow graph, the source node $s$ communicates the data object to all the initial nodes of the storage network. We represent this communication by edges of infinite capacity as this stage of the IFG is virtual. See Fig. \[fig:ifg\] for illustration. This stage models the encoding of the data object over the storage network. To represent storage capacity, an edge of capacity $\alpha$ connects the input node of storage nodes to the corresponding output node. When a node fails in the storage network, we represent that by a new stage in the IFG where, as shown in Fig. \[fig:ifg\], the newcomer connects to its helpers by edges of capacity $\beta$ resembling the amount of data communicated from each helper. We note that although the failed node still exists in the IFG, it cannot participate in helping future newcomers. Accordingly, we refer to failed nodes by *inactive* nodes and existing nodes by *active* nodes. By the nature of the repair problem, the IFG is always acyclic.
Given an IFG $G$, we use $\operatorname{DC}(G)$ to denote the collection of all ${n\choose k}$ [*data collector nodes*]{} in $G$ [@dimakis2010network]. Each data collector $t\in\operatorname{DC}(G)$ represents one unique way of choosing $k$ out of $n$ active nodes when reconstructing the file.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_gen\] {#app:low_b_gen}
=========================================
The proof of Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_gen\] below follows the proof of [@dimakis2010network Lemma 2].
Consider any IFG $G\in \mathcal{G}_A$ where $A$ is a SHS scheme. Consider any data collector $t$ of $G$ and call the set of $k$ active output nodes it connects to $V$. Since all the incoming edges of $t$ have infinite capacity, we can assume without loss of generality that the minimum cut $(U,\overline{U})$ satisfies $s\in U$ and $V\subseteq \overline{U}$.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ denote the set of edges in the minimum cut. Let $x^ i_{\operatorname{out}}$ be the chronologically $i$-th output node in $\overline{U}$, i.e., from the oldest to the youngest. Since $V\subseteq\overline{U}$, there are at least $k$ output nodes in $\overline{U}$. We now consider the oldest $k$ output nodes of $\overline{U}$, i.e., $x^1_{\operatorname{out}}$ to $x^k_{\operatorname{out}}$. For $i=1$ to $k$, let $r_i$ denote the node index of $x^i_{\operatorname{out}}$. Obviously, the vector $\mathbf{r}\stackrel{\Delta}{=}(r_1,\cdots, r_k)$ belongs to $R$.
Consider $x^1_{\operatorname{out}}$, we have two cases:
- If $x^1_{\operatorname{in}}\in U$, then the edge $(x^1_{\operatorname{in}},x^1_{\operatorname{out}})$ is in $\mathcal{C}$.
- If $x^1_{\operatorname{in}}\in \overline{U}$, since $x^1_{\operatorname{in}}$ has an in-degree of $d$ and $x^1_\text{out}$ is the oldest node in $\overline{U}$, all the incoming edges of $x^1_{\operatorname{in}}$ must be in $\mathcal{C}$.
From the above discussion, these edges related to $x^1_{\operatorname{out}}$ contribute at least a value of $\min((d-z_1(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)$ to the min-cut value since by definition $z_1(\mathbf{r})=0$. Now, consider $x^2_{\operatorname{out}}$, we have three cases:
- If $x^2_{\operatorname{in}}\in U$, then the edge $(x^2_{\operatorname{in}},x^2_{\operatorname{out}})$ is in $\mathcal{C}$.
- If $x^2_{\operatorname{in}}\in \overline{U}$ and $r_1\in D_{r_2}$, since one of the incoming edges of $x^2_{\operatorname{in}}$ can be from $x^1_{\operatorname{out}}$, then at least $(d-1)$ incoming edges of $x^2_{\operatorname{in}}$ are in $\mathcal{C}$.
- If $x^2_{\operatorname{in}}\in \overline{U}$ and $r_1\notin D_{r_2}$, since no incoming edges of $x^2_{\operatorname{in}}$ are from $x^1_{\operatorname{out}}$, then all $d$ incoming edges of $x^2_{\operatorname{in}}$ are in $\mathcal{C}$.
Therefore, these edges related to $x^2_{\operatorname{out}}$ contribute a value of at least $\min ((d-z_2(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)$ to the min-cut value, where the definition of $z_2(\mathbf{r})$ takes care of the second and the third cases. Consider $x^3_{\operatorname{out}}$, we have five cases:
- If $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}\in U$, then the edge $(x^3_{\operatorname{in}},x^3_{\operatorname{out}})$ is in $\mathcal{C}$.
- If $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}\in \overline{U}$ and $r_1=r_2\in D_{r_3}$, since one of the incoming edges of $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}$ can be from $x^2_{\operatorname{out}}$, then at least $(d-1)$ incoming edges of $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}$ are in $\mathcal{C}$. Note that there cannot be an incoming edge of $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}$ from $x^1_{\operatorname{out}}$ since $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}$ only connects to active output nodes at the time of repair and $x^1_\text{out}$ is no longer active since $x^2_{\operatorname{out}}$ (of the same node index $r_2=r_1$) has been repaired after $x^1_{\operatorname{out}}$.
- If $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}\in \overline{U}$; $r_1,r_2\in D_{r_3}$; and $r_1\neq r_2$; since one of the incoming edges of $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}$ can be from $x ^ 1_{\operatorname{out}}$ and another edge can be from $x^2_{\operatorname{out}}$ , then at least $(d-2)$ incoming edges of $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}$ are in $\mathcal{C}$.
- If $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}\in \overline{U}$ and only one of $r_1$ or $r_2$ is in $D_{r_3}$, since one of the incoming edges of $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}$ is from either $x^1_{\operatorname{out}}$ or $x^2_{\operatorname{out}}$, then at least $(d-1)$ incoming edges of $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}$ are in $\mathcal{C}$.
- If $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}\in \overline{U}$ and $r_1,r_2 \notin D_{r_3}$, then at least $d$ incoming edges of $x^3_{\operatorname{in}}$ are in $\mathcal{C}$.
Therefore, these edges related to $x^3_{\operatorname{out}}$ contribute a value of at least $\min ((d-z_3(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)$ to the min-cut value, where the definition of $z_3(\mathbf{r})$ takes care of the second to the fifth cases.
In the same manner, we can prove that the chronologically $i$-th output node in $\overline{U}$ contributes at least a value of $\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)$ to the min-cut value. If we sum all the contributions of the oldest $k$ output nodes of $\overline{U}$ we get , a lower bound on the min-cut value.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:low\_b\] {#app:low_b_proof}
====================================
The outline of the proof is as follows.
Phase I: We will first show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:new2}
\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_F} \min_{t\in\operatorname{DC}(G)}&\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t) \leq \nonumber\\
&\min_{\forall \pi_f} \sum_{i=1}^{k}\min \left(\left(d-y_i(\pi_f)\right)\beta,\alpha\right).\end{aligned}$$
Phase II: By definition, the FHS scheme is a SHS scheme. Thus, is also a lower bound on all IFGs in ${\mathcal{G}_F}$ and we quickly have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:upper_lower}
\min_{\mathbf{r}\in R}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)\leq& \nonumber\\
\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_F} \min_{t\in\operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)& \leq \nonumber\\
\min_{\forall \pi_f} \sum_{i=1}^{k} \min &\left(\left(d-y_i(\pi_f)\right)\beta,\alpha\right).\end{aligned}$$ The remaining step is to prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{new3}
\min_{\mathbf{r}\in R}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)=\nonumber&\\
\min_{\forall \pi_f} \sum_{i=1}^{k}\min &\left(\left(d-y_i(\pi_f)\right)\beta,\alpha\right).\end{aligned}$$ Once we prove , we have since is true. The proof is then complete.
The proof of Phase I is as follows. Denote the smallest IFG in ${\mathcal{G}_F}(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ by $G_0$. Specifically, all its nodes are intact, i.e., none of its nodes has failed before. Denote its active nodes arbitrarily by $1,2,\cdots,n$. Consider the family index permutation of the FHS scheme $F$ that attains the minimization of the RHS of and call it $\tilde{\pi}_f$. Fail each active node in $\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$ of $G_0$ exactly once in a way that the sequence of the family indices of the failed nodes is $\tilde{\pi}_f$. Along this failing process, we repair the failed nodes according to the FHS scheme $F$. For example, let $(n,d)=(8,5)$ and suppose the minimizing family index permutation is $\tilde{\pi}_f=(1,2,1,-2,0,0,1,2)$. Then, if we fail nodes 1, 4, 2, 6, 7, 8, 3, and 5 in this sequence, the corresponding family index sequence will be $(1,2,1,-2,0,0,1,2)$, which matches the given $\tilde{\pi}_f$. Note that the node failing sequence is not unique in our construction. For example, if we fail nodes 3, 5, 2, 6, 8, 7, 1, and 4 in this sequence, the corresponding family index vector is still $(1,2,1,-2,0,0,1,2)$. Any node failing sequence that matches the given $\tilde{\pi}_f$ will suffice in our construction. We call the resulting new IFG, $G'$.
Consider a data collector $t$ in $G'$ that connects to the oldest $k$ newcomers. (Recall that in our construction, $G'$ has exactly $n$ newcomers.) Now, by the same arguments as in [@dimakis2010network Lemma 2], we will prove that $\operatorname{mincut}_{G'}(s,t)=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min \left(\left(d-y_i(\tilde{\pi}_f)\right)\beta,\alpha\right)$ for the specifically constructed $G'$ and $t$. Number the storage nodes (input-output pair) of the $k$ nodes $t$ is connected to by $1,2,\dots,k$. Define cut $(U,\overline{U})$ between $t$ and $s$ as the following: for each $i\in \{1,\dots,k\}$, if $\alpha \leq (d-y_i(\tilde{\pi}_f))\beta$ then we include $x_{\operatorname{out}}^{i}$ in $\overline{U}$; otherwise, we include both $x_{\operatorname{out}}^{i}$ and $x_{\operatorname{in}}^{i}$ in $\overline{U}$. It is not hard to see that the cut-value of the cut $(U,\overline{U})$ is equal to $\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min \left(\left(d-y_i(\tilde{\pi}_f)\right)\beta,\alpha\right)$.
Since the LHS of further takes the minimum over $\mathcal{G}_F$ and all data collectors $t$, we have proved the inequality .
Now, we give the proof of Phase II (i.e., ). To that end, we first prove that with the helper sets $D_1$ to $D_n$ specified in a FHS scheme, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{new4}
\text{LHS of \eqref{eq:new2}}=\min_{\mathbf{r}\in R_2}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)\end{aligned}$$ where $R_2=\{(r_1,r_2,\cdots,r_k): \forall i,j\in\{1,\cdots,k\},1 \leq r_i\leq n, r_i\neq r_j \text{ if } i\neq j\}$. That is, when evaluating the LHS of , we can minimize over $R_2$ instead of over $R=\{1,\cdots, n\}^k$. We prove by proving that for any $\mathbf{r}\in R$ we can always find a vector $\mathbf{r'} \in R_2$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha) \geq \sum_{i=1}^{k}\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{r'}))\beta,\alpha).\label{new5}\end{aligned}$$ Assuming is correct, then we have that at least one of the minimizing $\mathbf{r}^*\in R$ of the LHS of is also in $R_2$. We thus have . The proof of is provided in the end of this Appendix \[app:low\_b\_proof\].
We now notice that any $\mathbf{r} \in R_2$ corresponds to the first $k$ coordinates of a permutation of the node indices $(1,2,3,\cdots, n)$. For easier reference, we use $\overline{\mathbf{r}} $ to represent an $n$-dimensional permutation vector such that the first $k$ coordinates of $\overline{\mathbf{r}}$ match $\mathbf{r}$. One can view $\overline{\mathbf{r}}$ as the extended version of $\mathbf{r}$ from a partial $k$-dimensional permutation to a complete $n$-dimensional permutation vector. Obviously, the choice of $\overline{\mathbf{r}}$ is not unique. The following discussion holds for any $\overline{\mathbf{r}}$.
For any $\mathbf{r}\in R_2$, we first find its extended version $\overline{\mathbf{r}}$. We then construct $\pi_f$ from $\overline{\mathbf{r}}$ by transcribing the permutation of the node indices $\overline{\mathbf{r}}$ to the corresponding family indices. For example, consider the parameter values $(n,k,d)=(8,4,5)$. Then, one possible choice of $\mathbf{r}\in R_2$ is $\mathbf{r}=(3,5,2,4)$ and a corresponding $\overline{\mathbf{r}}$ is $(3,5,2,4,1,6,7,8)$. The transcribed family index vector is $\pi_f=(1,2,1,2,1,-2,0,0)$. We now argue that $z_i(\mathbf{r})=y_i(\pi_f)$ for all $i=1$ to $k$. The reason is that the definition of $y_i(\pi_f)$ is simply a transcribed version of the original definition of $z_i(\mathbf{r})$ under the node-index to family-index translation. In sum, the above argument proves that for any $\mathbf{r}\in R_2$, there exists a $\pi_f$ satisfying
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min((d-&z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min \left(\left(d-y_i(\pi_f)\right)\beta,\alpha\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
As a result, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\mathbf{r}\in R_2}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min((d-&z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)\geq \nonumber\\
&\min_{\forall \pi_f} \sum_{i=1}^{k}\min \left(\left(d-y_i(\pi_f)\right)\beta,\alpha\right).\label{eq:new-CCW-001}\end{aligned}$$ Jointly, , , and imply . The proof of Proposition \[prop:low\_b\] is thus complete. The remainder of this appendix section is dedicated to proving , which is unfortunately quite long and delicate.
*The proof of :*
We prove by explicit construction. For any vector $\mathbf{r}\in R$, we will use the following procedure, [Modify]{}, to gradually modify $\mathbf{r}$ in 4 major steps until the end result is the desired $\mathbf{r'}\in R_2$ that satisfies . A detailed example illustrating procedure [Modify]{} is provided in Appendix \[app:modify\_ex\] to complement the following algorithmic description of [Modify]{}.
*Step 1:* If there are $i, j\in\{1,\cdots,k\}$ such that $i<j$ and the $i$-th and the $j$-th coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ are equal, i.e., $r_i=r_j$, then we can do the following modification. For convenience, we denote the value of $r_i=r_j$ by $h$. Suppose that node $h$ belongs to the $Q$-th family. We now check whether there is any value $\gamma$ satisfying simultaneously (i) $\gamma\in\{1,2,\cdots, n\}\backslash h$; (ii) node $\gamma$ is also in the $Q$-th family; and (iii) $\gamma$ is not equal to any of the coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$. If such $\gamma$ exists, we replace the $j$-th coordinate of $\mathbf{r}$ by $\gamma$. Specifically, after this modification, we will have $r_i=h$ and $r_j=\gamma$.
Repeat this step until either there is no repeated $r_i=r_j$, or until no such $\gamma$ can be found.
*Step 2:* After finishing Step 1, we perform the following modification. If there still are distinct $i,j\in\{1,\cdots,k\}$ such that $r_i=r_j$ and $i<j$, then we again denote the value of $r_i=r_j$ by $h$. Suppose node $h$ belongs to the $Q$-th family. Consider the following two cases. If the $Q$-th family is the incomplete family, then no further modification will be made.
If the $Q$-th family is a complete family, then do the following modification.
Find the largest $j_1\in\{1,\cdots, n\}$ such that node $r_{j_1}=h$ and find the largest $j_2\in \{1,\cdots, n\}$ such that $r_{j_2}$ belongs to the $Q$-th family (the same family of node $h$). If $j_1=j_2$, then we set $\mathbf{r'}=\mathbf{r}$. If $j_1\neq j_2$, then we swap the values of $r_{j_1}$ and $r_{j_2}$ to construct $\mathbf{r'}$. That is, we first set $\mathbf{r'}=\mathbf{r}$ for all coordinates except for the $j_1$-th and the $j_2$-th coordinates, and then set $r'_{j_1}=r_{j_2}$ and $r'_ {j_2}=r_{j_1}$. After we have constructed new $\mathbf{r'}$ depending on whether $j_1=j_2$ or not, we now check whether there is any value $\gamma\in\{1,\cdots, n\}$ satisfying simultaneously (i) node $\gamma$ belongs to a complete family (not necessarily the Q-th family); and (ii) $\gamma$ is not equal to any of the coordinates of $\mathbf{r'}$. If such $\gamma$ exists, we replace the $j_2$-th coordinate of $\mathbf{r'}$ by $\gamma$, i.e., set $r'_{j_2}=\gamma$.
Repeat this step until the above process does not change the value of any of the coordinates of $\mathbf{r'}$.
After finishing the above two steps, the current vector $\mathbf{r}$ must be in one of the following cases. Case 1: No two coordinates are equal, i.e., $r_i\neq r_j$ for all pairs $i<j$; Case 2: there exist a pair $i<j$ such that $r_i=r_j$. We have two sub-cases for Case 2. Case 2.1: All such $(i,j)$ pairs must satisfy that node $r_i$ belongs to a complete family. Case 2.2: All such $(i,j)$ pairs must satisfy that node $r_i$ belongs to the incomplete family. Specifically, the above construction (Steps 1 and 2) has eliminated the sub-case that some $(i,j)$ pair has $r_i=r_j$ belonging to a complete family and some other $(i,j)$ pair has $r_i=r_j$ belonging to the incomplete family. The reason is as follows. Suppose some $(i,j)$ pair has $r_i$ belonging to a complete family. Since we have finished Step 2, it means that any node $\gamma$ that belongs to a complete family must appear in one of the coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$. Since there are $(n-d)\left\lfloor\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor$ number of nodes belonging to complete families, at least $(n-d)\left\lfloor\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor+1$ number of coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ must refer to a node in a complete family (since $r_i$ and $r_j$ have the same value). Therefore, there are at most $n-\left((n-d)\left\lfloor\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor+1\right) =(n\bmod (n-d))-1$ number of coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ referring to a node in the incomplete family. However, if we have another $(i',j')$ pair has $r_{i'}=r_{j'}$ belonging to the incomplete family, then it means that the coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ can refer to at most $(n\bmod(n-d))-2$ distinct nodes of the incomplete family (since $r_{i'}$ and $r_{j'}$ are equal). Since there are $n\bmod(n-d)$ distinct nodes in the incomplete family, there must exist a $\gamma$ value such that node $\gamma$ belongs to the incomplete family and $\gamma$ does not appear in any one of the coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$. This contradicts the fact that we have exhausted Step 1 before moving on to Step 2.
We now consider Cases 1, 2.1, and 2.2, separately. If the $\mathbf{r}$ vector is in Case 1, then such $\mathbf{r}$ belongs to $R_2$ and our construction is complete. If $\mathbf{r}$ belongs to Case 2.2, then do Step 3. If $\mathbf{r}$ belongs to Case 2.1, do Step 4.
*Step 3:* We use $(i,j)$ to denote the pair of values such that $r_i=r_j$ and $i<j$. Denote the value of $r_i=r_j$ by $h$. Since we are in Case 2.2, node $h$ belongs to the incomplete family. Find the largest $j_1\in\{1,\cdots, n\}$ such that node $r_{j_1}=h$ and find the largest $j_2\in \{1,\cdots, n\}$ such that $r_{j_2}$ belongs to the incomplete family. If $j_1=j_2$, then we keep $\mathbf{r}$ as is. If $j_1\neq j_2$, then we swap the values of $r_{j_1}$ and $r_{j_2}$. Recall that we use $c\stackrel{\Delta}{=}\left\lfloor \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor$ to denote the family index of the last complete family. We now choose arbitrarily a $\gamma$ value from $\{(n-d)\left(c-1\right)+ 1,\dots,(n-d)c\}$. Namely, $\gamma$ is the index of a node of the last complete family. Fix the $\gamma$ value. We then replace $r_{j_2}$ by the arbitrarily chosen $\gamma$.
If the value of one of the coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ (before setting $r_{j_2}=\gamma$) is $\gamma$, then after setting $r_{j_2}=\gamma$ we will have some $i\neq j_2$ satisfying $r_i=r_{j_2}=\gamma$. In this case, we start over from Step 1. If none of the coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ (before setting $r_{j_2}=\gamma$) has value $\gamma$, then one can easily see that after setting $r_{j_2}=\gamma$ there exists no $i<j$ satisfying “$r_i=r_j$ belong to a complete family” since we are in Case 2.2 to begin with. In this case, we are thus either in Case 1 or Case 2.2. If the new $\mathbf{r}$ is now in Case 1, then we stop the modification process. If the new $\mathbf{r}$ is still in Case 2.2, we will then repeat this step (Step 3).
*Step 4:* We use $(i,j)$ to denote the pair of values such that $r_i=r_j$ and $i<j$. Denote the value of $r_i=r_j$ by $h$. Since we are in Case 2.1, node $h$ belongs to a complete family. Suppose $h$ is in the $Q$-th complete family. Find the largest $j_1\in\{1,\cdots, n\}$ such that node $r_{j_1}=h$ and find the largest $j_2\in \{1,\cdots, n\}$ such that $r_{j_2}$ belongs to the $Q$-th complete family. If $j_1=j_2$, then we keep $\mathbf{r}$ as is. If $j_1\neq j_2$, then we swap the values of $r_{j_1}$ and $r_{j_2}$. We now find a $\gamma$ value such that (i) node $\gamma$ belongs to the incomplete family; and (ii) $\gamma$ is not equal to any of the coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$. Note that such $\gamma$ value always exists. The reason is that since we are now in Case 2.1 and we have finished Step 2, it means that any node $\gamma$ that belongs to a complete family must appear in one of the coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$. Therefore, there are at least $(n-d)\left\lfloor \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor+1$ number of coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ referring to a node in one of the complete families. This in turn implies that there are at most $n-\left((n-d)\left\lfloor\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor+1\right)=(n\bmod (n-d))-1$ number of coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ referring to a node in the incomplete family. Since there are $n\bmod (n-d)$ distinct nodes in the incomplete family, there must exist a $\gamma$ value such that node $\gamma$ belongs to the incomplete family and $\gamma$ does not appear in any one of the coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$.
Once the $\gamma$ value is found, we replace the $j_2$-th coordinate of $\mathbf{r}$ by $\gamma$, i.e., $r_{j_2}=\gamma$. If the new $\mathbf{r}$ is now in Case 1, then we stop the modification process. Otherwise, $\mathbf{r}$ must still be in Case 2.1 since we replace $r_{j_2}$ by a $\gamma$ that does not appear in $\mathbf{r}$ before. In this scenario, we will then repeat this step (Step 4).
An example demonstrating the above iterative process is provided in Appendix \[app:modify\_ex\].
To prove that this construction is legitimate, we need to prove that the iterative process ends in a finite number of time. To that end, for any vector $\mathbf{r}$, define a non-negative function $T(\mathbf{r})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
T(\mathbf{r})&=|\{(i,j):i<j,r_i=r_j\text{ is a complete family node}\}|+\nonumber\\
&2|\{(i,j):i<j,r_i=r_j\text{ is an incomplete family node}\}|.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
One can then notice that in this iterative construction, every time we create a new $\mathbf{r}'$ vector that is different from the input vector $\mathbf{r}$, the value of $T(\mathbf{r})$ decreases by at least 1. As a result, we cannot repeat this iterative process indefinitely. When the process stops, the final vector $\mathbf{r}'$ must be in Case 1. Therefore, the procedure [Modify]{} converts any vector $\mathbf{r}\in R$ to a new vector $\mathbf{r'}\in R_2$ such that all coordinate values of $\mathbf{r'}$ are distinct. What remains to be proved is that along the above 4-step procedure, the inequality always holds. That is, the value of $\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)$ is non-increasing along the process. The detailed proof of the non-increasing $\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha)$ will be provided shortly. From the above discussion, we have proved .
In the rest of this appendix, we prove the correctness of [Modify]{}. For each step of [Modify]{}, we use $\mathbf{r}$ to denote the input (original) vector and $\mathbf{w}$ to denote the output (modified) vector. In what follows, we will prove that the $\mathbf{r}$ and $\mathbf{w}$ vectors always satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:modified}
\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{w}))\beta,\alpha) \leq \sum_{i=1}^{k}\min ((d-z_i(\mathbf{r}))\beta,\alpha).\end{aligned}$$
In Step 1 of the procedure, suppose that we found such $\gamma$. Denote the vector after we replaced the $j$-th coordinate with $\gamma$ by $\mathbf{w}$. We observe that for $1\leq m\leq j$, we will have $z_m(\mathbf{r})=z_m(\mathbf{w})$ since $r_m=w_m$ over $1\leq m\leq j-1$ and the new $w_j=\gamma$ belongs to the $Q$-th family, the same family as node $r_j$. For $j+1\leq m\leq k$, we will have $z_m(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$. The reason is that by our construction, we have $w_j=\gamma \neq r_j= r_i=w_i$. For any $m>j$, $z_m(\mathbf{r})$ only counts the repeated $r_i=r_j$ once. Therefore, $z_m(\mathbf{w})$ will count the same $w_i$ as well. On the other hand, $z_m(\mathbf{w})$ may sometimes be larger than $z_m(\mathbf{r})$, depending on whether the new $w_j \in D_{w_m}$ or not. The fact that $z_m(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$ for all $m=1$ to $k$ implies .
In Step 2, if $j_1=j_2$, then we will not swap the values of $r_{j_1}$ and $r_{j_2}$. On the other hand, $j_1=j_2$ also means that $r_{j_1}=r_{j_2}=h$. In this case, $\mathbf{w}$ is modified from $\mathbf{r}$ such that $w_{j_2}=\gamma$ if such a $\gamma$ is found. For $1\leq m\leq j_2-1$, $z_m(\mathbf{w})=z_m(\mathbf{r})$ since $r_m=w_m$ over this range of $m$. We now consider the case of $m=j_ 2$. Suppose node $\gamma$ belongs to the $Q_{\gamma}$-th family. We first notice that by the definition of $z_m(\cdot)$ and the definition of the FHS scheme, $(z_m(\mathbf{w})-z_m(\mathbf{r}))$ is equal to the number of distinct nodes in the $Q$-th family that appear in the first $(j_2-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ minus the number of distinct nodes in the $Q_{\gamma}$-th family that appear in the first $(j_2-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{w}$. For easier reference, we call the former ${\mathsf{term1}}$ and the latter ${\mathsf{term2}}$ and we will quantify these two terms separately.
Since we start Step 2 only after Step 1 cannot proceed any further, it implies that all distinct $(n-d)$ nodes of family $Q$ must appear in $\mathbf{r}$ otherwise we should continue Step 1 rather than go to Step 2. Then by our specific construction of $j_2$, all distinct $(n-d)$ nodes of family $Q$ must appear in the first $(j_2-1)$-th coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$. Therefore ${\mathsf{term1}}=(n-d)$. Since there are exactly $(n-d)$ distinct nodes in the $Q_{\gamma}$-th family, by the definition of ${\mathsf{term2}}$, we must have ${\mathsf{term2}}\leq (n-d)$. The above arguments show that ${\mathsf{term2}}\leq {\mathsf{term1}}=(n-d)$, which implies the desired inequality $z_m(\mathbf{w})-z_m(\mathbf{r})\geq 0$ when $m=j_2$.
We now consider the case when $m>j_2$. In this case, we still have $z_m(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$. The reason is that by our construction, we have $w_{j_2}=\gamma \neq r_{j_2}= r_i=w_i$. For any $m>j_2$, $z_m(\mathbf{r})$ only counts the repeated $r_i=r_{j_2}$ once. Therefore, $z_m(\mathbf{w})$ will count the same $w_i$ as well. On the other hand, $z_m(\mathbf{w})$ may sometimes be larger than $z_m(\mathbf{r})$, depending on whether the new $w_{j_2} \in D_{w_m}$ or not. The fact that $z_m(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$ for all $1\leq m\leq k$ implies .
Now, we consider the case when $j_1\neq j_2$, which implies that $r_{j_1}=h\neq r_{j_2}$ and Step 2 swaps the $j_1$-th and the $j_2$-th coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$. Note that after swapping, we can see that if we apply the same $j_1$ and $j_2$ construction to the [*new*]{} swapped vector, then we will have $j_1=j_2$. By the discussion in the case of $j_1=j_2$, we know that replacing the value of $r_{j_2}$ by $\gamma$ will not decrease the value $z_m(\mathbf{w})$ for any $m=1$ to $k$ and still holds. As a result, we only need to prove that swapping the $j_1$-th and the $j_2$-th coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ does not decrease the value of $z_m(\mathbf{r})$.
To that end, we slightly abuse the notation and use $\mathbf{w}$ to denote the resulting vector after swapping the $j_1$-th and the $j_2$-th coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ (but before replacing $r_{j_2}$ by $\gamma$). For the case of $1\leq m\leq j_1$, we have $z_m(\mathbf{w})=z_m(\mathbf{r})$ since for $1\leq m\leq j_1-1$, $r_m=w_m$, and both $r_{j_1}$ and $w_{j_1}=r_{j_2}$ are from the same family $Q$. For $j_1+1\leq m \leq j_2-1$, we have $z_m(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$. The reason is as follows. We first observe that $w_{j_1}=r_{j_2} \neq r_{j_1}= r_i=w_i$. For any $j_1+1\leq m \leq j_2-1$, $z_m(\mathbf{r})$ only counts the repeated $r_i=r_{j_1}$ once (since by our construction of $j_1$ we naturally have $j_1> i$). Therefore, $z_m(\mathbf{w})$ will count the same $w_i$ as well. On the other hand, $z_m(\mathbf{w})$ may sometimes be larger than $z_m(\mathbf{r})$, depending on whether the new $w_{j_1} \in D_{w_m}$ or not. We thus have $z_m(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$ for $j_1+1\leq m\leq j_2-1$.
For the case of $m=j_2$, we notice that $w_{j_2}=r_{j_1}$ and $r_{j_2}$ are from the same $Q$-th family. Therefore, we have $z_m(\mathbf{w})= z_m(\mathbf{r})$. For the case of $j_2+1\leq m\leq k$, we argue that $z_m(\mathbf{w})=z_m(\mathbf{r})$. This is true because of the definition of $z_m(\cdot)$ and the fact that both $j_1<m$ and $j_2<m$. In summary, we have proved $z_m(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$ for $m=1$ to $k$, which implies .
In Step 3, we first consider the case of $j_1=j_2$, which means that $r_{j_1}=r_{j_2}$ is replaced with $\gamma$, a node from the last complete family. For $1\leq m\leq j_1-1$, since we have $r_m=w_m$ for all $1\leq m\leq j_1-1$, we must have $z_m(\mathbf{r})=z_m(\mathbf{w})$. We now consider the case of $m=j_1$. By the definition of $z_m(\cdot)$ and the definition of the FHS scheme, $(z_m(\mathbf{w})-z_m(\mathbf{r}))$ is equal to the number of distinct nodes in the incomplete family that appear in the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ minus the number of distinct nodes in the last complete family that simultaneously (i) belong to the helper set of the incomplete family and (ii) appear in the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{w}$. For easier reference, we call the former $\mathsf{term1}$ and the latter $\mathsf{term2}$ and we will quantify these two terms separately.
Since we have finished executing Step 1, it means that all $n\bmod(n-d)$ nodes in the incomplete family appear in the vector $\mathbf{r}$. By our construction of $j_1$, all $n\bmod(n-d)$ nodes in the incomplete family must appear in the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$. Therefore, $\mathsf{term1}=n\bmod(n-d)$. Since there are exactly $n\bmod(n-d)$ distinct nodes in the last complete family that belong to the helper set of the incomplete family, by the definition of ${\mathsf{term2}}$, we must have ${\mathsf{term2}}\leq n\bmod(n-d)$. The above arguments show that ${\mathsf{term2}}\leq {\mathsf{term1}}=n\bmod(n-d)$, which implies the desired inequality $z_m(\mathbf{w})-z_m(\mathbf{r})\geq 0$.
For the case of $j_1+1=j_2+1\leq m$, we also have $z_m(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$. The reason is that by our construction, we have $w_{j_2}=\gamma \neq r_{j_2}= r_i=w_i$. For any $m>j_2$, $z_m(\mathbf{r})$ only counts the repeated $r_i=r_{j_2}$ once. Therefore, $z_m(\mathbf{w})$ will count the same $w_i$ as well. On the other hand, $z_m(\mathbf{w})$ may sometimes be larger than $z_m(\mathbf{r})$, depending on whether the new $w_{j_2} \in D_{w_m}$ or not. We have thus proved that $z_m(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$ for all $m=1$ to $k$, which implies .
We now consider the case of $j_1\neq j_2$. Namely, we swap the $j_1$-th and the $j_2$-th coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ before executing the rest of Step 3. We can use the same arguments as used in proving the swapping step of Step 2 to show that after swapping, we still have $z_m(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$ for all $m=1$ to $k$, which implies . The proof of Step 3 is complete.
In Step 4, we again consider the case of $j_1=j_2$ first. In this case, $r_{j_1}=h$ is replaced with $\gamma$, a node of the incomplete family. For $1\leq m \leq j_1-1$, $z_m(\mathbf{w})=z_m(\mathbf{r})$ since $w_m=r_m$ over this range of $m$. For $m=j_1$, we have to consider two cases. If the $Q$-th family is the last complete family, then $(z_m(\mathbf{w})-z_m(\mathbf{r}))$ is equal to the number of distinct nodes in the $Q$-th family that simultaneously (i) belong to the helper set of the incomplete family and (ii) appear in the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$, minus the number of distinct nodes in the incomplete family that appear in the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{w}$. For easier reference, we call the former $\mathsf{term1}$ and the latter $\mathsf{term 2}$. If, however, the $Q$-th family is not the last complete family, then $(z_m(\mathbf{w})-z_m(\mathbf{r}))$ is equal to the difference of another two terms. We slightly abuse the notation and refer again to the two terms as $\mathsf{term1}$ and $\mathsf{term2}$ where $\mathsf{term1}$ is the number of distinct nodes in the $Q$-th family that appear in the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ and $\mathsf{term2}$ is the number of distinct nodes in the last complete family that simultaneously (i) does not belong to the helper set of the incomplete family and (ii) appear in the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{w}$ plus the number of distinct nodes in the incomplete family that appear in the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{w}$.
We will now quantify these two terms separately. Since we have finished executing Step 1 and by the construction of $j_1$, all $(n-d)$ nodes in the $Q$-th family must appear in the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$, which are the same as the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\mathbf{w}$. Therefore, the value of $\mathsf{term1}$ is $n\bmod(n-d)$ if the $Q$-th family is the last complete family or $(n-d)$ if it is one of the first $c-1$ complete families. We now quantify $\mathsf{term2}$. For when the $Q$-th family is the last complete family, since there are exactly $n\bmod(n-d)$ distinct nodes in the incomplete family, by the definition of ${\mathsf{term2}}$, we must have ${\mathsf{term2}}\leq n\bmod(n-d)$. When the $Q$-th family is not the last complete family, ${\mathsf{term2}}\leq (n-d)$ since the number of distinct nodes in the incomplete family is $n\bmod(n-d)$ and the number of distinct nodes in the last complete family that do not belong to the helper set of the incomplete family is $(n-d-n\bmod(n-d))$ and their summation is $\leq n-d$. The above arguments show that ${\mathsf{term2}}\leq {\mathsf{term1}}$ for both cases, which implies the desired inequality $z_m(\mathbf{w})-z_m(\mathbf{r})\geq 0$ for $m=j_1$.
For $j_1+1\leq m\leq k$, since $r_{j_1}=h=r_i$ was a repeated node, then it was already not contributing to $z_m(\mathbf{r})$ for all $m>j_1$. Thus, $z_{m}(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$ for all $m=j_1+1$ to $k$. (Please refer to the $j_1+1\leq m$ case in Step 3 for detailed elaboration.) In summary, after Step 4, assuming $j_1=j_2$, we have $z_{m}(\mathbf{w})\geq z_m(\mathbf{r})$ for all $m=1$ to $k$, which implies .
Finally, we consider the case of $j_1\neq j_2$. Namely, we swap the $j_1$-th and the $j_2$-th coordinates of $\mathbf{r}$ before executing the rest of Step 4. We can use the same arguments as used in proving the swapping step of Step 2 to show that the inequality holds after swapping. The proof of Step 4 is thus complete.
An Illustrative Example for the [Modify]{} Procedure {#app:modify_ex}
====================================================
For illustration, we apply the procedure [Modify]{} to the following example with $(n,d)=(8,5)$ and some arbitrary $k$. Recall that family 1 contains nodes $\{1,2,3\}$, family 2 (last complete family) contains nodes $\{4,5,6\}$, and the incomplete family, family 0, contains nodes $\{7,8\}$. Suppose the initial $\mathbf{r}$ vector is $\mathbf{r}=(1,2,2,2,4,7,7,7)$. We will use [Modify]{} to convert $\mathbf{r}$ to a vector $\mathbf{r}'\in R_2$
We first enter Step 1 of the procedure. We observe[^11] that $r_3=r_4=2$ ($i=3$ and $j=4$) and node 2 belongs to the first family. Since node 3 is also in family 1 and it is not present in $\mathbf{r}$, we can choose $\gamma=3$. After replacing $r_4$ by 3, the resulting vector is $\mathbf{r}=(1,2,2,3,4,7,7,7)$. Next, we enter Step 1 for the second time. We observe that $r_7=r_8=7$. Since node 8 is in family 0 and it is not present in $\mathbf{r}$, we can choose $\gamma=8$. The resulting vector is $\mathbf{r}=(1,2,2,3,4,7,7,8)$. Next, we enter Step 1 for the third time. For the new $\mathbf{r}$, we have $r_2=r_3=2$ and $r_6=r_7=7$, but for both cases we cannot find the desired $\gamma$ value. As a result, we cannot proceed any further by Step 1. For that reason, we enter Step 2.
We observe that for $r_2=r_3=2$, we find $j_1=3$, the last coordinate of $\mathbf{r}$ equal to $2$, and $j_2=4$, the last coordinate of $\mathbf{r}$ that belongs to family 1. By Step 2, we swap $r_{3}$ and $r_{4}$, and the resultant vector is $\mathbf{r}=(1,2,3,2,4,7,7,8)$. Now, since node 5 belongs to family 2, a complete family, and it is not present in $\mathbf{r}$, we can choose $\gamma=5$. After replacing $r_{j_2}$ by $\gamma$, the resultant vector is $\mathbf{r}=(1,2,3,5,4,7,7,8)$. Next, we enter Step 2 for the second time. Although $r_6=r_7=7$, we notice that node 7 is in family 0. Therefore, we do nothing in Step 2.
After Step 2, the latest $\mathbf{r}$ vector is $\mathbf{r}=(1,2,3,5,4,7,7,8)$, which belongs to Case 2.2. Consequently, we enter Step 3. In Step 3, we observe that $j_1=7$, the last coordinate of $\mathbf{r}$ being 7, and $j_2=8$, the last coordinate of $\mathbf{r}$ that belongs to the incomplete family, family 0. Thus, we swap $r_{7}$ and $r_{8}$, and the resultant vector is $\mathbf{r}=(1,2,3,5,4,7,8,7)$. Now, we choose arbitrarily a $\gamma$ value from $\{4,5,6\}$, the last complete family. Suppose we choose[^12] $\gamma =6$. The resultant vector is $\mathbf{r}=(1,2,3,5,4,7,8,6)$. Since we have no other repeated nodes of family 0, the procedure finishes at this point. Indeed, we can see that the final vector $\mathbf{r'}=(1,2,3,5,4,7,8,6)\in R_2$, which has no repeated nodes and is the result expected.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:mbr\] {#app:mbr_proof}
=================================
For fixed $(n,k,d)$ values, define function $g$ as $$\begin{aligned}
g(\alpha,\beta)=\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_F} \min_{t\in\operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t).\end{aligned}$$ We first note that by , we must have $g(d\beta,\beta)=m\beta$ for some integer $m$. The value of $m$ depends on the $(n,k,d)$ values and the minimizing family index permutation $\pi_f$, but does not depend on $\beta$. We then define $\beta^*$ as the $\beta$ value such that $g(d\beta,\beta)= \mathcal{M}$. We will first prove that $\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}=\beta^*$ by contradiction. Suppose $\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}\neq \beta^*$. Since $(\alpha,\beta)=(d\beta^*,\beta^*)$ is one way that can satisfy $g(\alpha,\beta)=\mathcal{M}$, the minimum-bandwidth consumption $\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}$ must satisfy $\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}\leq \beta^*$. Therefore, we must have $\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}<\beta^*$. However, we then have the following contradiction. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}\leq g(\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}},\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}})\leq g(\infty, \beta_{\operatorname{MBR}})&=\nonumber \\
g(d \beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}, \beta_{\operatorname{MBR}})&<g(d\beta^*,\beta^*)= \mathcal{M}, \label{new:MBR}\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality is by knowing that $(\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}},\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}})$ satisfies the reliability requirement; the second inequality is by the definition of $g(\alpha,\beta)$; the first equality is by ; and the third inequality (the only strict inequality) is by the fact that $g(d\beta,\beta)=m\beta$ for all $\beta$ and by the assumption of $\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}<\beta^*$; and the last equality is by the construction of $\beta^*$.
The above arguments show that $\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}=\beta^*$. To prove that $\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}}=d\beta^*$, we first prove $$\begin{aligned}
g(\alpha,\beta)<g(d\beta,\beta), \mbox{ if } \alpha<d\beta. \label{eq:g1}\end{aligned}$$ The reason behind is that (i) $k\geq 1$ and we thus have at least one summand in the RHS of ; and (ii) the first summand is always $\min(d\beta,\alpha)$ since $y_1(\pi_f)=0$ for any family index permutation $\pi_f$. Suppose $\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}}\neq d\beta^*$. Obviously, we have $\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}}\leq d\beta^*$ by the construction of $\beta^*$. Therefore, we must have $\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}}<d\beta^*$. However, we then have the following contradiction $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}\leq g(\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}},\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}) < g(d\beta^*,\beta^*)= \mathcal{M}, \label{new:MBR2}\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality is by knowing that $(\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}},\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}})$ satisfies the reliability requirement, the second inequality is by , and the equality is by the construction of $\beta^*$.
The above arguments prove that $\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}}=d\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}$. This also implies that when considering the MBR point, instead of finding a $\pi_f$ that minimizes , we can focus on finding a $\pi_f$ that minimizes $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^k (d-y_i(\pi_f)) \label{eq:new15}\end{aligned}$$ instead, i.e., we remove the minimum operation of and ignore the constant $\beta$, which does not depend on $\pi_f$. We are now set to show that $\pi_f^*$ is the minimizing family index permutation at the MBR point.
First, define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:y_def}
y_{\text{offset}}(\pi_f)=\sum_{i=1}^k (i-1-y_i(\pi_f)).\end{aligned}$$ Notice that a family index permutation that minimizes $y_{\text{offset}}(\cdot)$ also minimizes . Therefore, any minimizing family index permutation for , call it $\pi_f^{\min}$, must satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:y}
y_{\text{offset}}(\pi_f^{\min})=\min_{\forall \pi_f} y_{\text{offset}}(\pi_f).\end{aligned}$$
Consider the following two cases:
$n\bmod(n-d)=0$, i.e., we do not have an incomplete family.
Consider any family index permutation $\pi_f$ and let $l_j$ be the number of the first $k$ coordinates of $\pi_f$ that have value $j$. Recall that there is no incomplete family in this case. Suppose the $i$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ is $m$. Then, we notice that the expression “$(i-1)-y_i(\pi_f)$” counts the number of appearances of the value $m$ in the first $i-1$ coordinates of $\pi_f$ (recall that there is no incomplete family in this case). Therefore, we can rewrite by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:y_families}
y_{\text{offset}}(\pi_f)=\sum_{i=1}^{l_1}(i-1) + \sum_{i=1}^{l_2}(i-1) + \dots + \sum_{i=1}^{l_{\frac{n}{n-d}}}(i-1).\end{aligned}$$ We now prove the following claim.
\[clm:diverse\] The above equation implies that a family index permutation is a minimizing permutation $\pi_f^{\min}$ if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diverse}
|l_i-l_j|\leq1 \text{ for all $i,j$ satisfying }1\leq i,j\leq \frac{n}{n-d}.\end{aligned}$$
We first prove the only if direction by contradiction. The reason is as follows. If $l_i>l_j+1$ for some $1\leq i,j\leq \frac{n}{n-d}$, then we consider another family permutation $\pi_f'$ and denote its corresponding $l$ values by $l'$, such that $l'_i=l_i-1$, $l'_j=l_j+1$, and all other $l$s remain the same. Clearly from , such $\pi_f'$ will result in strictly smaller $y_{\text{offset}}(\pi_f')<y_\text{offset}(\pi_f)$. Note that such $\pi_f'$ with the new $l'_i=l_i-1$, $l'_j=l_j+1$ always exists. The reason is the following. By the definition of $l_j$ and the fact that $\pi_f$ is a family index permutation, we have $0\leq l_j\leq (n-d)$ for all $j=1,\cdots, \frac{n}{n-d}$. The inequality $l_i>l_j+1$ then implies $l_i\geq 1$ and $l_j\leq (n-d)-1$. Therefore, out of the first $k$ coordinates of $\pi_f$, at least one of them will have value $i$; and out of the last $(n-k)$ coordinates of $\pi_f$, at least one of them will have value $j$. We can thus swap arbitrarily one of the family indices $i$ from the first $k$ coordinates with another family index $j$ from the last $(n-k)$ coordinates and the resulting $\pi_f'$ will have the desired $l_i'$ and $l_j'$.
We now prove the if direction. To that end, we first observe that the equality $\sum_{i=1}^{\frac{n}{n-d}}l_i=k$ always holds because of our construction of $l_i$. Then implies that we can uniquely decide the [*distribution*]{} of $\{l_i:i=1,\cdots,\frac{n}{n-d}\}$ even though we do not know what is the minimizing permutation $\pi_f^{\min}$ yet. For example, if $\frac{n}{n-d}=3$, $k=5$, $l_1$ to $l_3$ satisfy , and the summation $l_1+l_2+l_3$ is $k=5$, then among $l_1$, $l_2$, and $l_3$, two of them must be 2 and the other one must be 1. On the other hand, we observe that the value of $y_{\text{offset}}(\cdot)$ depends only on the distribution of $\{l_i\}$, see . As a result, the above arguments prove that any $\pi_f$ satisfying is a minimizing $\pi_f^{\min}$.
Finally, by the construction of the RFIP $\pi_f^*$, it is easy to verify that the RFIP $\pi_f^*$ satisfies . Therefore, the RFIP $\pi_f^*$ is a minimizing permutation for this case.
$n\bmod(n-d)\neq 0$, i.e., when we do have an incomplete family. In this case, we are again interested in minimizing , and equivalently minimizing . To that end, we first prove the following claim.
\[clm:rfip\_incomplete\] Find the largest $1\leq j_1\leq k$ such that the $j_1$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ is 0. If no such $j_1$ can be found, we set $j_1=0$. Find the smallest $1\leq j_2\leq k$ such that the $j_2$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ is a negative number if no such $j_2$ can be found, we set $j_2=k+1$. We claim that if we construct $j_1$ and $j_2$ based on a $\pi_f$ that minimizes $\sum_{i=1}^k (d-y_i(\pi_f))$, we must have $j_1<j_2$.
We prove this claim by contradiction. Consider a minimizing family index permutation $\pi_f$ and assume $j_2<j_1$. This means, by our construction, that $1\leq j_2<j_1\leq k$. Since the $j_2$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ is a negative number by construction, $y_{j_2}(\pi_f)$ counts all coordinates before the $j_2$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ with values in $\{1,2,\cdots,c-1,0\}$, i.e., it counts all the values before the $j_2$-th coordinate except for the values $c$ and $-c$, where $c$ is the family index of the last complete family. Thus, knowing that there are no $-c$ values before the $j_2$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:y_j2_pi}
y_{j_2}(\pi_f)=j_2-1-\lambda^{[1,j_2)}_{\{c\}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda^{[1,j_2)}_{\{c\}}$ is the number of $c$ values before the $j_2$-th coordinate. Similarly, since the $j_1$-th coordinate is 0, we have that $y_{j_1}(\pi_f)$ counts all coordinates before the $j_1$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ with values in $\{1,2,\cdots,c\}$, i.e., it counts all the values before the $j_1$-th coordinate except for the values $-c$ and $0$. Thus, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
y_{j_1}(\pi_f)&=j_1-1-\lambda^{[1,j_1)}_{\{0\}}-\lambda^{[1,j_1)}_{\{-c\}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda^{[1,j_1)}_{\{0\}}$ is the number of 0 values preceding the $j_1$-th coordinate in $\pi_f$ and $\lambda^{[1,j_1)}_{\{-c\}}$ is the number of $-c$ values preceding the $j_1$-th coordinate in $\pi_f$. Now, swap the $j_2$-th coordinate and the $j_1$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$, and call the new family index permutation $\pi_f'$. Specifically, $\pi_f'$ has the same values as $\pi_f$ on all its coordinates except at the $j_2$-th coordinate it has the value 0 and at the $j_1$-th coordinate it has the value $-c$. For $1\leq m\leq j_2-1$, we have that $y_m(\pi_f')=y_m(\pi_f)$ since the first $j_2-1$ coordinates of the two family index permutations are equal. Moreover, since there are no negative values before the $j_2$-th coordinate of $\pi_f'$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:y_j2}
y_{j_2}(\pi_f')=j_2-1-\phi^{[1,j_2)}_{\{0\}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi^{[1,j_2)}_{\{0\}}$ is the number of 0 values in $\pi_f'$ preceding the $j_2$-th coordinate.
For $j_2+1\leq m\leq j_1-1$, if the $m$-th coordinate of $\pi_f'$ is either $c$ or $-c$, then $y_m(\pi_f')=y_m(\pi_f)+1$; otherwise, $y_m(\pi_f')=y_m(\pi_f)$. The reason behind this is that the function $y_m(\pi_f')$ now has to take into account the new 0 at the $j_2$-th coordinate when the $m$-th coordinate is either $c$ or $-c$. When the value of the $m$-th coordinate is in $\{1,\cdots, c-1\}$, then by the definition of $y_m(\cdot)$, we have $y_m(\pi_f')=y_m(\pi_f)$. The last situation to consider is when the value of the $m$-th coordinate is $0$. In this case, we still have $y_m(\pi_f')=y_m(\pi_f)$ since $y_m(\pi_f)$ already does not count the value on the $j_2$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ since it is a negative value.
Denote the number of $c$ and $-c$ values from the $(j_2+1)$-th coordinate to the $(j_1-1)$-th coordinate of $\pi_f'$ by $\phi^{(j_2,j_1)}_{\{c,-c\}}$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:y_j1_pip}
y_{j_1}(\pi_f')=j_1-1-\lambda^{[1,j_2)}_{\{c\}} -\phi^{(j_2,j_1)}_{\{c,-c\}},\end{aligned}$$ since the $j_1$-th coordinate of $\pi_f'$ has a $-c$ value. Finally, for $j_1+1\leq m\leq n$, we have that $y_m(\pi_f')=y_m(\pi_f)$ since the order of the values preceding the $m$-th coordinate in a permutation does not matter for $y_m(\cdot)$. By the above, we can now compute the following difference $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^k&(d-y_i(\pi_f))-\sum_{i=1}^k(d-y_i(\pi_f')) \nonumber\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^k (y_i(\pi_f')-y_i(\pi_f))\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{i=j_2}^{j_1} (y_i(\pi_f')-y_i(\pi_f))\label{eq:CCWnew3}\\
&=(y_{j_2}(\pi_f')-y_{j_2}(\pi_f))+ \phi^{(j_2,j_1)}_{\{c,-c\}}+(y_{j_1}(\pi_f')-y_{j_1}(\pi_f)) \label{eq:diff_1}\\
&=\left(\lambda^{[1,j_2)}_{\{c\}}-\phi^{[1,j_2)}_{\{0\}}\right)+\phi^{(j_2,j_1)}_{\{c,-c\}}+\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\left(\lambda^{[1,j_1)}_{\{0\}}+\lambda^{[1,j_1)}_{\{-c\}}-\lambda^{[1,j_2)}_{\{c\}} -\phi^{(j_2,j_1)}_{\{c,-c\}}\right) \label{eq:CCWnew4}\\
&=\lambda^{[1,j_1)}_{\{0\}}+\lambda^{[1,j_1)}_{\{-c\}}-\phi^{[1,j_2)}_{\{0\}}\nonumber\\
&>0\label{eq:diff_2},\end{aligned}$$ where follows from $y_i(\pi_f')=y_i(\pi_f)$ for all $i<j_2$ and for all $i>j_1$; follows from our analysis about $y_i(\pi_f')=y_i(\pi_f)+1$ when the $i$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ belongs to $\{-c,c\}$ and $y_i(\pi_f')=y_i(\pi_f)$ otherwise, and there are thus $\phi^{(j_2,j_1)}_{\{c,-c\}}$ coordinates between the $(j_2+1)$-th coordinate and the $(j_1-1)$-th coordinate of $\pi_f'$ that satisfy $y_i(\pi_f')=y_i(\pi_f)+1$; follows from to ; and follows from the facts that $\lambda^{[1,j_1)}_{\{0\}} \geq \lambda^{[1,j_2)}_{\{0\}}=\phi^{[1,j_2)}_{\{0\}}$ and that $\lambda^{[1,j_1)}_{\{-c\}} \geq 1$ since we have a $-c$ value at the $j_2$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$. By , we have that $\pi_f'$ has a strictly smaller “$\sum_{i=1}^k(d-y_i(\cdot))$”. As a result, the case of $j_1>j_2$ is impossible.
By the construction of $j_1$ and $j_2$, it is obvious that $j_1\neq j_2$. Hence, we must have $j_1<j_2$. The proof of this claim is complete.
Claim \[clm:rfip\_incomplete\] provides a necessary condition on a minimizing permutation vector. We thus only need to consider permutations for which $j_1<j_2$. That is, instead of taking the minimum over all $\pi_f$, we now take the minimum over only those $\pi_f$ satisfying $j_1<j_2$.
This observation is critical to our following derivation. The reason is that if we consider a permutation $\pi_f$ that has $1\leq j_2<j_1\leq k$, then the expression “$(j_1 - 1)- y_{j_1}(\pi_f )$” is not equal to the number of appearances of the value $0$ in the first $j_1-1$ coordinates of $\pi_f$ (recall that by our construction the $j_1$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$ is 0). Instead, by the definition of $y_{i}(\cdot)$, $(j_1-1)-y_{j_1}(\pi_f)$ is the number of appearances of the values 0 [*and*]{} $-c$ in the first $(j_1-1)$ coordinates of $\pi_f$. Therefore, we cannot rewrite as if $1\leq j_2<j_1\leq k$.
On the other hand, Claim \[clm:rfip\_incomplete\] implies that we only need to consider those $\pi_f$ satisfying $j_1<j_2$. We now argue that given any $\pi_f$ satisfying $j_1<j_2$, for all $i=1$ to $k$, the expression $(i-1)-y_{i}(\pi_f)$ is now representing the number of appearances of $m$ and $-m$ in the first $(i-1)$ coordinates of $\pi_f$, where $m$ is the [*absolute value*]{} of the $i$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$. The reason is as follows. Let $m$ denote the absolute value of the $i$-th coordinate of $\pi_f$. If $m\neq 0$, then by the definition of $y_i(\pi_f)$, we have that $(i-1)-y_{i}(\pi_f)$ represents the number of appearances of $m$ in the first $(i-1)$ coordinates of $\pi_f$. If $m=0$, then by the definition of $y_i(\pi_f)$, we have that $(i-1)-y_{i}(\pi_f)$ represents the number of appearances of 0 and $-c$ in the first $(i-1)$ coordinates of $\pi_f$. However, by the construction of $j_1$, we have $i\leq j_1$. Since $j_1<j_2$, we have $i<j_2$. This implies that in the first $(i-1)$ coordinates of $\pi_f$, none of them is of value $-c$. As a result, we have that $(i-1)-y_{i}(\pi_f)$ again represents the number of appearances of 0 in the first $(i-1)$ coordinates of $\pi_f$.
We now proceed with our analysis while only considering those $\pi_f$ satisfying $j_1<j_2$ as constructed in Claim \[clm:rfip\_incomplete\]. Let $l_j$ be the number of the first $k$ coordinates of $\pi_f$ that have values $j$ or $-j$. We can then rewrite by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:new-y_families}
y_{\text{offset}}(\pi_f)= \sum_{i=1}^{l_0}&(i-1)+\sum_{i=1}^{l_1}(i-1)+ \nonumber\\
& \sum_{i=1}^{l_2}(i-1) + \dots + \sum_{i=1}^{l_{\left\lfloor\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor}}(i-1).\end{aligned}$$ The above equation implies that a family index permutation is a minimizing permutation $\pi_f^{\min}$ if and only if either $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diverse2_1}
\begin{cases}l_0=n\bmod(n-d),\\
|l_i-l_j|\leq1 \text{ for all $i,j$ satisfying}~1\leq i,j\leq c,\\
l_i\geq l_0 \text{ for all $i$ satisfying}~1\leq i\leq c.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diverse2_2}
|l_i-l_j|\leq1, \text{for all $i,j$ satisfying}~0\leq i,j\leq c. \end{aligned}$$ If we compare and with in Claim \[clm:diverse\], we can see that is similar to . The reason we need to consider the situation described in is that the range of $l_0$ is from 0 to $n\bmod(n-d)$ while the range of all other $l_i$s is from 0 to $(n-d)$. Therefore, we may not be able to make $l_0$ as close to other $l_i$s (within a distance of 1) as we would have hoped for due to this range discrepancy. For some cases, the largest $l_0$ we can choose is $n\bmod(n-d)$, which gives us the first scenario when all the remaining $l_i$s are no less than this largest possible $l_0$ value. If $l_0$ can also be made as close to the rest of $l_i$s, then we have the second scenario.
The proof that and are the if-and-only-if condition on $\pi_f^{\min}$ can be completed using the same arguments as in the proof of Claim \[clm:diverse\]. Finally, notice that the RFIP $\pi_f^*$ satisfies or and has $j_1<j_2$. As a result, $\pi_f^*$ must be one of the minimizing permutations $\pi_f^\text{min}$. The proof of Proposition \[prop:mbr\] is hence complete.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:msr\] {#app:msr_proof}
=================================
We first consider the case when $d\geq k$. We have $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}\geq\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k}$ since otherwise the MSR point cannot satisfy even when plugging in $\beta=\infty$ in . Define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:max-y-msr}
y_{\max}\stackrel{\Delta}{=}\max_{\forall \pi_f} \max_{1\leq i\leq k} y_i(\pi_f).\end{aligned}$$ By , we have that the $(\alpha,\beta)$ pair $$\begin{aligned}
(\alpha,\beta)=\left(\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k}, \frac{\mathcal{M}}{k(d-y_{\max})}\right)\end{aligned}$$ satisfies since $(d-y_i(\pi_f))\beta\geq (d-y_{\max})\beta= \frac{\mathcal{M}}{k}=\alpha$. Therefore, $\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k}$ is not only a lower bound of $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}$ but is also achievable, i.e., $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k}$. Now, for any $(\alpha,\beta)$ pair satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
(\alpha,\beta)=\left(\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k},\beta\right)\end{aligned}$$ for some $\beta<\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k(d-y_{\max})}$, we argue that does not hold anymore. The reason is the following. When $\alpha=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k}$ and $\beta<\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k(d-y_{\max})}$, we plug in the $\pi_f^{\circ}$ vector that maximizes into . Therefore, for at least one $i^{\circ}\leq k$, we will have $(d-y_{i^{\circ}}(\pi_f^{\circ}))\beta<\alpha=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k}$. This implies “$\eqref{eq:low_b}< \mathcal{M}$” when evaluated using $\pi_f^{\circ}$. By taking the minimum over all $\pi_f$, we still have “$\eqref{eq:low_b}< \mathcal{M}$”. Therefore, the above choice of $(\alpha,\beta)$ cannot meet the reliability requirement at the MSR point. As a result, we have $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k(d-y_{\max})}$.
We now argue that $y_{\max}=k-1$. According to the definition of function $y_i(\cdot)$, $y_i\leq k-1$. Recall that the size of a helper set is $d$, which is strictly larger than $k-1$. We can thus simply set the values of the first $(k-1)$ coordinates of $\pi_f$ to be the family indices of the $(k-1)$ distinct helpers (out of $d$ distinct helpers) of a node and place the family index of this node on the $k$-th coordinate. Such a permutation $\pi_f$ will have $y_k(\pi_f)=k-1$. Therefore, we have proved that $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k(d-k+1)}$.
We now consider the remaining case in which $d<k$. To that end, we first notice that for any $(n,k,d)$ values we have $\left\lfloor \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor \geq 1$ number of complete families. Also recall that family 1 is a complete family and all families $\neq 1$ are the helpers of family 1, and there are thus $d$ number of nodes in total of family index $\neq 1$. We now consider a permutation $\pi_f^{\circ}$ in which all its first $d$ coordinates are family indices not equal to 1 and its last $(n-d)$ coordinates are of family index 1. Observe that if we evaluate the objective function of the RHS of using $\pi_f^{\circ}$, out of the $k$ summands, of $i=1$ to $k$, we will have exactly $d$ non-zero terms since (i) by the definition of $y_i(\cdot)$, we always have $y_i(\pi_f^{\circ})\leq (i-1)$ and, therefore, when $i\leq d$, we always have $(d-y_i(\pi_f^{\circ}))\geq 1$; (ii) whenever $i>d$, the corresponding term $y_i(\pi_f^{\circ})=d$ due to the special construction of the $\pi_f^{\circ}$. As a result, when a sufficiently large $\beta$ is used, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^k \min((d-y_i(\pi_f^{\circ}))\beta,\alpha) = d \alpha.\end{aligned}$$
The above equality implies $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}\geq \frac{\mathcal{M}}{d}$. Otherwise if $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}<\frac{\mathcal{M}}{d}$, then we will have “$\eqref{eq:low_b} <\mathcal{M}$” when using the aforementioned $\pi_f^{\circ}$, which implies that “$\eqref{eq:low_b} <\mathcal{M}$” holds still when minimizing over all $\pi_f$. This contradicts the definition that $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}$ and $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}$ satisfy the reliability requirement.
On the other hand, we know that $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{d}$ and $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{d}$ for the BHS scheme when $d<k$ [@dimakis2010network]. Since the performance of the FHS scheme is not worse than that of the BHS scheme, we have $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{d}$ and $\beta_{\operatorname{MSR}}\leq \frac{\mathcal{M}}{d}$ for the FHS scheme. Hence, the proof is complete.
Proof of Corollary \[cor:mbr\_plus\] {#app:mbr_plus_proof}
====================================
Consider first the case when $n\bmod(2d)\neq 0$. Without loss of generality, assume that $n_B=n_{\text{remain}}$ and $n_b=2d$ for $b=1$ to $B-1$, i.e., the indices $b=1$ to $B-1$ correspond to the regular groups and the index $b=B$ corresponds to the remaining group. Now, applying the same reasoning as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:mbr\] to , we have that $\alpha_{\operatorname{MBR}}=\gamma_{\operatorname{MBR}}=d\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}$ for the family-plus helper selection scheme as well. In the following, we will prove that (i) if $k\leq 2d$, then one minimizing $\mathbf{k}$ vector can be constructed by setting $k_b=0$ for $b=1$ to $B-1$ and $k_B=k$; (ii) if $k>2d$, then we can construct a minimizing $\mathbf{k}$ vector by setting $k_B=\min(n_{\text{remain}},k)$ and among all $b=1$ to $B-1$, at most one $k_b$ satisfies $0<k_b<2d$.
To prove this claim, we first notice that since we are focusing on the MBR point, we can assume $\alpha$ is sufficiently large. Therefore, we can replace the minimizing permutation for each summand of by the RFIP (of $(n,d)=(2d,d)$ for the summand $b=1$ to $B-1$ and of $(n,d)=(n_{\text{remain}},d)$ for summand $b=B$) using the arguments in the proof of Proposition \[prop:mbr\]. Therefore, we can rewrite by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:inter5}
\eqref{eq:low_b_plus}=
\min_{\mathbf{k}\in K} \sum_{b=1}^{B} \sum_{i=1}^{k_b}(d-y_i(\pi_b))\beta\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi_b$ is the RFIP of $(n,d)=(2d,d)$ for $b=1$ to $B-1$ and the RFIP of $(n,d)=(n_{\text{remain}},d)$ for $b=B$. Note that for $(n,d)=(2d,d)$, in the FHS scheme we have 2 complete families and no incomplete family and the RFIP in this case is $\pi_1^*=(1,2,1,2,\cdots,1,2)$. As a result, $\pi_b=\pi_1^*$ for all $b=1$ to $B-1$. For $(n,d)=(n_{\text{remain}},d)$, we have one complete family and one incomplete family and the RFIP in this case is $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_2^*=(\overbrace{1,0,1,0,\cdots,1,0}^{2d \text{ coordinates}},\overbrace{-1,-1,\cdots,-1}^{(n_{\text{remain}}-2d) \text{ coordinates}}).\end{aligned}$$ We thus have $\pi_B=\pi_2^*$. We now argue that a vector $\mathbf{k^*}$ satisfying conditions (i) and (ii) stated above minimizes . Note first that both $y_i(\pi_1^*)$ and $y_i(\pi_2^*)$ are non-decreasing with respect to $i$ according to our construction of the RFIP. Also, we always have $y_i(\pi_1^*)=y_i(\pi_2^*)$ for all $1\leq i\leq 2d$.
We are now ready to discuss the structure of the optimal $\mathbf{k}$ vector. Since for each $b=1$ to $B$, we are summing up the first $(d-y_i(\pi_b))$ from $i=1$ to $k_b$ and in total there are $\sum_b k_b=k$ such terms, implies that to minimize we would like to have as many terms corresponding to “large $i$” as possible in the summation $\sum_b k_b=k$ terms. If $k\leq2d$, this can be done if and only if we set all $k_b$ to 0 except for one $k_b$ value to be $k$, which is our construction (i). If $k>2d$, this can be done if and only if we set $k_B=\min(n_{\text{remain}},k)$ and, for $b=1$ to $B-1$, we set all $k_b$ to either $2d$ or $0$ except for one $k_b$.
Knowing that $\mathbf{k^*}$ is of this special form, we can compute the RHS of by $$\begin{aligned}
\text{RHS of \eqref{eq:low_b_plus}}&=\left\lfloor \frac{k-\min(n_{\text{remain}},k)}{2d} \right\rfloor \text{sum}^{(1)} \nonumber\\
&+ \text{sum} ^{(2)}+\text{sum} ^{(3)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\lfloor \frac{k-\min(n_{\text{remain}},k)}{2d} \right\rfloor$ is the number of $b$ from 1 to $B-1$ with $k_b=2d$ in the minimizing vector $\mathbf{k^*}$; $\text{sum}^{(1)}$ is the contribution to the min-cut value from those groups with $k_b=2d$, which is equal to $\sum_{i=1}^{2d}(d-y_i(\pi_1^*))\beta$; $\text{sum}^{(2)}$ is the contribution to the min-cut value from the single regular group with $k_b=(k-\min(n_{\text{remain}},k))\bmod (2d)$, which is equal to $\sum_{i=1}^{k_b}(d-y_i(\pi_1^*))\beta$; and $\text{sum}^{(3)}$ is the contribution to the min-cut value from the remaining group (group $B$), which is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\text{sum}^{(3)}=\sum_{i=1}^{\min(n_{\text{remain}},k)}(d-y_i(\pi_2^*))\beta.\end{aligned}$$ By plugging in the expressions of the RFIPs $\pi_1^*$ and $\pi_2^*$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\text{sum}^{(1)}&= \sum_{i=0}^{2d-2}\left(d-i+\left\lfloor \frac{i}{2}\right\rfloor\right)\beta=d^2\beta, \nonumber\\
\text{sum}^{(2)}&=\sum_{i=0}^{q}\left(d-i+\left\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\right\rfloor\right) \beta, \text{ and}\nonumber\\
\text{sum}^{(3)}&=\sum_{i=0}^{\min(k,2d-1)-1}\left(d-i+\left\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\right\rfloor\right)\beta,\label{eq:sum3}\end{aligned}$$ where $q=((k-\min(n_{\text{remain}},k))\bmod(2d))-1=((k-n_{\text{remain}})^+\bmod(2d))-1$ and follows from the fact that $y_j(\pi_2^*)=d$ when $j\geq 2d$ and $n_{\text{remain}}\geq 2d+1$. The minimum repair-bandwidth $\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}$ thus satisfies .
Now, for the case when $n\bmod(2d)=0$, in a similar fashion, we can prove that a $\mathbf{k}$ vector minimizes the RHS of at the MBR point if and only if there is at most one $b\in\{1,\cdots,B\}$ such that $0<k_b<2d$. By setting $\pi_b=\pi_1^*$ for all $b$ in , recall that $\pi_1^*$ is the RFIP for $(n,d)=(2d,d)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\text{RHS of \eqref{eq:low_b_plus}}&=d^2\left\lfloor \frac{k}{2d}\right\rfloor\beta+\sum_{i=0}^{(k\bmod(2d))-1}\left(d-i+\left\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\right\rfloor\right)\beta,\end{aligned}$$ and thus $\beta_{\operatorname{MBR}}$ satisfies for this case too. The proof is hence complete.
Proof of {#app:weak_proof}
=========
To prove , we first notice that when $n<4d$, the family-plus helper selection scheme collapses to the FHS scheme since each group of the family-plus scheme needs to have at least $2d$ nodes and when $n<4d$ we can have at most 1 group. Thus, trivially, we have when $n<4d$. Now, we consider the case when $n\geq 4d$.
We first consider the original FHS scheme (the RHS of ). In this case, the FHS scheme has $\left\lfloor \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor=1$ complete family and one incomplete family. The corresponding RFIP $\pi_f^*$ is thus $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_f^*=(\overbrace{1,0,1,0,\cdots, 1,0}^{2d \text{ coordinates}}, \overbrace{-1,-1,\cdots, -1}^{(n-2d) \text{ coordinates}})\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition \[prop:mbr\], we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in\mathcal{G}_{F}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)&=\nonumber\\ \sum_{i=0}^{\min(k,2d-1)-1}&\left(d-i+\left\lfloor\frac{i}{2}\right\rfloor\right)\beta,\label{eq:optimality_fr}\end{aligned}$$
where from the fact that $y_j(\pi_f^*)=d$ when $j\geq 2d$.
We now turn our focus to the family-plus helper selection scheme. Consider first the case when $n\bmod(2d)=0$. If $k<2d$, we have by and that is true since the third term on the LHS of is the RHS of . If $k\geq 2d$, we again have by and that is true since the second term on the LHS of is no less than the RHS of . Now, consider the case when $n\bmod(2d)\neq 0$. Similarly, we have by and that is true since the first term on the LHS of is the RHS of .
Proof of Proposition \[prop:optimal\] {#app:optimal_proof}
=====================================
We first introduce the following corollary that will be used shortly to prove Proposition \[prop:optimal\].
\[cor:low\_b\] For any $(n,k,d)$ values satisfying $d\geq 2$ and $k=\left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil + 1$, we consider the corresponding IFGs ${\mathcal{G}_F}(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ generated by the FHS scheme $F$. We then have that $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in{\mathcal{G}_F}}&\min_{t\in\operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}(s,t) = \nonumber\\
&\sum_{i=2}^{k-1}\min ((d-i)\beta,\alpha) + 2\min(d\beta,\alpha) \label{eq:low_b_spec}.\end{aligned}$$
First consider the case when $d\geq k-1=\left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$. Since there are $\left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$ number of families (complete plus incomplete families) and $k=\left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil+1$, any family index permutation has at least one pair of indices of the same family in its first $k$ coordinates. Using , this observation implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in{\mathcal{G}_F}}&\min_{t\in\operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}(s,t)\nonumber\\
&=\min_{\forall \pi_f} \sum_{i=1}^{k}\min \left(\left(d-y_i(\pi_f)\right)\beta,\alpha\right) \geq \min_{2\leq m\leq k} C_m \label{eq:another-new-prop-11}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_m=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\min ((d-i)\beta,\alpha)1_{\{i\neq m-1\}} + \min((d-m+2)\beta,\alpha)$ for $2\leq m\leq k$. Namely, $C_m$ is a lower bound of the following sum $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{k}\min \left(\left(d-y_i(\pi_f)\right)\beta,\alpha\right)\end{aligned}$$ conditioning on that the $m$-th oldest nodes in the family index permutation $\pi_f$ turns out to be a repeated one.
We now prove that the inequality is actually an equality. To that end, we first define $\pi_f^{[m]}$ as a family index permutation such that its first $k$ coordinates, in this order, are $1,2,\cdots,m-1,1,m+1,\cdots,c,0$ if $n\bmod(n-d)\neq 0$ and define $\pi_f^{[m]}$ as $1,2,\cdots,m-1,1,m+1,\cdots,c$ if $n\bmod(n-d)=0$. Since all the $k$ coordinates have different values except the first coordinate and the $m$-th coordinate have equal value $1$, and since they have no $-c$ value, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^k \min\left(\left(d-y_i\left(\pi_f^{[m]}\right)\right)\beta,\alpha\right)=C_m,\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in{\mathcal{G}_F}}\min_{t\in\operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}(s,t) = \min_{2\leq m\leq k} C_m.\end{aligned}$$
By observing that the RHS of is identical to $C_2$, what remains to be proved is to show now that $\min_{2\leq m\leq k} C_m=C_2$. First, notice that we have $$\begin{aligned}
C_m-C_2&=\min((d-1)\beta,\alpha)-\min(d\beta,\alpha)+\nonumber\\
&\min((d-m+2)\beta,\alpha)-\min((d-m+1)\beta,\alpha)\label{eq:cm_exp}.\end{aligned}$$ Since we always have $C_m-C_2=0$ when $m=2$, we only consider the $m$ values satisfying $3\leq m\leq k$. We then observe that the $\alpha$ value in is compared to four different values: $(d-m+1)\beta$, $(d-m+2)\beta$, $(d-1)\beta$, and $d\beta$, listed from the smallest to the largest. Depending on the relative order between $\alpha$ and these 4 values, we have 5 cases:
- If $\alpha\leq (d-m+1)\beta$, then $C_m-C_2=\alpha-\alpha+\alpha-\alpha=0$.
- If $(d-m+1)\beta \leq \alpha \leq (d-m+2)\beta$, then $C_m-C_2=\alpha-\alpha+\alpha-(d-m+1)\beta\geq \alpha-\alpha+\alpha-\alpha =0$.
- If $(d-m+2)\beta <\alpha \leq (d-1)\beta$ (this case does not exist for $m=3$), then $C_m-C_2=\alpha-\alpha+(d-m+2)\beta-(d-m+1)\beta=\beta\geq 0$.
- If $(d-1)\beta <\alpha \leq d\beta$, then $C_m-C_2=\alpha-(d-1)\beta+\beta\geq \alpha-\alpha +\beta \geq 0$.
- If $\alpha \geq d\beta$, then $C_m-C_2=(d-1)\beta-d\beta+\beta=0$.
We have shown by the above that $C_m\geq C_2$ for all $3\leq m \leq k$. Therefore, we have proved that $\min_{2\leq m\leq k} C_m=C_2=\sum_{i=2}^{k-1}\min ((d-i)\beta,\alpha) + 2\min(d\beta,\alpha)$ and we get the equality in .
We now consider the case when $d<k-1=\left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil$. Before proceeding, we first argue that among all $(n,k,d)$ values satisfying , the only possible cases of having $d\leq \left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil-1$ are either $d=1$ or $d=n-1$. The reason behind this is the following. Suppose $d\leq \left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil-1$ and $2\leq d\leq n-2$. For any $2\leq d\leq n-2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq \left\lceil\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil-1-d&=\left\lceil1+\frac{d}{n-d}\right\rceil-1-d\nonumber\\
&=\left\lceil\frac{d}{n-d}\right\rceil-d\nonumber\\
&\leq \left\lceil\frac{d}{2}\right\rceil-d \label{eq:corr1_1}\\
&=\begin{cases} -\frac{d}{2}, & \mbox{if } d\mbox{ is even} \\ \frac{1-d}{2}, & \mbox{if } d\mbox{ is odd} \end{cases}\nonumber\\
&<0\label{eq:corr1_2},\end{aligned}$$ where we get by our assumption that $d\leq n-2$ and follows from the assumption that $d\geq 2$. The above contradiction implies that when $d\leq \left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil-1$ we have either $d=1$ or $d=n-1$. Since Corollary \[cor:low\_b\] requires $d\geq 2$, the only remaining possibility in this case of $d\leq \left\lceil \frac{n}{n-d}\right\rceil-1$ is when $d=n-1$. However, $k$ will not have a valid value since in this case we have $d=n-1<k-1$, which implies $k>n$, an impossible parameter value violating . Hence, the proof is complete.
We now prove Proposition \[prop:optimal\] by proving the following. Consider any fixed $(n,k,d)$ values that satisfy the three conditions of Proposition \[prop:optimal\] and any $G\in \mathcal{G}(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ where all the active nodes of $G$ have been repaired at least once. We will prove the statement that such $G$ satisfies that there exists a data collector, denoted by $t_2 \in \operatorname{DC}(G)$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tight_proof}
\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t_2)\leq \sum_{i=2}^{k-1}\min ((d-i)\beta,\alpha) + 2\min(d\beta,\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the above statement plus Corollary \[cor:low\_b\] immediately prove Proposition \[prop:optimal\] since it says that no matter how we design the helper selection scheme $A$, the resulting $G$ (still belongs to $\mathcal{G}(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$) will have $\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\leq \sum_{i=2}^{k-1}\min ((d-i)\beta,\alpha) + 2\min(d\beta,\alpha)$.
We now prove the above statement. We start with the following definition.
\[def:mp\_set\]A set of $m$ active storage nodes (input-output pairs) of an IFG is called an $(m,2)$-set if the following conditions are satisfied simultaneously. (i) Each of the $m$ active nodes has been repaired at least once; (ii) for easier reference, we use $x_1$ and $x_2$ to denote the oldest and the second-oldest nodes, respectively, among the $m$ nodes of interest. If we temporarily add an edge connecting $x_{2,\text{in}}$ and $x_{1,\text{out}}$, then we require that the $m$ nodes of interest form an $m$-set as defined in Definition \[def:m\_set\]. Specifically, in an $(m,2)$-set, the only possible “disconnect” among the $m$ nodes is between $x_{2,\text{in}}$ and $x_{1,\text{out}}$ and every other node pairs must be connected. Note that whether $x_{2,\text{in}}$ and $x_{1,\text{out}}$ are actually connected or not is of no significance in this definition.
We now prove the following claim, which will later be used to prove the desired statement.
Consider any $G\in\mathcal{G}(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ where $(n,k,d)$ satisfy the three conditions of Proposition \[prop:optimal\] and all the active nodes of $G$ have been repaired at least once. In any $l$ active nodes of $G$, where $l$ is an even integer value satisfying $4\leq l\leq n$, there exists a $(\frac{l}{2}+1,2)$-set.
We prove this claim by induction on $l$. We first prove that the claim holds for $l=4$. Consider any set $H_1$ of 4 active nodes of $G$. We will now prove the existence of a $(3,2)$-set. First, call the chronologically fourth active node of $G$, $u$. Since $d=n-2$, $u$ can avoid at most 1 active node during repair and $u$ is thus connected to at least $3-1=2$ older active nodes in $H_1$. Pick two nodes that $u$ is connected to and call this set of two nodes $V$. Then, we claim that $\{u\}\cup V$ forms a $(3,2)$-set. The reason is the following. Let $v_1$ and $v_2$ denote the two nodes in $V$ and, without loss of generality, we assume $v_1$ is older than $v_2$. We have that $u$ is connected to $v_1$ and $v_2$. One can verify that $\{v_1,v_2,u\}$ satisfy the properties (i) and (ii) of Definition \[def:mp\_set\] since the first and the second oldest nodes are $V=\{v_1,v_2\}$. Therefore, $\{v_1,v_2,u\}$ form a $(3,2)$-set. Note that $v_2$ may or may not be connected to $v_1$.
Now, assume that the claim holds for $l\leq l_0-2$. Consider any set of $l_0$ active nodes of $G$ and call it $H_2$. Since $d=n-2$, each node can avoid connecting to at most 1 active node. Therefore, the youngest node in $H_2$, call it $x$, is connected to $l_0-2$ older nodes in $H_2$. Call this set of $(l_0-2)$ nodes, $V_2$. We assumed that the claim holds for $l\leq l_0-2$, this tells us that in $V_2$ there exists an $(\frac{l_0}{2},2)$-set. Moreover, for any $(\frac{l_0}{2},2)$-set in $V_2$, denoted by $V_3$, we argue that the set $V_3\cup \{x\}$ is a $(\frac{l_0}{2}+1,2)$-set in $H_2$. The reason is that the first and the second oldest nodes in $V_3\cup\{x\}$ are also the first and the second oldest nodes in $V_3$. Since node $x$ is connected to all nodes in $V_2\supseteq V_3$, $V_3\cup\{x\}$ satisfies properties (i) and (ii) in Definition \[def:mp\_set\] and thus form a $(\frac{l_0}{2}+1,2)$-set. Hence, the proof is complete.
By the above claim, we have that for any $G\in\mathcal{G}(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)$ where all the active nodes of $G$ have been repaired at least once there exist a $(\frac{n}{2}+1,2)$-set. We then consider a data collector that connects to this $(\frac{n}{2}+1,2)$-set and we denote it by $t_2$.
We now apply a similar analysis as in the proof of [@dimakis2010network Lemma 2] to prove . We need to prove that is true for the $t_2$ we are considering. Denote the storage nodes (input-output pair) of this $(\frac{n}{2}+1,2)$-set by $1,2,\dots,\frac{n}{2}+1$. Define cut $(U,\overline{U})$ between $t_2$ and $s$ as the following: for each $i\in \{0,2,3,4,\dots,\frac{n}{2}\}$, if $\alpha \leq (d-i)\beta$ then we include $x_{\operatorname{out}}^{i+1}$ in $\overline{U}$; otherwise, we include both $x_{\operatorname{out}}^{i+1}$ and $x_{\operatorname{in}}^{i+1}$ in $\overline{U}$. For $i=1$, if $\alpha \leq d\beta$, then we include $x_{\operatorname{out}}^2$ in $\overline{U}$; otherwise, we include both $x_{\operatorname{out}}^2$ and $x_{\operatorname{in}}^2$ in $\overline{U}$. It is not hard to see that the cut-value of the cut $(U,\overline{U})$ is no larger than $\sum_{i=2}^{k-1}\min ((d-i)\beta,\alpha) + 2\min(d\beta,\alpha)$. Therefore, we get and the proof is complete.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:optimal\_2\] {#app:optimal_2}
========================================
[@hollmann2014minimum Theorem 5.2] proved that for $k=n-1$ and $\alpha=d\beta$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:optimal_2_proof_4}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_A}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)} \operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)\leq \frac{nd\beta}{2}\end{aligned}$$ for any arbitrary DHS scheme $A$. As a result, we only need to prove that when $n\bmod(n-d)=0$, the min-cut of the FHS scheme equals $\frac{nd\beta}{2}$.
Since $\alpha=d\beta$, we know by Proposition \[prop:mbr\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:optimal_2_proof_1}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_F}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)= \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} (d-y_i(\pi_f^*)) \beta.\end{aligned}$$ Now, when $n\bmod(n-d)=0$, we have no incomplete family in the FHS scheme and the RFIP has the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_f^*=(1,2,\cdots,c,1,2,\cdots,c,\cdots,1,2,\cdots,c)\label{eq:rfip_optimal_2},\end{aligned}$$ where recall that $c=\left\lfloor\frac{n}{n-d}\right\rfloor=\frac{n}{n-d}$. Using , we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:yi_optimal_2}
y_i(\pi_f^*)=i-1-\left\lfloor \frac{i-1}{c}\right\rfloor.\end{aligned}$$ The reason behind is the following. Examining the definition of $y_i(\cdot)$, we can see that $y_i(\cdot)$ counts all the coordinates $j<i$ of $\pi_f^*$ that have a family index different than the family index at the $i$-th coordinate. For each coordinate $i$, with the aid of , there are $\left\lfloor \frac{i-1}{c}\right\rfloor$ coordinates in $\pi_f^*$ preceding it with the same family index. Therefore, in total there are $i-1-\left\lfloor \frac{i-1}{c}\right\rfloor$ coordinates in $\pi_f^*$ preceding the $i$-th coordinate with a different family index, thus, we get .
By and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in \mathcal{G}_F}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}&\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-2}\left(d-i+\left\lfloor\frac{i}{\frac{n}{n-d}}\right\rfloor\right)\beta \nonumber\\
&=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\left(d-i+\left\lfloor\frac{i}{\frac{n}{n-d}}\right\rfloor\right)\beta\label{eq:n-1_n-2}\\
&=\left(nd-\frac{(n-1)n}{2}+\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\left\lfloor\frac{i}{\frac{n}{n-d}}\right\rfloor\right)\beta\nonumber\\
&=\left(nd-\frac{(n-1)n}{2}+\frac{n}{n-d}\sum_{i=0}^{n-d-1}i\right) \beta\nonumber\\
&=\left(nd-\frac{(n-1)n}{2}+\frac{n(n-d-1)}{2}\right)\beta\nonumber\\
&=\frac{nd\beta}{2}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we get by the fact that $d-(n-1)+\left\lceil \frac{n-1}{c}\right\rceil =d-(n-1)+(n-d-1)=0$. The proof is thus complete
Proof of Proposition \[prop:family-plus\_optimal\] {#app:family-plus_optimal_proof}
==================================================
By Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_plus\] and the fact that $k=n-1$, we must have all but one $k_b=n_b$ and the remaining one $k_b=n_b-1$. Without loss of generality, we assume $k_1=n_1-1$ and all other $k_b=n_b$ for $b=2$ to $B$ for the minimizing $\mathbf{k}$ vector in . Since $n_1\bmod(n_1-d)=0$, by Proposition \[prop:optimal\_2\], the first summand of must be equal to $\frac{n_1\alpha}{2}$.
For the case of $b=2$ to $B$, we have $k_b=n_b$ instead of $k_1=n_1-1$. However, if we examine the proof of Proposition \[prop:optimal\_2\], we can see that Proposition \[prop:optimal\_2\] holds even for the case of $k=n$ since (i) when compared to the case of $k=n-1$, the case of $k=n$ involves one additional summand $(d-y_n(\pi_f^*))\beta$ in and (ii) $(d-y_n(\pi_f^*))=0$. By applying Proposition \[prop:optimal\_2\] again, the $b$-th summand of , $b=2$ to $B$, must be $\frac{n_b\alpha}{2}$ as well.
Finally, by Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_plus\], we have the equality in
$$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G\in {\mathcal{G}_{F^+}}}\min_{t\in \operatorname{DC}(G)}\operatorname{mincut}_G(s,t)=\sum_{b=1}^B\frac{n_b\alpha}{2}=\frac{n\alpha}{2}\label{eq:family-plus_optimal2}.\end{aligned}$$
The inequality in is by [@hollmann2014minimum Theorem 5.4]. The proof is thus complete.
[^1]: Reference [@el2010fractional] observes that choosing good helpers can strictly outperform BHS at the minimum-bandwidth point by giving a code example [@el2010fractional Section VI] for parameters (using the notation of RCs) $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta)=(6,3,3,3,1)$. As will be seen later, the helper selection scheme and the associated code construction in [@el2010fractional] can be viewed as a special case of the helper selection schemes proposed in this Part I paper and the new code construction in the companying Part II [@part2].
[^2]: SHS and DHS will be formally defined in Section \[sec:hs\].
[^3]: An alternative definition of the MSR point is when a scheme stores only $\alpha=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k}$ packets, which is different from the definition we used in . For example, when $(n,k,d)=(5,3,2)$, one can prove that $\min_{\text{all codes}}\alpha_{\text{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{2}$ based on the definition in . We thus say that the MSR point of the best possible scheme is $\alpha^*_{\text{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{2}$ for $(n,k,d)=(5,3,2)$. In contrast, the alternative MSR definition will say that the MSR point does not exist for the parameter $(n,k,d)=(5,3,2)$ since no scheme can achieve $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{k}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{3}<\alpha^*_{\text{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
[^4]: If we analyze the LRCs proposed in [@kamath2014codes; @kamath2013explicit; @papailiopoulos2012locally] for $(n,k,d)=(6,4,4)$, we can show that those codes/schemes cannot do better than the BHS curve at the MSR point. As a result, the LRCs in [@kamath2014codes; @kamath2013explicit; @papailiopoulos2012locally] are no better than the absolutely optimal scheme curve in Fig. \[fig:storage\_vs\_bandwidth\_(6-4-4)\], as predicted by Proposition \[prop:optimal\_main\].
[^5]: Using Proposition \[prop:low\_b\], we have that the tradeoff of FHS is characterized by $2\min(2\beta,\alpha)\geq\mathcal{M}$ for $(n,k,d)=(5,3,2)$. It is not hard to prove, in a similar way to the proof of Proposition \[prop:optimal\], that any arbitrary DHS scheme is bound to do no better than this tradeoff.
[^6]: \[footnote:incomplete\]All the concepts and intuition are based on complete families. The incomplete family is used to make the scheme consistent and applicable to the case when $n\bmod(n-d)\neq 0$.
[^7]: If we compare the min-cut value of FHS in with the min-cut value of BHS in , we can see that the greatest improvement happens when the new term $(d-y_i(\pi_f))\beta\leq \alpha$ for all $i$. These are the mathematical reasons why the MBR point sees the largest improvement.
[^8]: Recall from [@dimakis2010network] that for BHS we have $\alpha_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{\mathcal{M}}{\min(d,k)}$ and $\gamma_{\operatorname{MSR}}=\frac{d\mathcal{M}}{\min(d,k)(d-\min(d,k)+1)}$.
[^9]: A detailed proof of this simple algebraic observation can be found in the proof of Corollary \[cor:low\_b\] around in Appendix \[app:optimal\_proof\].
[^10]: Our construction and analysis, Proposition \[prop:low\_b\_plus\], work for arbitrary $n_b$ partitions. On the other hand, the optimality guarantee in Proposition \[prop:family-plus\_optimal\] only holds when $n_b\bmod(n_b-d)=0$ for all $b$.
[^11]: We also observe that $r_2=r_3=2$ and we can choose $i=2$ and $j=3$ instead. Namely, the choice of $(i,j)$ is not unique. In [Modify]{}, any choice satisfying our algorithmic description will work.
[^12]: We can also choose $\gamma=4$ or $5$. For those choices, the iterative process will continue a bit longer but will terminate eventually.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Hamiltonian light-front dynamics of quantum fields may provide a useful approach to systematic non-perturbative approximations to quantum field theories. We investigate inequivalent Hilbert-space representations of the light-front field algebra in which the stability group of the light-front is implemented by unitary transformations. The Hilbert space representation of states is generated by the operator algebra from the vacuum state. There is a large class of vacuum states besides the Fock vacuum which meet all the invariance requirements. The light-front Hamiltonian must annihilate the vacuum and have a positive spectrum. We exhibit relations of the Hamiltonian to the nontrivial vacuum structure.'
author:
- 'F. Coester$^1$ and W. Polyzou$^2$'
date: April 1993
title: ' Vacuum Structures in Hamiltonian Light-Front Dynamics'
---
\#1 { } [H]{} §[[S]{}]{}
$^1$[*Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne IL 60439*]{}
$^2$[*Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242*]{}
In the usual formulation of quantum mechanics of finite systems kinematics and dynamics are cleanly separated. An operator algebra of coordinate, momentum and spin operators describes the degrees of freedom of the system. The Hilbert-space representation of this algebra is unique within unitary equivalence.[@Bogol] The dynamics is specified by the Hamiltonian operator which is a function of the dynamical variables. Many different dynamical laws exist for any particular Hilbert space of states and the associated operator algebra. In particular states of interacting and noninteracting particles are in the same Hilbert space and the operator algebra is not altered by the dynamics. This picture changes qualitatively for infinite systems. There are inequivalent Hilbert-space representations of the canonical commutation relations. [@VanH] - [@Segal] The Fock-space representation is only one of infinitely many Hilbert-space representations, with different vacuum structure. The vacuum structure depends on the dynamics. The essential ingredients are vacuum polarization terms in the Hamiltonian and invariance under translations. The Lorentz invariance of quantum field theories is not relevant in this context.[@Coester; @Araki]
In light-front Hamiltonian dynamics[@Dirac] there are important differences from the usual equal-time picture. The kinematic symmetries are the transformations which leave the null plane $x^+:=t+x_3=0$ invariant. The generator, $P^+$, of translations tangential to the light cone has a positive continuous spectrum $[0,\infty]$ and a point eigenvalue $0$ for the vacuum state. The most important consequence is the suppression of vacuum polarization terms in the Hamiltonian.[@Weinberg] This feature indicates that a Fock-space representation of quantum field theories may provide a framework for systematic nonperturbative approximations. Discretizations and Tamm-Dancoff truncations of the Fock space have been investigated for that purpose.[@Pauli]-[@Tang] In discretized formulations the operator $P^+$ has a discrete spectrum. In the expansion of fields modes with $P^+=0$, (“zero-modes”) can play an important role. The dynamics generates constraint equations which serve to eliminate these modes.[@Maskawa] - [@Pinsky]
The standard approach consists of quantization of classical field theories. We believe it is preferable to consider quantum theory as the fundamental theory and construct quantum field theory at the outset as translationally invariant quantum theory. [@Rohrlich; @Coester.NP] Relativistic quantum mechanics of infinitely many free particles is easily formulated in a Hilbert space which is the infinite direct sum of tensor products of one-particle Hilbert spaces. (Fock space) Field operators constructed from particle creation and annihilation operators are precisely the usual free fields and the generators of the group obtained in this manner are identical to those obtained by integrating appropriate components of the energy-momentum tensor over the null plane $x^+=0$. The Fock vacuum is the only state vector in this Hilbert space which is invariant under translations. The free field Hamiltonian annihilates the vacuum. If a Hamiltonian with interactions also annihilates the vacuum we have the same pattern as in quantum mechanics. The Hilbert space of states and the operator algebra are the same for systems with and without interaction.
From the analogy of field algebras with Euclidean kinematics [@Araki; @Araki.W] we expect that there are inequivalent Hilbert space representations of the null-plane field algebra required by classes of Hamiltonians with different properties. In this context it is essential to observe that the construction of field operators described above does not yield operator valued functions of points on the light front but linear functionals (distributions) over suitable test functions defined on the null plane $x^+=0$.[@Schlieder]-[@Gelfand] Important qualitative differences from the Euclidean case are associated with the stability group of the null plane and the distinctive features of the appropriate test functions.
Interactions are introduced formally by adding to the free-field energy momentum tensor an interaction term which can be obtained from a local Lagrangean density. The energy-momentum tensor so constructed is an operator valued functional of functions over the four-dimensional space-time, but it is not an operator functional of functions restricted to the null plane. Thus the formal Hamiltonians obtained from local Lagrangeans are not operators unless they are “regularized”. The cut-offs involved in the regularization always destroy the covariance, but the null-plane symmetry can be preserved in many ways. Different regularizations may imply different vacuum structures.
The central question is whether there are classes of regularized Hamiltonians which can provide systematic nonperturbative approximations to the observable consequences of the full field theory. Here we will be concerned only with preliminary questions concerning the existence of inequivalent Hilbert space representations of the null-plane field algebra and the associated vacuum structures. It is vital to regularize the Hamiltonians of the local field theories in a manner which preserves the nontrivial structure of the physical vacuum.
The purpose of this paper is to exhibit inequivalent Hilbert space representations of the free-field operator algebra and the associated vacuum structures. Invariance and the cluster properties are essential features of these vacuum structures, each of which supports different classes of Hamiltonians. We do not address the questions related to limiting procedures designed to restore invariance. Our approach in this paper is exploratory. While the language of algebraic field theory[@Haag] is essential for the exposition of the relevant ideas we do not attempt a mathematically rigorous treatment at this point. The basic assumptions that specify the null-plane field algebra are formulated in Section 2. This is essentially an adaptation of the well-known Wightman axioms [@Streater; @Haag.II] and of the basic assumptions of algebraic quantum field theory.[@Haag.III] The vacuum structures are discussed in Section 3.\
For any point $x$ in Minkowski space we use the light-front components $x^+:=x^0+x^3$, $x^-:=x^0-x^3$ and $x_\perp=\{0,x_1,x_2,0\}$. For points in the null plane $x^+=0$, denoted by $\bx:=\{x^-,x_\perp\}$, the scalar product $p\cdot x$ reduces to px =p\_x\_- p\^+x\^- . The null-plane component $p^+$ is positive if $p$ is a timelike four-momentum with positive energy. The null plane $x^+=0$ is invariant under a subgroup $\N$ of the group which consists of the translations $\bx\to \bx+\bd$ and the Lorentz transformations $\bLam(a,b)$ with the $SL(2,C)$ representation (a,b) , \[AB\] and the space-time inversion $\bx \to -\bx$. We use the notation $\{\bd,\bLam\}$ for the transformation $\bx \to \bLam(\bx+\bd)$, and for any function $f(\bx)$ {,}f() := f\[(+)\] . The group $\N$ is the kinematic subgroup of null-plane dynamics. When the Euclidean group in three dimensions is the kinematic group every hyperplane $x^0=$const. is invariant. It is a distinctive feature of null-plane dynamics that only the null plane $x^+=0$ is invariant under $\N$. The null planes $x^+=$ const.$\not=0$ are invariant only under a subgroup of $\N$.
[**2.1 Polynomial Algebra of Field Operators**]{}
The properties of null-plane fields can be described by a series of assumptions which follow the pattern of the Wightman axioms
- [*Assumptions of Null-Plane Quantum Theory*]{}
The states of the theory are described by unit rays in a separable Hilbert space $\H$. The kinematic transformations are given by a continuous unitary representation of the stability group $\N$ of the null plane $\{\bd,\bLam\} \to U(\bd,\bLam)$. Since $U(\bd,\one)$ is unitary it can be written as $U(\bd,\one)=\exp(i\bP\cdot\bd)$, where $\bP:=\{P^+,P_\perp\}$ is an unbounded self-adjoint operator interpreted as the light-front momentum operator of the theory. The spectrum of $P^+$ is positive, $P^+\geq 0$. ([*spectral condition*]{}) The infinitesimal generators of the kinematic Lorentz transformations, $\bLam$, are $K_z$ and $\vec E$ for the light-front boosts and $J_z$ for the rotations about the longitudinal axis.
There is an invariant state, $\Omega$: $U(\bd,\bLam)\Omega =\Omega$, unique up to a constant phase factor.
- [*Assumptions about the Domain of the Field Operators*]{}
1. Fields are “operator valued distributions” over the null plane, (f):=d\^3 ()f()=d\^3 (-)f() where $d^3\bx:=\half dx^-d^2x_\perp$ and $d^3\bp:= dp^+d^2p_\perp$. The test functions $f(\bx)$ are real valued functions related to the functions $f(\bp)=\bar f(-\bp)$ by the Fourier transform &&f() = (2)\^[-]{}d\^3f()e\^[i]{}&&f() = (2)\^[-]{}d\^3f()e\^[-i]{} . A suitable test function space $\hat \S$ has been defined by Schlieder and Seiler.[@Schlieder] By their definition $f(\bx)\in \hat {\cal S}(\Re^3)$ are derivatives of functions in the space $\S$ defined by Laurent Schwartz. [@Schwartz; @Gelfand] The functions $f(\bp)\in \hat \S$ are Schwartz functions in $\S(\Re^3)$ multiplied by $p^+$.
2. The operators $\phi(f)$ and their adjoints $\phi^*(f)$ are unbounded operators acting on $\H$ defined on some dense domain $\D\subset \H$. The domain $\D$ is a linear set containing the vacuum state $\Omega$, $ \Omega \in \D$. The ranges of operators $U(\bd,\bLam)$, $\phi(f)$ and $\phi(f)^*$ are in $\D$, U(,) , (f) ,\^\*(f) . If $\Psi_1, \Psi_2 \in \D$, then $(\Psi_1,\phi(f)\Psi_2)$ is a linear functional of $f$, which satisfies \_1\^\*(f)\_2= .
3. In general there will be several types of fields (distinguished by an index $i$) each with tensor or spinor components (labeled by an index $\lambda$). We have then (f):=\_id\^3 \^i\_()f\^[i]{}() .
- [*Transformation Law of the Fields*]{}
The fields transform according to U\^[-1]{}(,)\^i\_()U(,)= S\_\^[(i)]{}()\^i\_(\^[-1]{}-) , where $S_\lam^{(i)\rho}(\bLam)$ is a finite dimensional representation matrix of the Lorentz transformation $\bLam$.
- [*Canonical Commutation relations, Local Commutativity*]{}
Charged scalar fields satisfy the canonical commutation relations, =(f,g)-(g,f) ,=0 , where the scalar product of the test functions is defined by (f,g):= |f()g() .
If $\phi(f)$ is a spinor field we have the corresponding anticommutation relations \_+=(f,g)+(g,f) ,\_+=0 where the invariant inner product of the spinor test functions is (f,g):= f\^() g() . Here $\phi^\dagger(g):=\phi^*(g)\beta$ and $f^\dagger(\bp):=\bar f(\bp)\beta$ and $\beta\equiv \gamma^0$ is the usual Dirac matrix.\
For Hermitean scalar fields,$\phi^*(f)=\phi(f)$, we have, = . \[CCR\] or =[(+’)2p\^+]{} . \[CCRP\]
Two points, $\bx$ and $\bx'$, on the null plane are relatively spacelike if $\vert x_\perp-x'_\perp \vert >0$. The scalar product $(f,g)$ vanishes when the supports of the test functions $f$ and $g$ are relatively spacelike.
- [*Completeness*]{}
Polynomials of the operators $\phi(f)$ operating on the vacuum state $\Omega$ generate a dense set of states in $\H$.
- [*Dynamics*]{}
There exists a self-adjoint Hamiltonian operator $H\equiv P^-$ whose domain contains the domain $\D$ of Assumption B. The Hamiltonian operator $P^-$ is invariant under the null-plane translations, $[P^-,\bP]=0$. The operator $P^-$ together with the generators,$\bP$, of the null-plane translations transforms as a four-vector under the null-plane Lorentz transformations (\[AB\]). The mass operator, $M^2:=P^+P^- - P_\perp^2$ is invariant and has a positive spectrum. The spectrum of the Hamiltonian is the positive real axis. The Hamiltonian operator annihilates the vacuum.
The following discussions will be restricted throughout to Hermitean scalar fields satisfying the commutation relations (\[CCR\]). We assume that the operator algebra is not modified by the dynamics. With the definitions \^[()]{}(f):= d\^3\^[()]{}()f(-), \^[()]{}():=(p\^+)() , it follows from the commutation relations (\[CCRP\]) and the definition of the test function space that =\[\^[(-)]{}(f),\^[(-)]{}(g)\]=0 , and = (f,g) . \[CCPM\] We can therefore define the “normal ordered product” of field operators in the usual manner, :(f\_1)(f\_2): &:=&\^[(+)]{}(f\_1) \^[(+)]{}(f\_2) +\^[(-)]{}(f\_1) \^[(-)]{}(f\_2)&+&\^[(-)]{}(f\_1) \^[(+)]{}(f\_2) +\^[(-)]{}(f\_2)\^[(+)]{}(f\_1) .
From the kinematic covariance of the field and the spectral condition it follows that =d\^3 p\^+(p\^+) (-) f() , and hence = d\^3 p\^+(p\^+) () f(-) =0 , =0 . \[PPL\] The operators $\phi^{(+)}(f)$ annihilate the vacuum for all test functions $f(\bp)$ whose support excludes some neighborhood of $p^+=0$. If we assume that $\phi^{(+)}(f)$ annihilates the vacuum for all $f$ then the vacuum is the Fock vacuum and we have the usual Fock-space representation of the field algebra. Any nontrivial vacuum structure must be associated with vanishing values of $p^+$.
The generators of the light-front symmetries are obtained from integrals over the light-front components of the energy momentum tensor, &&P\^+= d\^3 T\^[++]{}() , P\_= d\^3 T\^[+]{}()&&K\_3= d\^3 T\^[++]{}()x\^- ,E =d\^3 T\^[++]{}()x\_&&J\_3=d\^3 \[T\^[+2]{}()x\_1-T\^[+1]{}()x\_2\] , where T\^[++]{}()= 4:[()x\^-]{} [()x\^-]{}: , and T\^[+]{}()= 2 :[()x\_]{} [()x\^-]{}: . The kinematic generators annihilate vacuum even when there is a nontrivial vacuum structure at $p^+=0$.
According to Assumption F we have P\^-= [M\^2+P\^2\_P\^+]{} , and in analogy to (\[PPL\]) =P\^-\^[(+)]{}(f)= 0 . \[PPM\] For the free-field Hamiltonian, P\^- = d\^3T\^[+-]{}()= d\^3:()\[m\^2-\_\^2\](): we get from eq. (\[PPM\]) = d\^3 (p\^+) () f(-) =0 . \[PMF\] It follows that the free-field vacuum is the Fock vacuum, which by definition is annihilated by $\phi^{(+)}(f)$ for all $f$. In general the condition (\[PPM\]) may specify annihilation operators which require a zero-mode structure of the vacuum. A similar characterization of the vacuum structure by the annihilation operators was found in the Euclidean case [@Coester].
The most convenient description of general vacuum structures results from the formulation of the field algebra as an abstract $^*$-algebra[@Haag.III] described in the next subsection.
[**2.2 Abstract $^*$-Algebra** ]{}
The properties of field operators listed above can be derived from the abstract $^*$-algebra generated by finite linear combinations, R:=\_n c\_n U(f\_n) with complex coefficients $c_n$ and Schlieder-Seiler test functions $f_n(\bx)$. Here the unitaries $U(f)$ have the algebraic properties and the norm topology of linear combinations of the Hilbert-space operators $\exp [i\phi(f)]$ considered in the previous subsection. We have thus a $C^*$ algebra, R\^\*R= R \^2 , with the following properties:
- [*Involution*]{} R\^\*=\^\*=\_n |c\_n U(-f\_n) .
- [*Product and Unit Element*]{} U(g)U(f)=U(f+g)e\^ , U(0)= . \[PROD\]
With the notation $U(f_1,f_2):=U(f)$, where $f(\bp)=f_1(\bp)-if_2(\bp)$ and $f_(\bp), f_2(\bp)$ are real, we see the the algebra specified by eq. (\[PROD\]) is the Weyl algebra, [@LKS] U(g\_1,g\_2)U(f\_1,f\_2)=U(g\_1+f\_1,g\_2+f\_2)e\^[[i2]{}\[(f\_2,g\_1)-(f\_1,g\_2)\]]{}.
- [*Null-Plane Symmetry*]{}
The continuous null-plane symmetries are implemented by \*-automorphisms of the abstract algebra, {,}U(f) U({,}f) , where {,}f()= f\[(+)\] . The space-time inversion $\bx \to -\bx$ is implemented by the anti-automorphism cU(f) |c U(-f) , where $\tilde f(\bx):= f(-\bx)$.
- [*The Vacuum Functional*]{}
The vacuum state is given by a continuous linear functional over the algebra, $E[R]=\sum_ic_iE[U(f_i)]$, $E(f):=E[U(f)]$, with the properties:
1. Positivity: $E[R^* R]=\sum c_n \bar c_m E(f_n-f_m)
e^{\fourth[(f_n,f_m)-(f_m,f_n)]} \geq 0$.
2. Normalization: $E(0)=E[1] =1$.
3. Reality: $\bar E(f)=E(-f)$
4. Invariance: $E(f)=E(\{\bd,\bLam\}f)\; , \quad E(f)=E(\tilde f)$
5. Cluster Property: $\lim_{\lambda\to \infty}[E(f+\{\lambda \bd\} g)-E(f)E(g)]=0$, $d_\perp\not=
0$.
For a vacuum functional with these properties the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) construction [@Haag.III] provides a Hilbert-space representation of the algebra: R =E\[R\] , and for any two state vectors $\Psi_1:= R_1\Omega$, $\Psi_2:= R_2\Omega$ \_2\_1 = E\[R\_2\^\*R\_1\] . There is only one translationally invariant vector, $ \Omega$, in the Hilbert space so constructed. (See ref. [@Araki] theorem 6.1)
From the strong continuity of the operators $U( f)$ follows the existence of self-adjoint field operators $\phi(f)$ such that $U(f)=e^{i\phi(f)}$. The explicit form of the Fock vacuum functional, E\_0(f):= e\^[-(f,f)]{} follows immediately from the normal ordered form U(f) = e\^[i\^[(-)]{}(f)]{} e\^[i\^[(+)]{}(f)]{} e\^[-(f,f)]{} , which is a consequence of the commutation relations (\[CCPM\]) and the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula [@Bourbaki].
The vacuum functional determines the Hilbert space representation of the operator algebra. The existence of nontrivial Hilbert representations depends on invariant functionals of the test functions $f(\bp)$ which depend only on the neighborhood of $p^+=0$. Examples are functionals of f\_0(p\_):=\_[p\^+0]{}[f()ip\^+]{} , \[FZ\] for instance $f_0(0)$ and d\^2p\_f\_0(p\_)\^2 (p\_\^2) , where $\eta(\vert p_\perp\vert^2)$ is some fixed positive function.
A dense set of states can be represented by sets of functions $\psi^{(n)}(\bx_1,\dots \bx_n)$ in the $n$-fold tensor product of $\hat \S(\Re^3)$, because the states := \_n d\^3\_1d\^3\_n (\_1)…(\_n)\^[(n)]{}(\_1,…\_n) , are dense in $\H$. The scalar product $\<\Psi_2\vert \Psi_1\>$ of the states $\Psi_2$ and $\Psi_1$ is therefore related to the vacuum distribution W\_n(\_1,…,\_n):=E\[(\_1)(\_n)\] by &&\_2\_1= \_[n,m]{}d\^3\_1d\^3\_[n+m]{}&&|\_2\^[(n)]{}(\_1,…,\_n)W\_[n+m]{}(\_1,…, \_[n+m]{}) \_1\^[m]{}(\_[n+1]{},…, \_[n+m]{}) . \[WF\] The right-hand side of eq. (\[WF\]) is a positive invariant inner product of functions in $\oplus_n \hat \S^{\otimes n}$. We have by completion a realization of the Hilbert space by direct sums of multi-point functions. The inner product of the functions representing states is determined by the vacuum distributions.
Nontrivial vacuum structures become apparent when we consider the vacuum expectation values of the normal ordered operator
&&:U(f): = e\^[i\^[(-)]{}(f)]{} e\^[i\^[(+)]{}(f)]{}= U(f)e\^[(f,f)]{}&&=\_n[i\^nn!]{}d\^3\_1d\^3\_n :(\_1)(\_n):f(\_1) f(\_n) .
The cluster structure of the vacuum requires that the normal ordered vacuum distributions w\_n(\_1,…,\_n):=E\[:(\_1)(\_n):\] \[NWF\] are products of “truncated vacuum distributions”[@Haag.CC], $w_T^{(n)}(\bx_1,\dots,\bx_n)$, which vanish in the limit of large spacelike separations of any two points. They can be defined by E\[:U(f):\]= , \[TVAC\] where w\_T\^[(n)]{}(f):= [1n!]{} d\^3\_1d\^3\_n w\_T\^[(n)]{}(\_1,…,\_n)f(\_1) f(\_n) . \[TWF\] The distributions (\[NWF\]) can be obtained from (\[TVAC\]) by functional differentiation.
Nonvanishing distributions $w_T^{(n)}(f)$ represent nontrivial vacuum structure. The requirement (\[PPL\]) that the operator $[P^+,\phi(f)]$ annihilates the vacuum in all representations is satisfied when the vacuum distributions $w_T^{(n)}(f)$ involve only the restriction (\[FZ\]). w\_T\^[(n)]{}(f)&:=& [1n!]{} d\^3\_1d\^3\_n w\_T\^[(n)]{}(p\_[1]{},…,p\_[n]{}) (p\_[1]{}+…+p\_[n]{})&&[(p\_1\^+)ip\^+]{}f(\_1) f(\_n) . These vacuum structures are formally the same as those of a nonrelativistic Bose gase in two space dimensions.[@Araki.W] The positivity of the spectrum of the Hamiltonian $P^-$ together with the condition that the Hamiltonian must annihilate the vacuum led to the requirement (\[PPM\]), $[P^-,\phi^{(+)}(f)]\Omega=0$. This requirement relates the dynamics specified by the Hamiltonian to a particular vacuum structure.
Simple examples of a nontrivial vacuum are obtained when only $w_T^{(1)}(f)$ and/or $w_T^{(2)}(f)$ are different from zero, for instance, w\_T\^[(1)]{}(f)=\_0f\_0(0) , for some real parameter $\varphi_0$, and w\_T\^[(2)]{}(f)= [1 2]{}d\^2p\_f\_0(p\_)\^2 (p\_\^2) . for some fixed function $\eta$. Such simple Gaussian vacua may be the basis of non-Fock perturbative approximations.\
A superficial inspection of the Fock-space formalism indicates that the Fock vacuum is not a stationary state when there are pure creation terms in the normal ordered interaction Hamiltonian. In an equal-time Hamiltonian formalism such terms are always present when the Hamiltonians are derived from local Lagrangeans. Since the Fock vacuum is the only translationally invariant state vector in the Fock space, the physical vacuum is the cyclic vector of an inequivalent Hilbert-space representation of the field algebra.
In light-front Hamiltonian dynamics it appears superficially that pure creation terms in the Hamiltonian cannot exist and that the Fock vacuum is therefore the physical vacuum. This observation rests on the requirement that the sum $p_1^+ + \dots +p_n^+$ vanishes which implies that each individual $p_i^+$ vanishes. For a more careful analysis it is essential to note that the fields are defined as distributions over Schlieder-Seiler test functions and that $\delta(p^+)/p^+$ is well defined as a distribution. It follows that nontrivial vacuum structures exist also in Hamiltonian light-front dynamics. When a light-front Hamiltonian that is derived formally from a Lagrangean always possible to suppress the pure creation terms without affecting the null-plane invariance. It remains to be seen what if any role the vacuum structures play in approximations to invariant field theories. The role of quark condensates may give an indication. They can be accommodated in this framework, but only in the presence of a nontrivial vacuum.
[AA]{} N. N. Bogolubov [*General Principles of Quantum Theory*]{} (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht 1990). See page 262. L. Van Hove, Physics, [**18**]{} (1952) 145. K. O. Friedrics, [*Mathematical Aspects of the Quantum Theory of Fields.*]{} (Interscience Pulbl., New York 1953). L. Gårding, and A. S. Wightman, Proc. Nat. Acad. [**40**]{} (1956) 622 . I. E. Segal, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. [**88**]{} (1958) 12. F. Coester and R. Haag, Phys. Rev., [**117**]{} (1960) 1137. H. Araki, J. Math. Phys., [**1**]{} (1964),492. P.A.M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys.[**21**]{} (1949) 329 . S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**150**]{} (1966) 1313. H. C. Pauli and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. [**D32**]{} (1985) 1993; 2001 . R. J. Perry,Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{} (1990) 2959. D. Mustaki Phys. Rev. [**D43**]{} (1991) 3411. A. C. Tang Phys. Rev.[**D44**]{} (1991) 1842. T. Maskawa and K Yamawaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**56**]{} (1976) 270. Th. Heinzl Z. Phys. [**A334**]{} (1989) 443; Phys. Lett. B [**256**]{} (1991); Nuc. Phys. [**A532**]{} (1991) 429c; Regensburg Preprint TPR 92-17. G. McCartor and D. Robertson, Z. Phys [**C53**]{} (1992) 679. S. Pinsky, Ohio State Preprint, OHSTPY-HEP-TH-92-030 F. Rohrlich, Acta Phys. Austriaca, Supp. [**8**]{} (1971) 277. See Sec. 5 F. Coester, Prog. Nuc. Part. Phys. [**29**]{} (1992) 1. H. Araki and E. J. Woods, J. Math. Phys.,[**4**]{} (1963) 637. S. Schlieder and E. Seiler, Comm. Math. Phys [**25**]{} (1972) 62. L. Schwartz,[*Th' eorie des Distributions*]{}, (Hermann, Paris 1957) I. M. Gelfand and G. E. Shilov, [*Generalized Functions*]{}, (Academic Press, New York 1964). R. Haag, [*Local Quantum Physics*]{}, (Springer 1992). R. F. Streater and A.S. Wightman, [*PCT, Spin & Statistics and All That*]{}, (Benjamin, New York 1964). See Sec. II.1.2 of ref. [@Haag] . See Chapter III of ref. [@Haag] H. Leutwyler,J. R. Klauder and L. Streit, Nuov. Cim. [**66A**]{} (1970) 536. N. Bourbaki, Lie Groups and Lie Algebras, (Springer 1989). See page 160-161. See Sec. II.2.2 of ref. [@Haag]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper considers online convex optimization with time-varying constraint functions. Specifically, we have a sequence of convex objective functions $\{f_t(x)\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ and convex constraint functions $\{g_{t,i}(x)\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ for $i \in \{1, ..., k\}$. The functions are gradually revealed over time. For a given $\epsilon>0$, the goal is to choose points $x_t$ every step $t$, without knowing the $f_t$ and $g_{t,i}$ functions on that step, to achieve a time average at most $\epsilon$ worse than the best fixed-decision that could be chosen with hindsight, subject to the time average of the constraint functions being nonpositive. It is known that this goal is generally impossible. This paper develops an online algorithm that solves the problem with $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ convergence time in the special case when all constraint functions are nonpositive over a common subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Similar performance is shown in an expected sense when the common subset assumption is removed but the constraint functions are assumed to vary according to a random process that is independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) over time slots $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$. Finally, in the special case when both the constraint and objective functions are i.i.d. over time slots $t$, the algorithm is shown to come within $\epsilon$ of optimality with respect to the best (possibly time-varying) causal policy that knows the full probability distribution.'
author:
- |
Michael J. Neely , Hao Yu\
University of Southern California\
<http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/>\
bibliography:
- '../../../latex-mit/bibliography/refs.bib'
title: 'Online Convex Optimization with Time-Varying Constraints'
---
Introduction
============
Fix $n$ and $k$ as positive integers. Let ${{{\cal{X} }}} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ be a convex and compact set. Let $\{f_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of continuous and convex *objective functions* defined over $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$. For each $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$, let $\{g_{t,i}\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of convex *constraint functions* defined over $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$. The $f_t$ and $g_{t,i}$ functions are initially unknown. They are gradually revealed over time. Every slot $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$, a controller chooses a (possibly random) vector $X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$, without knowledge of the $f_t$ and $g_{t,i}$ functions. This incurs a cost $f_t(X_t)$ and generates a collection of penalties $g_{t,1}(X_t), g_{t,2}(X_t), \ldots, g_{t,k}(X_t)$. The functions $f_t$ and $g_{t,i}$ are revealed at the end of slot $t$, after the $X_t$ decision is made.
While the functions are unknown, they are assumed to have bounded subgradients. The algorithm of this paper makes use of subgradient information that is revealed at the end of every slot. This formulation is inspired by the classic *online convex optimization* framework of Zinkevich [@online-convex]. Specifically, work in [@online-convex] considers the case of pure objective function minimization, so that there are no constraint functions $g_{t,i}$. It develops the online subgradient projection algorithm: $$x_{t} = \mathcal{P}_{{{{\cal{X} }}}}[x_{t-1} - \epsilon f'_{t-1}(x_{t-1})]$$ where $\delta>0$ is a fixed step-size, $f'_{t-1}(x_{t-1})$ denotes a subgradient of $f_{t-1}$ at the point $x_{t-1}$, and $\mathcal{P}_{{{{\cal{X} }}}}$ denotes projection onto the set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$. This algorithm makes a decision at time $t$ without knowledge of the $f_t$ function and using only the subgradient information of the function $f_{t-1}$ at the previously chosen point $x_{t-1}$. Remarkably, this algorithm ensures the following holds for all points $x^* \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x_t) \leq \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}f_t(x^*) + c \epsilon , \quad \forall T \geq 1/\epsilon^2 \label{eq:zink1}
\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is a system constant. In particular, for each positive integer $T$, one can define $x^*_T = \arg\min_{x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}} \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x)$ as the best *fixed decision* at time $T$ (defined with full knowledge of the future). Thus, ensures the Zinkevich algorithm (which does not know the future) achieves a time average objective value that is at most $O(\epsilon)$ worse that the best fixed decision, for all $T \geq 1/\epsilon^2$. We call this an *$O(\epsilon)$-approximation with convergence time $1/\epsilon^2$.* Work in [@kale-universal] presents a simple example with linear objective functions to show that $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ is the best possible asymptotic convergence time for *any* algorithm, while improved convergence times are possible under more stringent *strongly convex* properties of $f_t$.
The bound is stated in terms of *convergence time* to an $O(\epsilon)$-approximation. This is closely related to the metric of $O(\sqrt{T})$ *regret*. The $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret metric requires, for all $x^* \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$: $$\label{eq:regret}
\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x_t) \leq \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x^*) + O(\sqrt{T}), \quad \forall T>0$$ Fix $\epsilon>0$. Dividing by $T$ shows that an algorithm that achieves $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret also achieves an $O(\epsilon)$-approximation with convergence time $1/\epsilon^2$. Strictly speaking, the $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret property is stronger than and Zinkevich achieves it in [@online-convex] by using a *diminishing step size* $\epsilon_t = 1/\sqrt{t}$, rather than a fixed step size $\epsilon$.[^1]
Alternatively, a standard doubling trick (as in [@Shalev-Shwartz11FoundationTrends]) can often be used to convert algorithms that achieve for arbitrary values of $\epsilon>0$ into an algorithm to achieve $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret for all $T>0$. This is done by implementing the former algorithm over successive intervals of time, where each interval $m$ is twice the size of its predecessor and uses a value $\epsilon_m$ that is held fixed over the interval but decreases at interval boundaries. For simplicity of exposition, this paper focuses on the convergence time definition of . The doubling method is described in Appendix \[appendix:regret\] to show how the algorithm of this paper can also be modified to achieve $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret.
Prior work with constraints
---------------------------
One wonders if a similar result can be obtained for extended problems with convex constraint functions $g_{t,i}$. The answer is “no.” Specifically, work in [@constraint-online-impossible] presents a simple example of a problem with a time-varying convex objective function $f_t(x)$ and a single time-varying constraint function $g_t(x)$. The goal is to minimize the time average of $f_t(x_t)$ subject to the time average of $g_t(x_t)$ being less than or equal to 0. It is assumed that the constraint is feasible. In this context, an $\epsilon$-approximation for the first $T$ slots is defined by requiring the time average constraint to be violated by at most $\epsilon$, while the objective time average must be at most $\epsilon$ larger than that achieved by the best *constraint-achieving fixed-action policy* over these slots. The example in [@constraint-online-impossible] constructs a sample path such that, for a given $\epsilon>0$, no algorithm can produce an $\epsilon$-approximation. Intuitively, the sample path is constructed so that any algorithm that achieves $\epsilon$-optimality at a particular time $T$ necessarily makes decisions over the first $T$ steps that lead to significant constraint violations at time $2T$. On the other hand, alternative actions would allow the constraints to be satisfied at time $2T$, but would necessarily produce a huge deviation from objective optimality at time $T$.
Work in [@mahdavi-learning] considers constrained online convex optimization in the special case when the constraint functions $g_i(x)$, $i \in \{1, ..., k\}$, are known and do not depend on time. This scenario can be solved by the classical Zinkevich algorithm by defining a modified convex set: $$\hat{{{{\cal{X} }}}} = {{{\cal{X} }}} \cap \{x \in {{{\cal{X} }}} : g_i(x) \leq 0 \quad \forall i \in \{1, ..., k\}\}$$ However, when the number of constraints $k$ is large, the set $\hat{{{{\cal{X} }}}}$ can be complicated and the projection operation in can be difficult to implement. In contrast, the set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$ might be a hypercube for which projections are easy. The work in [@mahdavi-learning] develops an algorithm that uses projections onto the simpler set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$, so that per-slot complexity is smaller, while achieving an $O(\epsilon)$-approximation with convergence time $O(1/\epsilon^{4})$. Specifically, for all $x^* \in \hat{{{{\cal{X} }}}}$ the algorithm ensures: $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x_t) \leq \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}f_t(x^*) + O(\epsilon) , \quad \forall T \geq 1/\epsilon^3
\label{eq:mad1} \\
&\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} g_{i}(x_t) \leq O(\epsilon) , \quad \forall i \in \{1, ..., k\}, \: \forall T \geq 1/\epsilon^4 \label{eq:mad2}
\end{aligned}$$ The convergence time here is $1/\epsilon^4$, which is not as good as the $1/\epsilon^2$ convergence time of Zinkevich. However, the algorithm is simpler to implement on every slot.[^2] Recent followup work in [@jenatton-learning] shows a tradeoff between the convergence times in and can be achieved by using time varying step sizes: The convergence time for can be changed to $O(1/\epsilon^{\max\{\frac{1}{1-\delta}, \frac{1}{\delta}\}})$, for any $\delta \in (0,1)$, with a corresponding convergence time tradeoff in of $O(1/\epsilon^{\frac{2}{\delta}})$. Recent work in [@hao-fast-online-learning] introduces a new technique to reduce the convergence time of to $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ with convergence time of the constraints being $O(1/\epsilon)$.
A related problem formulation in [@online-constraints-batch] treats time-varying constraints in the special case when both the objective and constraint functions vary according to an i.i.d. stochastic process. In such cases, the “worst-case” sample paths of the work in [@constraint-online-impossible] occur with probability zero, and so it may be possible to construct online algorithms that allow $\epsilon$-approximations for both the objective and constraints in an expected sense or probabilistic sense. For this scenario, [@online-constraints-batch] develops a batch algorithm, rather than an online algorithm. Specifically, it shows that after observing the system for a sufficiently long time, one can produce a random variable that solves a related constrained optimization problem. To our knowledge, the problem of constructing an online algorithm for the case of i.i.d. problems has not be solved before.
Our contributions
-----------------
The current paper first considers general sample paths with no probabilistic model. It develops an $O(\epsilon)$ approximation with convergence time $1/\epsilon^2$ for the case when the time-varying constraint functions satisfy a deterministic Slater condition and optimality is restricted by a *common subset* assumption. These conditions hold, for example, when the constraint functions do not vary with time, as studied in [@mahdavi-learning][@jenatton-learning][@hao-fast-online-learning], and our new algorithm improves on the convergence time of [@mahdavi-learning][@jenatton-learning] and matches that of [@hao-fast-online-learning] in that special case.
Next, we consider a stochastic model and assume that the vector-valued constraint function $(g_{t,1}, \ldots, g_{t,k})$ is chosen by nature according to a process that is independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) over time slots $t$, while the objective function $f_t$ varies according to an arbitrary stochastic process. Under this probabilistic structure, we show our algorithm again provides an $O(\epsilon)$-approximation (in an expected sense) with convergence time $1/\epsilon^2$, but optimality is now measured against the more general class of fixed-decision policies that achieve the desired constraints in expectation. Finally, we consider the case when the vector-valued function $(f_t, g_{t,1}, \ldots, g_{t,k})$ (which includes the constraint functions *and* the objective function) is i.i.d. over slots. In this case, the algorithm achieves similar convergence time, but this time optimality is with respect to any (possibly time-varying) policy that does not know the future. This i.i.d. case is similar to that treated in [@online-constraints-batch] using a non-online batch algorithm. To our knowledge, the current paper provides the first online algorithm with convergence guarantees for such problems. In this i.i.d. case, the stringent deterministic Slater condition is replaced by a mild Lagrange multiplier assumption, and the algorithm does not require knowledge of the Lagrange multipliers.
Our algorithm can be implemented every slot as a projection of a certain vector onto the set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$, as in the Zinkevich algorithm . However, while Zinkevich uses only the subgradient information $f'_t(X_t)$ at the end of each step $t$, our algorithm uses the subgradient information $f'_t(X_t), g_{t,1}'(X_t), ..., g_{t,k}'(X_t)$ as well as the function values $g_{t,1}(X_t), ..., g_{t,k}(X_t)$.
The $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ convergence time achieved in this paper meets two fundamental lower bounds known to hold for special unconstrained versions of our problem. First, it matches the $\Omega(1/\epsilon^2)$ lower bound known to hold for unconstrained online convex optimization. Indeed, [@kale-universal] presents a simple system with linear $f_t$ functions that vary i.i.d. over slots such that all algorithms have convergence time at least $\Omega(1/\epsilon^2)$. Second, since our objective and constraint functions are not required to be smooth, a special case of our i.i.d. formulation is when there is no time variation and the problem reduces to minimizing a possibly nonsmooth convex function subject to possibly nonsmooth inequality constraints. Nesterov shows in [@nesterov-book] that, for such nonsmooth convex minimization problems, all algorithms that make decisions based on linear combinations of subgradients have convergence time at least $\Omega(1/\epsilon^2)$, even if there are no inequality constraints. The primal-dual subgradient method, also known as the Arrow-Hurwicz-Uzawa subgradient method, can minimize a possibly nonsmooth convex function subject to possibly nonsmooth inequality constraints with $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ convergence [@Nedic09_PrimalDualSubgradient]. However, its implementation requires an upper bound on the optimal Lagrangian multipliers, which is typically unknown in practice. In contrast, the algorithm of this paper does not require knowledge of the Lagrange multipliers.
Formulation {#section:formulation}
===========
Let $\{f_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ and $\{g_{t,i}\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$, $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ be continuous and convex functions defined over a convex decision set ${{{\cal{X} }}} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$. The functions are possibly nonsmooth and are not required to be differentiable.
Boundedness and subgradient assumptions
---------------------------------------
The decision set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$ is convex and compact. Let $D \geq 0$ be a constant that represents the *diameter* of ${{{\cal{X} }}}$, so that $$\label{eq:D}
{\left|\left|{x-y}\right|\right|} \leq D \quad \forall x, y \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$$ where ${\left|\left|{z}\right|\right|} = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n z_i^2}$ denotes the standard Euclidean norm. Let $F \geq 0$ be a constant that represents a universal bound on all function values, so that for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$, all $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$, and all $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
|f_t(x)| \leq F \: \: , \: \:
|g_{t,i}(x)| \leq F \label{eq:F} \end{aligned}$$
The functions $f_{t}$ and $g_{t,i}$ are assumed to have *subgradients* for all $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$. Let $f_t'(x)$ and $g_{t,i}'(x)$ denote *particular* subgradient vectors defined at $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$. By definition of a subgradient, the $f_t'(x)$ and $g_{t,i}'(x)$ vectors satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
f_t(y) &\geq f_t(x) + f_t'(x)^T(y-x) \quad \forall x, y \in {{{\cal{X} }}}\label{eq:subgradient-f} \\
g_{t,i}(y) &\geq g_{t,i}(x) + g_{t,i}'(x)^T(y-x) \quad \forall x, y \in {{{\cal{X} }}} \label{eq:subgradient-g} \end{aligned}$$ where $z^T$ denotes the transpose of a (column) vector $z$, and holds for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. In the special case when $f_t$ and $g_{t,i}$ are differentiable at a point $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ then $f_t'(x) = \nabla f_t(x)$ and $g_{t,i}'(x) = \nabla g_{t,i}(x)$. Assume the subgradients are bounded so that there is a positive constant $G$ such that for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$, all $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$, and all $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left|\left|{f_t'(x)}\right|\right|} \leq G \: \: , \: \:
{\left|\left|{g_{t,i}'(x)}\right|\right|} \leq G \label{eq:G} \end{aligned}$$
Optimization over a common subset
---------------------------------
For Sections \[section:formulation\]-\[section:bounds\], no probabilistic assumptions are made concerning the time-varying functions $f_t$ and $g_{t,i}$. However, the $g_{t,i}$ functions are assumed to satisfy the following *Slater condition*.
\[assumption:slater\] (Slater condition) There exists a real number $\eta >0$ and a vector $s \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$, called the *Slater vector*, such that for all slots $t \in\{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
g_{t,i}(s) \leq -\eta \quad, \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\} \label{eq:slater} \end{aligned}$$
This assumption is natural in many cases, including cases when there is an all-zero decision that allocates zero power or zero resources so that all constraints are loose. It is also natural in the special case when the constraint functions have no time variation, so that $g_{t,i} = g_i$ (as treated in [@mahdavi-learning][@jenatton-learning][@hao-fast-online-learning]). Notice that the Slater condition places no restrictions on the time-varying objective functions $f_t$.
Define the *common subset* ${{{\cal{A} }}}$ as the set of all $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ such that: $$\label{eq:set-A}
g_{t,i}(x) \leq 0 \quad , \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}, \forall t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$$ The Slater condition implies that $s \in {{{\cal{A} }}}$ and hence ${{{\cal{A} }}}$ is nonempty. The set ${{{\cal{A} }}}$ represents the common subset of ${{{\cal{X} }}}$ over which all constraint functions are nonpositive for all time. It can be shown that ${{{\cal{A} }}}$ is a compact set. Indeed, this follows because ${{{\cal{X} }}}$ is compact, functions $g_{t,i}$ are continuous over ${{{\cal{X} }}}$, and ${{{\cal{A} }}}\subseteq{{{\cal{X} }}}$.
We shall construct an online algorithm and compare its performance against the performance of all fixed-decisions in the common subset ${{{\cal{A} }}}$. Specifically, fix $\epsilon>0$ and let $T$ be a positive integer. An algorithm for making decisions $X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ over slots $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$ is said to be an *$\epsilon$-approximation* with *convergence time $T$* if the following holds for all slots $t \geq T$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{t}\sum_{\tau=0}^{t-1} f_t(X_t) &\leq \frac{1}{t}\sum_{\tau=0}^{t-1} f_t(x) + \epsilon \quad, \forall x \in {{{\cal{A} }}} \\
\frac{1}{t}\sum_{\tau=0}^{t-1} g_{t,i}(X_t) &\leq \epsilon \quad \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}
\end{aligned}$$ The above inequalities imply that, after a transient time of size $T$, the algorithm comes within $\epsilon$ of satisfying all constraints and also achieves an objective value that is within $\epsilon$ of that of the best fixed-decision vector in the set ${{{\cal{A} }}}$. An algorithm is said to be an $O(\epsilon)$ approximation with convergence time $T$ if the above inequalities hold with $\epsilon$ replaced by $c \epsilon$ for some constant $c$ that does not depend on $\epsilon$ and $T$. The set ${{{\cal{A} }}}$ may be complex and may not be known to the system controller. The algorithm presented in the next section does not require knowledge of set ${{{\cal{A} }}}$.
The above goal compares against fixed-decision vectors $x \in {{{\cal{A} }}}$ that make all constraint functions nonpositive for all slots $t$. It is more desirable to optimize over the larger set of all fixed-decision vectors $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ that are only required to satisfy the time average constraints in the limit as $t\rightarrow\infty$ (using a $\limsup$ if limits do not exist). However, work in [@constraint-online-impossible] shows this more ambitious goal is generally impossible to achieve. Fortunately, Section \[section:probability\] shows that the *same* algorithm of this paper achieves this more ambitious goal in an *expected sense* and in the special case when a probability model is introduced and the vector-valued sequence of constraint functions $\{(g_{t,1}, \ldots, g_{t,k})\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ is i.i.d. over slots $t \in\{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$. Stronger optimization results are achieved in Section \[section:model2\] under the additional assumption that the objective functions are also i.i.d. over slots.
Algorithm {#section:algorithm}
=========
Fix $x_0$ as any point in ${{{\cal{X} }}}$. Define the initial decision as $X_{0} = x_0$. For each constraint $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ let $Q_i(t)$ represent a *virtual queue* defined over slots $t \in \{0, 1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$ with initial conditions $Q_i(0)=Q_i(1)=0$ and update equation: $$\label{eq:q-update}
Q_i(t+1) = \max[Q_i(t) + g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1}), 0] \quad \forall t \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$$ Our algorithm uses parameters $V>0, \alpha>0$ and makes decisions as follows:
- On slot $t=0$, choose $X_0 =x_0$.
- At the start of each slot $t \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$, observe $Q_i(t)$ for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ and choose $X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ to minimize the following expression: $$\label{eq:decision}
\left[Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t)g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T\right] X_t + \alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2$$ where the historical values $X_{t-1}$, $f_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})$, and $g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ are treated as fixed and known constants in the above expression.
- At the end of each slot $t \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$, update virtual queues $Q_i(t)$ for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ via .
The decision $X_t$ is chosen on slot $t$ to minimize the expression over all options in the set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$. The next lemma shows that this minimization can be implemented by a simple *projection* onto the set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$.
Implementation as a projection
------------------------------
For each vector $y \in \mathbb{R}^n$ define the projection operator ${{{\cal{P} }}}_{{{{\cal{X} }}}}[y]$ as: $${{{\cal{P} }}}_{{{{\cal{X} }}}}[y] = \arg\inf_{x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}} {\left|\left|{x-y}\right|\right|}^2$$ Since ${{{\cal{X} }}}$ is a compact and convex set, this projection always exists and is unique.
(Projection implementation) Fix $\alpha>0$ and $t\in\{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$. The unique $X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ that minimizes is: $$\label{eq:projection}
X_t = {{{\cal{P} }}}_{{{{\cal{X} }}}} \left[ X_{t-1} + \frac{W_t}{2\alpha} \right]$$ where $W_t$ is defined from the historical information as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
W_t = Vf'_{t-1}(X_{t-1}) + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t)g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1}) \end{aligned}$$
The proof is similar to a proof given in [@hao-constrained-learning]. The expression is equal to $W_t^TX_t + \alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
X_t &= \arg\inf_{x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}} \left[ W_t^Tx+ \alpha {\left|\left|{x-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \right]\\
&\overset{(a)}{=}\arg\inf_{x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}} \left[ \frac{{\left|\left|{W_t}\right|\right|}^2}{4\alpha}+ W_t^T(x-X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{x-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \right]\\
&\overset{(b)}{=}\arg\inf_{x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}} {\left|\left|{\sqrt{\alpha}(x-X_{t-1}) - \frac{W_t}{2\sqrt{\alpha}}}\right|\right|}^2\\
&\overset{(c)}{=}\arg\inf_{x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}} {\left|\left|{x- \left(X_{t-1} + \frac{W_t}{2\alpha}\right)}\right|\right|}^2 \\
&= {{{\cal{P} }}}_{{{{\cal{X} }}}} \left[ X_{t-1} + \frac{W_t}{2\alpha} \right] \end{aligned}$$ where (a) holds because the minimizer does not change when the constant ${\left|\left|{W_t}\right|\right|}^2/(4\alpha)-W_t^TX_{t-1}$ is added to the expression; (b) holds by expanding the square; (c) holds because the minimizer is unchanged when the expression is divided by $\sqrt{\alpha}$.
Virtual queue analysis
----------------------
The following lemma provides a collection of bounds on the virtual queue values, one bound for each real number $\beta>0$.
\[lem:virtual-queues\] Fix $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ and $T \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$. Under the virtual queue update equation the following holds for all real numbers $\beta>0$: $$\label{eq:vq}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} g_{t,i}(X_t) \leq \frac{Q_i(T+1)}{T} + \frac{G^2}{4\beta} + \frac{\beta}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2$$
Since $\max[x,0] \geq x$, the update equation implies for each slot $t\in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$: $$Q_i(t+1) \geq Q_i(t) + g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})$$ Rearranging terms gives: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_i(t+1) -Q_i(t) &\geq g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1}) \nonumber \\
&\overset{(a)}{\geq} g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) - G{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|} \nonumber\\
&= g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) - \frac{G^2}{4\beta} - \beta {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 + \left(\frac{G}{2\sqrt{\beta}}-\sqrt{\beta}{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
&\geq g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) - \frac{G^2}{4\beta} - \beta {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \label{eq:to-sum} \end{aligned}$$ where (a) holds by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and the fact that ${\left|\left|{g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})}\right|\right|}\leq G$. Fix $T\geq 1$. Summing over $t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}$ gives: $$Q_i(T+1)-Q_i(1) \geq \sum_{t=0}^{T-1}g_{t,i}(X_t) - \frac{TG^2}{4\beta} - \beta\sum_{t=1}^{T}{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2$$ Dividing by $T$, rearranging terms, and using $Q_i(1)=0$ yields the result.
The above lemma shows that it is desirable to maintain a low value of the virtual queues $Q_i(t)$ and also maintain a low value of ${\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2$.
Intuition on algorithm construction
-----------------------------------
Define $Q(t) = (Q_1(t), \ldots, Q_k(t))$ as the vector of virtual queues for slot $t \in \{1, 2,3, \ldots\}$. Define $L(t) = \frac{1}{2}{\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|}^2$. The function $L(t)$ is a scalar measure of the virtual queue vector and shall be called a *Lyapunov function*. Define $\Delta(t) = L(t+1)-L(t)$. The intuition behind the algorithm is that it makes decisions $X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ every slot $t$ to minimize a bound on the expression: $$\underbrace{\Delta(t)}_{\mbox{drift}} + \underbrace{\alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 + Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})}_{\mbox{weighted penalty}}$$ The term $\Delta(t)$ can be viewed as a *Lyapunov drift* term: Making this term small intuitively helps to maintain small values of the virtual queues. The remaining term can be viewed as a weighted *penalty term*. The penalty term includes ${\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2$ because Lemma \[lem:virtual-queues\] shows it is desirable for this to be small. Intuitively, the expression $f_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})$ appears in the penalty because we have learned from the original Zinkevich algorithm (for unconstrained problems) that it is desirable for this term to be small. The next subsections compute bounds on the above drift-plus-penalty expression. The weights $\alpha$ and $V$ shall be chosen carefully to establish desirable performance.
Sample path drift analysis
--------------------------
For all slots $t \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$ we have: $$\label{eq:drift}
\Delta(t) \leq B + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t)[g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})]$$ where $\Delta(t) = \frac{1}{2}{\left|\left|{Q(t+1)}\right|\right|}^2-\frac{1}{2}{\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|}^2$, and the constant $B$ is defined: $$\label{eq:B}
B = \frac{k(F+GD)^2}{2}$$ where constants $D, F, G$ are defined in , , .
Fix $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. Using the fact that $\max[z,0]^2 \leq z^2$ for all $z \in \mathbb{R}$ in the update equation gives: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_i(t+1)^2 &\leq \left[Q_i(t) + g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})\right]^2 \\
&= Q_i(t)^2 + \left(g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})\right)^2 \\
& \quad + 2Q_i(t)\left[g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})\right] \end{aligned}$$ Define $b_i(t) = g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})$. Rearranging the above inequality gives $$Q_i(t+1)^2 - Q_i(t)^2 \leq b_i(t)^2 + 2Q_i(t)\left[g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})\right]$$ Summing over all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ and dividing by $2$ yields: $$\Delta(t) \leq \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^k b_i(t)^2 + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t)\left[g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})\right]$$ The result follows because $|b_i(t)| \leq F + GD$ for all $i$ and all $t$.
Adding the penalty term $Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2$ to both sides of gives a bound on the drift-plus-penalty expression: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta(t) + Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \nonumber \\
& \leq B + Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_{t} -X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\nonumber \\
& \quad + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t)[g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1})] \label{eq:transparent} \end{aligned}$$ The algorithm decision in is now transparent: *The algorithm chooses $X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ to minimize the right-hand-side of* .
Strong convexity analysis
-------------------------
Recall that ${{{\cal{X} }}}$ is a convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Fix a real number $c>0$. A function $h:{{{\cal{X} }}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is said to be *$c$-strongly convex* if $h(x) - \frac{c}{2}{\left|\left|{x}\right|\right|}^2$ is convex over $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$. It is easy to see that if $q:{{{\cal{X} }}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a convex function, then for any constant $c>0$ and any vector $b \in \mathbb{R}^n$, the function $q(x) + \frac{c}{2}{\left|\left|{x-b}\right|\right|}^2$ is $c$-strongly convex. Further, it is known that if $h:{{{\cal{X} }}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a $c$-strongly convex function that is minimized at a point $x^{min} \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$, then (see, for example, [@hao-fast-convex-SIAM]): $$h(x^{min}) \leq h(y) - \frac{c}{2}{\left|\left|{y-x^{min}}\right|\right|}^2 \quad \forall y \in {{{\cal{X} }}} \label{eq:strongly}$$
Notice that the expression on the right-hand-side of is a $(2\alpha)$-strongly convex function of $X_t$ (due to the $\alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2$ term). Since $X_t$ minimizes this strongly convex expression over all vectors in ${{{\cal{X} }}}$, it follows from that for all vectors $y \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta(t) + Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \nonumber \\
& \leq B + Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T(y -X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{y-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\nonumber \\
& \quad + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t)[g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) + g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(y-X_{t-1})] - \alpha{\left|\left|{y-X_t}\right|\right|}^2 \label{eq:y-class} \end{aligned}$$ This leads to the following lemma.
(Sample path drift-plus-penalty bound) For every vector $y \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ and every slot $t\in\{1, 2, 3,\ldots\}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta(t) + \frac{\alpha}{2} {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \nonumber \\
& \quad \leq B + Vf_{t-1}(y) - Vf_{t-1}(X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{y-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 - \alpha{\left|\left|{y-X_t}\right|\right|}^2 \nonumber \\
& \quad + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t)g_{t-1,i}(y) + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} \label{eq:drift-plus-penalty} \end{aligned}$$ where the constant $B$ is defined in .
Fix $t \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$ and $y \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$. Using the subgradient inequalities - gives for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T(y-X_{t-1}) &\leq f_{t-1}(y) - f_{t-1}(X_{t-1}) \\
g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T(y-X_{t-1}) &\leq g_{t-1,i}(y) - g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1}) \end{aligned}$$ Substituting these two inequalities into the right-hand-side of gives: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta(t) + Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \nonumber \\
& \leq B + Vf_{t-1}(y) - Vf_{t-1}(X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{y-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 - \alpha{\left|\left|{y-X_t}\right|\right|}^2 \nonumber \\
& \quad + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t)g_{t-1,i}(y) \end{aligned}$$ By rearranging the above inequality so that the left-hand-side has the same form as , it remains to show that: $$- Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1}) -\frac{\alpha}{2}{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \leq \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha}$$ To this end, by completing the square we have: $$\begin{aligned}
&-Vf'_{t-1}(X_{t-1})^T(X_t-X_{t-1}) - \frac{\alpha}{2}{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \\
&= -{\left|\left|{\frac{Vf'_{t-1}(X_{t-1})}{2\sqrt{\alpha/2}} + \sqrt{\alpha/2}(X_t-X_{t-1})}\right|\right|}^2 + \frac{V^2}{2\alpha}{\left|\left|{f'_{t-1}(X_{t-1})}\right|\right|}^2 \\
&\leq \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that ${\left|\left|{f'_{t-1}(X_{t-1})}\right|\right|}\leq G$.
Performance bounds {#section:bounds}
==================
This section provides performance bounds on the algorithm of the previous section. It is assumed throughout that the algorithm uses parameters $\alpha>0, V>0$.
Objective bound
---------------
\[thm:performance-bound\] (Objective function bound) Suppose the set ${{{\cal{A} }}}$ is nonempty. Then the algorithm of this paper ensures the following for all integers $T\geq 1$ and all $x \in {{{\cal{A} }}}$: $$\label{eq:objective-function}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}f_t(X_t) \leq \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x) + \frac{B}{V} + \frac{VG^2}{2\alpha} + \frac{\alpha D^2}{VT}$$ where constants $B, G, D$ are defined in , , . In particular, if we fix $\epsilon>0$ and define $V=1/\epsilon$, $\alpha = 1/\epsilon^2$, then for all $T\geq 1/\epsilon^2$ we have: $$\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}f_t(X_t) \leq \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}f_t(x) + O(\epsilon)$$
Substituting $y=x$ into and using the fact that $g_{t,i}(x)\leq 0$ for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ yields the following for all $t \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$: $$\Delta(t) \leq B + Vf_{t-1}(x) - Vf_{t-1}(X_{t-1}) + \alpha{\left|\left|{x-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 - \alpha {\left|\left|{x-X_t}\right|\right|}^2 + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha}$$ where the nonnegative term $\frac{\alpha}{2}{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2$ has been dropped from the left-hand-side of the above inequality. Fix $T \geq 1$. Summing over $t \in \{1, \ldots T\}$ and dividing by $T$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{L(T+1)-L(1)}{T} &\leq B + \frac{V}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}f_t(x) - \frac{V}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}f_t(X_t) + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha}+ \frac{\alpha{\left|\left|{x-X_0}\right|\right|}^2-{\left|\left|{x-X_T}\right|\right|}^2}{T}\\
& \leq B + \frac{V}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}f_t(x) - \frac{V}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}f_t(X_t) + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha}+ \frac{\alpha D^2}{T}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that ${\left|\left|{x-X_0}\right|\right|}^2 \leq D^2$. Rearranging terms, substituting $L(1)=0$, and neglecting the nonnegative term $L(T+1)$ gives the result.
Queue bound
-----------
\[lem:slater-drift\] Under the deterministic Slater condition (Assumption \[assumption:slater\]), the following holds for all slots $t \in\{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:drift-deterministic}
\Delta(t) \leq B + RV - \eta {\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|} + \alpha{\left|\left|{s - X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2- \alpha{\left|\left|{s - X_{t}}\right|\right|}^2 \end{aligned}$$ where $s$ is the Slater vector, $R$ is defined: $$\label{eq:R}
R = \frac{VG^2}{2\alpha} + 2F$$ and constants $B, G, F$ are defined in , , . Note that $R=O(1)$ whenever $\alpha \geq V$.
The result follows immediately by substituting $y=s$ into and using and the facts that: (i) $Vf_{t-1}(s)-Vf_{t-1}(X_{t-1})\leq 2VF$, (ii) $\sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t) \geq {\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|}$.
\[thm:deterministic-queue-bound\] (Queue bound) Suppose $V$ is a positive integer and $Q_i(0)=Q_i(1)=0$ for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. Under the deterministic Slater condition we have for all slots $t$: $${\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|} \leq \theta V$$ where constants $\theta$ and $\delta$ are defined: $$\begin{aligned}
\theta &= \max\left[ \delta, \frac{B+RV}{\eta V} + \frac{\alpha D^2}{\eta V (V+1)} + \frac{\delta (V+2)}{2V}\right] \label{eq:theta} \\
\delta &= \sqrt{k}(F+DG) \label{eq:delta} \end{aligned}$$ where the constants $B$, $R$, and $D$ are defined in , , . In particular, if $\alpha = V^2$ then ${\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|} \leq O(V)$ for all slots $t$.
The queue equation implies that each queue $Q_i(t)$ changes by at most $F+DG$ over one slot, and so the norm of the vector $Q(t)$ changes by at most $\delta$ over one slot. Then for all slots $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots, V\}$ we have: $${\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|} \leq \delta t \leq \delta V \leq \theta V$$ and so the desired bound holds for all slots $t \leq V$. Fix a slot $T\geq V$ and suppose ${\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|} \leq \theta V$ for all $t \leq T$. We show the bound also holds at time $T+1$, that is, we show ${\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}\leq \theta V$.
- Case 1: Suppose ${\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|} \leq {\left|\left|{Q(T-V)}\right|\right|}$. Since ${\left|\left|{Q(T-V)}\right|\right|}\leq \theta V$, we are done.
- Case 2: Suppose ${\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}>{\left|\left|{Q(T-V)}\right|\right|}$. Summing over $t \in \{T-V, \ldots, T\}$ gives: $$L(T+1) - L(T-V) \leq B(V+1) + RV(V+1) - \eta \sum_{t=T-V}^{T} {\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|} + \alpha{\left|\left|{s-X_{T-V}}\right|\right|}^2 - \alpha{\left|\left|{s-X_{T}}\right|\right|}^2$$ Using the norm definition of $L(t)$ and the fact that ${\left|\left|{s-X_{T-V}}\right|\right|}^2 \leq D^2$ (from ) gives: $$\underbrace{\frac{1}{2}{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}^2 - \frac{1}{2}{\left|\left|{Q(T-V)}\right|\right|}^2}_{\mbox{positive}} \leq B(V+1) + RV(V+1) + \alpha D^2 -\eta\sum_{t=T-V}^{T} {\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|}$$ The term in the underbrace is positive by the assumption for this Case 2 and so: $$\label{eq:sumV}
(B+RV)(V+1) + \alpha D^2 > \eta \sum_{t=T-V}^T {\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|}$$ Now suppose ${\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|} > \theta V$ (we shall reach a contradiction). Since the queue norm can change by at most $\delta$ every slot, we have: $${\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|} > \theta V - (T+1-t)\delta \quad , \forall t \in \{0, 1, \ldots, T+1\}$$ Substituting this into gives: $$(B+RV)(V+1) + \alpha D^2 > \eta \sum_{t=T-V}^T [\theta V - (T+1-t)\delta] = \eta \theta V (V+1) - \eta \delta\frac{(V+1)(V+2)}{2}$$ Rearranging the above inequality gives $$\theta < \frac{B+RV}{\eta V} + \frac{\alpha D^2}{\eta V (V+1)} + \frac{\delta (V+2)}{2V}$$ The above inequality contradicts the definition of $\theta$ in .
\[thm:constraint-bound\] (Constraint bound) Suppose the deterministic Slater condition holds (Assumption \[assumption:slater\]). Let $V$ be a positive integer and define $\alpha = V^2$. Then for each constraint $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ we have: $$\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} g_{t,i}(X_t) \leq \frac{\theta V}{T} + \frac{G^2}{4V} + \frac{G^2(1+\theta \sqrt{k})^2}{4V} \quad, \forall T>0$$ where $k$ is the number of constraints and constants $\theta$, $G$ are defined in , . Hence, constraint violations are $O(1/V)$ whenever $T \geq V^2$.
Fix a constraint $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ and fix an integer $T>0$. Lemma \[lem:virtual-queues\] (with $\beta = V$) implies: $$\label{eq:almost-done}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} g_{t,i}(X_t) \leq \underbrace{\frac{Q_i(T+1)}{T}}_{\leq \frac{\theta V}{T}} + \frac{G^2}{4V} + \frac{V}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2$$ where the term marked by the first underbrace is at most $\theta V/T$ by Theorem \[thm:deterministic-queue-bound\].
It remains to bound the final term on the right-hand-side of . To this end, fix $t \in \{1, 2, \ldots, T\}$. The decision $X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ made at time $t$ minimizes the strongly convex expression over all other vectors in ${{{\cal{X} }}}$. Since $X_{t-1} \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ we have by the strong convex minimization fact : $$\begin{aligned}
&\left[Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t) g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})\right]X_t + \alpha {\left|\left|{X_t - X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \\
&\leq \left[Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t) g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T\right]X_{t-1} + 0 - \alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging terms gives: $$\begin{aligned}
2\alpha {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 &\leq \left[Vf_{t-1}'(X_{t-1})^T + \sum_{i=1}^kQ_i(t)g_{t-1,i}'(X_{t-1})^T\right](X_{t-1}-X_t) \\
&\overset{(a)}{\leq} VG{\left|\left|{X_{t-1} - X_t}\right|\right|} + \sqrt{k}G{\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|}{\left|\left|{X_{t-1}-X_t}\right|\right|} \\
&\overset{(b)}{\leq} VG{\left|\left|{X_{t-1} - X_t}\right|\right|} + \sqrt{k}G\theta V {\left|\left|{X_{t-1}-X_t}\right|\right|}\end{aligned}$$ where (a) uses the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and the fact that $\sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t) \leq \sqrt{k}{\left|\left|{Q(t)}\right|\right|}$; (b) uses Theorem \[thm:deterministic-queue-bound\]. Hence: $${\left|\left|{X_{t-1}-X_t}\right|\right|} \leq \frac{VG(1+ \theta\sqrt{k})}{2\alpha}$$ It follows that: $$\frac{V}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \leq V \left[\frac{VG(1+ \theta\sqrt{k})}{2\alpha}\right]^2 = \frac{G^2(1+\theta\sqrt{k})^2}{4V}$$
The interpretation of Theorem \[thm:performance-bound\] and Theorem \[thm:constraint-bound\] is that for any $\epsilon>0$, one can select parameters $V$ and $\alpha$ so that the resulting algorithm achieves an $O(\epsilon)$ approximation with convergence time $T=1/\epsilon^2$. This is done by selecting $V$ as the smallest integer greater than or equal to $1/\epsilon$, and selecting $\alpha = V^2$.
Stochastic analysis {#section:probability}
===================
This section develops stronger performance guarantees when a probabilistic structure is imposed.
Probability model
-----------------
Let $\Omega$ be a finite dimensional vector space. Let $\{\omega_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ and $\{\eta_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ be two (possibly dependent) sequences of random vectors in $\Omega$. The functions $f_t$ and $g_{t,i}$ are determined by these processes on each slot $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
f_t(x) &= \hat{f}(x,\eta_t) \label{eq:fhat} \\
g_{t,i}(x) &= \hat{g}_i(x,\omega_t) \label{eq:ghat} \end{aligned}$$ where functions $\hat{f}$ and $\hat{g}_i$ are continuous and convex with respect to $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$. The $\hat{f}$ and $\hat{g}_i$ functions are bounded and have bounded subgradients with respect to $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$, so the resulting $f_t$ and $g_{t,i}$ functions are indeed continuous, convex, and satisfy the bounds and for all sots $t$.
- Model 1: Our first model assumes $\{\omega_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ is independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) over slots $t$, but the sequence $\{\eta_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ is arbitrary and can depend on the former sequence. This means that the vector-valued constraint functions $\{(g_{t,1}, \ldots, g_{t,k})\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ are i.i.d. over slots $t$, while the functions $\{f_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ have arbitrary time-variation.
- Model 2: Our second model assumes $\eta_t=\omega_t$ for all slots $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$ and again assumes $\{\omega_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ is i.i.d. over slots. Thus, the sequence of vector-valued functions $\{(f_t, g_{t,1}, \ldots, g_{t,k})\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ is i.i.d. over slots $t$. In particular, this model requires both the constraint and objective functions to have i.i.d. time variation.
Regardless of the model, it is assumed that the system controller has no knowledge of the probability distribution of the random sequences. Let $\{X_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ be the (possibly random) sequence of control decisions. On each slot $t$, the $X_t$ decision is assumed to be a random variable that takes values in the convex set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$, and the resulting function values $f_t(X_t)$, $g_{t,1}(X_t), \ldots, g_{t,k}(X_t)$ are assumed to be random variables with well defined expectations (the expectations are finite because of ). This section and the next assume Model 1 holds. Model 2 is a special case of Model 1 and allows for stronger results that are presented in Section \[section:model2\].
Goal for Model 1
----------------
Let $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ be the set of all vectors $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ such that: $$\label{eq:A-constraint}
{\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(x)\right]} \leq 0 \quad, \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}, \forall t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$$ The set $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ always contains the set ${{{\cal{A} }}}$ defined in , so that ${{{\cal{A} }}} \subseteq \tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}} \subseteq {{{\cal{X} }}} \subset \mathbb{R}^n$. In particular, if the Slater condition (Assumption \[assumption:slater\]) holds, then both ${{{\cal{A} }}}$ and $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ are nonempty. The set $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ can be shown to be compact.[^3] Suppose $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ is nonempty and fix $x \in \tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$. By the law of large numbers we have for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. $$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{t}\sum_{\tau=0}^{t-1} g_{\tau,i}(x) \leq 0 \quad (\mbox{with prob 1})$$
It is useful to redefine an $\epsilon$-approximation using expectations. Fix $\epsilon>0$ and let $T$ be a positive integer. An algorithm for making decisions $X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ over slots $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$ is said to be an *$\epsilon$-approximation in the expected sense* with *convergence time $T$* if the following holds for all slots $t \geq T$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{t}\sum_{\tau=0}^{t-1} {\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]} &\leq \frac{1}{t}\sum_{\tau=0}^{t-1} {\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x)\right]} + \epsilon \quad, \forall x \in \tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}} \\
\frac{1}{t}\sum_{\tau=0}^{t-1} {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(X_t)\right]} &\leq \epsilon \quad \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}
\end{aligned}$$
Performance under Model 1
-------------------------
\[lem:iid-lemma\] Consider Model 1 and assume $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ is nonempty. For every vector $x \in \tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ and every slot $t \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{E}\left[\Delta(t)\right]} + \frac{\alpha}{2} {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \nonumber \\
& \quad \leq C + V{\mathbb{E}\left[f_{t-1}(x)\right]} - V{\mathbb{E}\left[f_{t-1}(X_{t-1})\right]} + \alpha {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]}- \alpha{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x-X_t}\right|\right|}^2\right]} + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} \label{eq:iid-drift-plus-penalty} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:C}
C = B + kG(F+DG)$$
Fix $x \in \tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ and fix $t \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$. Substituting $y=x$ into gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta(t) + \frac{\alpha}{2} {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \nonumber \\
& \quad \leq B+ Vf_{t-1}(x) - Vf_{t-1}(X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{x-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 - \alpha{\left|\left|{x-X_t}\right|\right|}^2 \nonumber \\
& \quad + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t)g_{t-1,i}(x) + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} \label{eq:to-sub} \end{aligned}$$ The queue update equation ensures $|Q_i(t) -Q_i(t-1)|\leq F+DG$ for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$, and so: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^k[Q_i(t)-Q_i(t-1)]g_{t-1,i}(x) &\leq \underbrace{kG(F+DG)}_{C-B} \end{aligned}$$ Substituting the above inequality into the right-hand-side of gives: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta(t) + \frac{\alpha}{2} {\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 \nonumber \\
& \quad \leq C+ Vf_{t-1}(x) - Vf_{t-1}(X_{t-1}) + \alpha {\left|\left|{x-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2 - \alpha{\left|\left|{x-X_t}\right|\right|}^2 \nonumber \\
& \quad + \sum_{i=1}^k Q_i(t-1)g_{t-1,i}(x) + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} \end{aligned}$$ Taking expectations of both sides gives: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{E}\left[\Delta(t)\right]} + \frac{\alpha}{2} {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \nonumber \\
& \quad \leq C + V{\mathbb{E}\left[f_{t-1}(x)\right]} - V{\mathbb{E}\left[f_{t-1}(X_{t-1})\right]} + \alpha {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} - \alpha{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x-X_t}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \nonumber \\
& \quad + \sum_{i=1}^k {\mathbb{E}\left[Q_i(t-1)\right]}{\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t-1,i}(x)\right]} + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that $\omega_{t-1}$ is independent of $Q_i(t-1)$ to break the expectation of $Q_i(t-1)g_{t-1,i}(x)$ into a product of expectations. The result follows by noting that for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ we have ${\mathbb{E}\left[Q_i(t-1)\right]}\geq 0$ (since virtual queues are nonnegative) and ${\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t-1,i}(x)\right]}\leq 0$ (by ).
\[thm:model-1-performance\] (Performance under Model 1) Consider Model 1 and assume $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ is nonempty. Let $V$ be a positive integer and define $\alpha = V^2$. With these parameters, the algorithm satisfies the following.
a\) For every vector $x \in \tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ and for all positive integers $T>0$ we have: $$\label{eq:objective-function-model1}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}{\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]} \leq \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}{\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x)\right]} + \frac{C}{V} + \frac{G^2}{2V} + \frac{VD^2}{T}$$ where constants $C, G, D$ are defined in , , . Hence, if $T\geq V^2$, the time average expected objective is within $O(1/V)$ of that of the optimal fixed-decision $x \in \tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$.
b\) If the Slater condition (Assumption \[assumption:slater\]) holds, then for all $T>0$ and all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ we have: $$\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} g_{t,i}(X_t) \leq \frac{\theta V}{T} + \frac{G^2}{4V} + \frac{G^2(\theta+1)^2}{V}$$ and so the expected constraints satisfy the same inequality. Hence, if $T\geq V^2$ then the constraints are within $O(1/V)$ of being satisfied.
The interpretation of this theorem is that for any $\epsilon>0$, one can choose $V = \lceil1/\epsilon\rceil$ and define $\alpha = V^2$. The resulting algorithm achieves an $O(\epsilon)$-approximation in the expected sense with convergence time $V^2$. Notice that part (b) of the above theorem is identical to Theorem \[thm:constraint-bound\]. It suffices to prove part (a).
(Theorem \[thm:model-1-performance\] part (a)) Rearranging terms in , substituting $\alpha =V^2$, and neglecting the nonnegative term $\alpha {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]}$ gives the following for all $t \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$: $${\mathbb{E}\left[\Delta(t)\right]} + V{\mathbb{E}\left[f_{t-1}(X_{t-1})\right]} \leq V{\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x)\right]} + C + \frac{G^2}{2} + V^2{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} - V^2 {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x-X_t}\right|\right|}^2\right]}$$ Fix $T>1$. Summing over $t \in \{1, \ldots T\}$ and dividing by $T$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[L(T+1)\right]}-{\mathbb{E}\left[L(1)\right]}}{T} + \frac{V}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}{\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]} &\leq \frac{V}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}{\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x)\right]} + C + \frac{G^2}{2}+ \frac{V^2{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x-X_0}\right|\right|}^2\right]}-V^2{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x-X_T}\right|\right|}^2\right]}}{T}\\
& \leq \frac{V}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}{\mathbb{E}\left[f_{t}(x)\right]} + C + \frac{G^2}{2} + \frac{V^2 D^2}{T} \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that ${\left|\left|{x-X_0}\right|\right|}^2 \leq D^2$ with probability 1. Dividing by $V$, using ${\mathbb{E}\left[L(1)\right]}=0$, and neglecting the nonnegative term ${\mathbb{E}\left[L(T+1)\right]}$ gives .
Stochastic analysis for Model 2 {#section:model2}
===============================
Recall that Model 2 assumes the sequence of vector-valued functions $\{(f_t, g_{t,1}, \ldots, g_{t,k})\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ is i.i.d. over slots. This allows much stronger results to be obtained. Specifically:
- We shall remove the need for the Slater condition, so that Assumption \[assumption:slater\] is no longer needed. Instead, we replace this assumption with a mild Lagrange multiplier assumption.
- Rather than simply comparing our algorithm to the best fixed-decision policy that meets the constraints, we shall compare with all alternative causal policies, including all fixed-decision policies as well as all time-varying policies that make decisions based on full knowledge of the underlying probability distributions. This requires optimality over such polices to be characterized. This is done in the next subsection via a concept of *valid decision sequences*.
Optimality and Lagrange multipliers
-----------------------------------
Let $\{X_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of random vectors, each vector taking values in the decision set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$. For each slot $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$, define ${{{\cal{H} }}}(t)$ as the *history* up to but not including slot $t$. Specifically, for each slot $t>0$ we have $${{{\cal{H} }}}(t) = (\omega_0, \omega_1, \ldots, \omega_{t-1}; X_0, X_1, \ldots, X_{t-1})$$ The history is defined to be null at $t=0$, so that ${{{\cal{H} }}}(0)=0$. We want to consider decision sequences that are *causal*. Specifically, for each $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$, the vector $X_t$ should be chosen as a deterministic or random function of the history ${{{\cal{H} }}}(t)$, with no knowledge of the future. Since $\{\omega_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ is i.i.d. over slots, a causal decision should have the property that $X_t$ is independent of $\omega_t$ for each slot $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$. This motivates the following definition.
A sequence of random vectors $\{X_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ is a *valid decision sequence* if the following hold for all slots $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$:
- $X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$.
- $X_t$ is independent of $\omega_t$.
The goal is to make make valid decisions $\{X_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ over time to solve: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Minimize:} \quad & \limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} {\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]} \label{eq:p1} \\
\mbox{Subject to:} \quad & \limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(X_t)\right]} \leq 0 \quad , \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\} \label{eq:p2} \\
& X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}} \quad , \forall t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\} \label{eq:p3} \end{aligned}$$ where expectations are taken with respect to the random functions and the possibly random decisions. The problem - is said to be *feasible* if there exists a valid decision sequence that satisfies the constraints -. Assume the problem is feasible. Let $f^*$ denote the infimum objective value over all valid decision sequences that satisfy the constraints -.
Define $h:{{{\cal{X} }}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{k+1}$ by: $$h(x) = ({\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x)\right]} , {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,1}(x)\right]}, \ldots, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,k}(x)\right]})$$ Define ${{{\cal{R} }}}$ as the set of all vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{k+1}$ that are entrywise greater than or equal to $h(x)$ for some $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$: $${{{\cal{R} }}} = \{a\in \mathbb{R}^{k+1}: a \geq h(x) \:\: \mbox{ for some $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$} \}$$ It can be shown that $h$ is a continuous function, each of the $k+1$ components of $h$ is a convex function over $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$, and ${{{\cal{R} }}}$ is a closed and convex set (see Appendix \[appendix:structural\]).
\[lem:causal\] (Valid decisions) Let $\{X_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ represent a valid decision sequence. Then for all $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$: $$({\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]}, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,1}(X_t)\right]}, \ldots, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,k}(X_t)\right]}) \in {{{\cal{R} }}}$$ Hence, for all integers $T>0$: $$\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}({\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]}, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,1}(X_t)\right]}, \ldots, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,k}(X_t)\right]}) \in {{{\cal{R} }}}$$
See Appendix \[appendix:causal\].
\[lem:optimality\] (Optimality) If the problem - is feasible, then there is a deterministic vector $x^* \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ that satisfies the following for all slots $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x^*)\right]} &= f^* \\
{\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(x^*)\right]} &\leq 0 \quad , \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, the set $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ is nonempty and $x^* \in \tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$. Further, the vector $(f^*, 0, \ldots, 0)$ is on the boundary of the set ${{{\cal{R} }}}$.
See Appendix \[appendix:optimality\].
Since $(f^*, 0, \ldots, 0)$ is on the boundary of the convex set ${{{\cal{R} }}}$, the *hyperplane separation theorem* ensures there are nonnegative values $\gamma_0, \gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_k$ such that $\sum_{i=0}^{k} \gamma_i a_i \geq \gamma_0 f^*$ for all $(a_0, \ldots, a_k) \in {{{\cal{R} }}} $. The special case when $\gamma_0> 0$ is called a *nonvertical supporting hyperplane* [@bertsekas-convex]. The following assumption is equivalent to the existence of a nonvertical supporting hyperplane.[^4]
\[assumption:lagrange-multipliers\] (Existence of Lagrange multipliers) There are nonnegative values $\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_k$, called *Lagrange multipliers*, such that for any valid decision sequence $\{X_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ and any slot $t \in\{0, 1,2, \ldots\}$ we have: $$\label{eq:lagrange-assumption}
{\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]} + \sum_{i=1}^k \mu_i {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(X_t)\right]} \geq f^*$$
Assumption \[assumption:lagrange-multipliers\] is mild and shall be used to replace the more stringent Assumption \[assumption:slater\].
Queue bound for Model 2
-----------------------
\[thm:q-bound\] Suppose Model 2 holds, problem - is feasible, and the Lagrange multiplier assumption (Assumption \[assumption:lagrange-multipliers\]) holds for a nonnegative vector $\mu=(\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_k)$. Then for all integers $T \geq 1$ we have: $${\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}\right]} \leq 2V{\left|\left|{\mu}\right|\right|} + \sqrt{2CT + \frac{TV^2G^2}{\alpha} + 2\alpha D^2 + \frac{2TV^2G^2(\sum_{i=1}^{k}\mu_i)^2}{\alpha}}$$ where constants $C, G, D$ are defined in , , . In particular, if we fix $\epsilon>0$ and define $V=1/\epsilon$, $\alpha = 1/\epsilon^2$, then for all $T\geq 1/\epsilon^2$ we have: $$\label{eq:theorem2}
\frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}\right]}}{T} \leq O(\epsilon)$$
Fix $t \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$. Since the problem is feasible, Lemma \[lem:optimality\] ensures the set $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ is nonempty and there is an optimal fixed vector $x^* \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$. Hence, the result of Lemma \[lem:iid-lemma\] holds. Substituting $x=x^*$ into the right-hand-side of gives: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{E}\left[\Delta(t)\right]} + \frac{\alpha}{2} {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \nonumber \\
& \quad \leq C + V\underbrace{{\mathbb{E}\left[f_{t-1}(x^*)\right]}}_{f^*}- V{\mathbb{E}\left[f_{t-1}(X_{t-1})\right]} + \alpha {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x^*-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]}- \alpha{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x^*-X_t}\right|\right|}^2\right]} + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} \end{aligned}$$ Substituting into the right-hand-side of the above inequality gives: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{E}\left[\Delta(t)\right]} + \frac{\alpha}{2}{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \\
&\leq C + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} + V\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t-1,i}(X_{t-1})\right]}
+ \alpha{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x^*-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} - \alpha{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x^*-X_t}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \end{aligned}$$ Fix $T>0$. Summing over $t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}$, dividing by $T$, and using ${\mathbb{E}\left[L(1)\right]}=0$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[L(T+1)\right]} - {\mathbb{E}\left[L(1)\right]}}{T} + \frac{\alpha}{2T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \nonumber \\
&\leq C + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} + V\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i\left[\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}{\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(X_t)\right]}\right] + \frac{\alpha {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x^*-X_0}\right|\right|}^2\right]}- {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{x^*-X_{T}}\right|\right|}^2\right]}}{T} \nonumber \\
&\leq C + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} + \frac{\alpha D^2}{T} + V\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i\left[\frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[Q_i(T+1)\right]}}{T} + \frac{G^2}{4\beta} + \frac{\beta}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \right] \end{aligned}$$ where the final inequality holds by and holds for all real numbers $\beta >0$. Rearranging terms in the above inequality and using ${\mathbb{E}\left[L(1)\right]}=0$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[L(T+1)\right]}}{T} + \frac{(\alpha/2 - V\beta\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i)}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \nonumber \\
&\leq C + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} + \frac{\alpha D^2}{T} + \frac{VG^2\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i}{4\beta} + \frac{V}{T}{\left|\left|{\mu}\right|\right|}{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}\right]} \label{eq:easy-to-see} \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality $\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i Q_i(T+1) \leq {\left|\left|{\mu}\right|\right|}\cdot{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}$. Recall that $\mu_i\geq 0$ for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. Temporarily assume that $\mu_i>0$ for at least one $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$, and define: $$\beta = \frac{\alpha}{4V\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i}$$ Substituting this value of $\beta$ into gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[L(T+1)\right]}}{T} + \frac{\alpha}{4T}\sum_{t=1}^T{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \nonumber \\
&\leq C + \frac{V^2G^2}{2\alpha} + \frac{\alpha D^2}{T} + \frac{V^2G^2(\sum_{i=1}^k \mu_i)^2}{\alpha} + \frac{V{\left|\left|{\mu}\right|\right|}}{T}{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}\right]}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that this inequality also holds in the special case $\mu_i=0$ for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$, since then the final two terms on the right-hand-side of disappear. Multiplying the above inequality by $2T$ and using the definition $L(T+1) = \frac{1}{2}{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}^2$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}^2\right]} + \frac{\alpha}{2}\sum_{t=1}^T{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \nonumber \\
&\leq 2CT + \frac{TV^2G^2}{\alpha} + 2\alpha D^2 + \frac{2TV^2G^2(\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i)^2}{\alpha} +
2V{\left|\left|{\mu}\right|\right|}{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}\right]} \label{eq:reuse-bound}
\end{aligned}$$ Define $z = {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}\right]}$ and note that $z^2 \leq {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}^2\right]}$. Inequality implies $$z^2 \leq w z+ y$$ for the nonnegative quantities $w, y$ defined: $$\begin{aligned}
w &= 2V{\left|\left|{\mu}\right|\right|} \\
y &= 2CT + \frac{TV^2G^2}{\alpha} + 2\alpha D^2 + \frac{2TV^2G^2(\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i)^2}{\alpha} \end{aligned}$$ and so $$z \leq \frac{w + \sqrt{w^2 + 4y}}{2} \leq w + \sqrt{y}$$ where the final inequality uses the fact that $\sqrt{a+b} \leq \sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b}$ for nonnegative real numbers $a,b$. In particular: $${\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}\right]} \leq 2V{\left|\left|{\mu}\right|\right|} + \sqrt{y}$$ This proves the result.
Performance bound for Model 2
-----------------------------
\[thm:constraint-bound-model-2\] Suppose Model 2 holds, the problem - is feasible, and the Lagrange multiplier assumption (Assumption \[assumption:lagrange-multipliers\]) holds for a nonnegative vector $\mu=(\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_k)$. Fix $\epsilon>0$ and define $V= 1/\epsilon$, $\alpha = 1/\epsilon^2$. Then for all $T \geq 1/\epsilon^2$ and all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}{\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]} &\leq f^* + O(\epsilon) \label{eq:iid-f-model2} \\
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}{\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(X_t)\right]} &\leq O(\epsilon) \label{eq:iid-g-model2} \end{aligned}$$
Inequality follows directly from Theorem \[thm:model-1-performance\] part (a) by using $x=x^*$ and noting that ${\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x^*)\right]}=f^*$.[^5] To prove , fix $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ and $V=1/\epsilon$. Taking expectations of and using $\beta = 1/\epsilon$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}{\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(X_t)\right]} &\leq \frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[Q_i(T+1)\right]}}{T} + \frac{G^2\epsilon}{4} + \frac{1/\epsilon}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \\
&\leq O(\epsilon) + \frac{1}{\epsilon T} \sum_{t=1}^T{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} \end{aligned}$$ where the final inequality holds by Theorem \[thm:q-bound\] (specifically, by ). It remains to show that the final term on the right-hand-side of the above inequality is $O(\epsilon)$.
Multiplying by $\frac{2}{\alpha \epsilon T}$ and neglecting the nonnegative term ${\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}^2\right]}$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\epsilon T}\sum_{t=1}^T{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{X_t-X_{t-1}}\right|\right|}^2\right]} &\leq \frac{4C}{\alpha \epsilon} + \frac{2V^2G^2}{\alpha^2\epsilon} + \frac{4D^2}{\epsilon T} +
\frac{4V^2G^2(\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i)^2}{\alpha^2 \epsilon} + \frac{4V{\left|\left|{\mu}\right|\right|}}{\alpha \epsilon}\frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}\right]}}{T}\\
&=4C\epsilon + 2G^2\epsilon + \frac{4D^2}{\epsilon T} + 4G^2(\sum_{i=1}^k\mu_i)^2\epsilon + 4{\left|\left|{\mu}\right|\right|}\frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\left|{Q(T+1)}\right|\right|}\right]}}{T} \end{aligned}$$ where the final equality holds by substituting $V=1/\epsilon, \alpha=1/\epsilon^2$. The right-hand-side of the above bound is indeed $O(\epsilon)$ whenever $T\geq 1/\epsilon^2$ (recall ).
Properties of $h$ and ${{{\cal{R} }}}$ {#appendix:structural}
--------------------------------------
Let $x, y \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$. Then for each $\omega \in \Omega$ we have by the bounded subgradient assumption: $$\label{eq:cont}
|\hat{f}(x,\omega) - \hat{f}(y, \omega)| \leq G {\left|\left|{x-y}\right|\right|}$$ where $G$ is defined in . Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
|{\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x)\right]} - {\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(y)\right]}| &\overset{(a)}{\leq} {\mathbb{E}\left[|f_t(x) - f_t(y)|\right]} \\
&= {\mathbb{E}\left[|\hat{f}(x,\omega_t)- \hat{f}(y,\omega_t)|\right]} \\
&\overset{(b)}{\leq} {\mathbb{E}\left[ G{\left|\left|{x-y}\right|\right|}\right]} \\
&= G {\left|\left|{x-y}\right|\right|} \end{aligned}$$ where (a) holds by Jensen’s inequality applied to the absolute value function; (b) holds by . Similarly, it holds for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ that: $$|{\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(x)\right]} - {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(y)\right]}| \leq G{\left|\left|{x-y}\right|\right|}$$ Define the vector-valued function $h:{{{\cal{X} }}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{k+1}$ by $$h(x) = ({\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x)\right]} , {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,1}(x)\right]}, \ldots, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,k}(x)\right]})$$ It follows that $h(x)$ is a continuous function defined over a compact set. Its image $h({{{\cal{X} }}})$ is thus compact. Since ${{{\cal{R} }}}$ is the set of all vectors entrywise greater than or equal to some vector in $h({{{\cal{X} }}})$, set ${{{\cal{R} }}}$ is closed. It can be shown that each component of the $h(x)$ function is convex over $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$. The proof that ${{{\cal{R} }}}$ is convex follows directly and is omitted for brevity.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:causal\] {#appendix:causal}
-----------------------------
Let $\{X_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ be a valid decision sequence. In particular, for all $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$ we know $X_t \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ and $X_t$ is independent of $\omega_t$. Fix $t \in \{0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$ and define the deterministic vector $x_t = \mathbb{E}_{X_t}[X_t]$. Since $X_t$ is a random vector in the compact and convex set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$, its expectation $x_t$ must also be in ${{{\cal{X} }}}$. Since $X_t$ and $\omega_t$ are independent we have $\mathbb{E}_{X_t|\omega_t}[X_t |\omega_t]= x_t$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]} &= {\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{f}(X_t,\omega_t)\right]} \\
&= \mathbb{E}_{\omega_t}\left[\mathbb{E}_{X_t|\omega_t}\left[\hat{f}(X_t, \omega_t)|\omega_t \right]\right]\\
&\geq \mathbb{E}_{\omega_t}\left[\hat{f}(\mathbb{E}_{X_t|\omega_t}[X_t|\omega_t], \omega_t)\right]\\
&= \mathbb{E}_{\omega}\left[\hat{f}(x_t, \omega_t)\right]\\
&= {\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x_t)\right]} \end{aligned}$$ where the inequality is due to Jensen’s inequality for the function $\hat{f}(x,\omega)$ which is convex over $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ for each fixed $\omega_t \in \Omega$. Similarly, $${\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(X_t)\right]} \geq {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(x_t)\right]} \quad , \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$$ It follows that: $$\begin{aligned}
h(x_t) &= ({\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x_t)\right]}, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,1}(x_t)\right]}, \ldots, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,k}(x_t)\right]}) \\
&\leq ({\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]}, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,1}(X_t)\right]}, \ldots, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,k}(X_t)\right]})\end{aligned}$$ and so: $$({\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]}, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,1}(X_t)\right]}, \ldots, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,k}(X_t)\right]})\in {{{\cal{R} }}}$$ This proves the first part of the lemma. Since ${{{\cal{R} }}}$ is a convex set, any convex combination of points in ${{{\cal{R} }}}$ is also in ${{{\cal{R} }}}$, and so for any integer $T\geq 1$ we have: $$\label{eq:causal-appendix}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}({\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]}, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,1}(X_t)\right]}, \ldots, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,k}(X_t)\right]})\in {{{\cal{R} }}}$$ This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem:causal\].
Proof of Lemma \[lem:optimality\] {#appendix:optimality}
---------------------------------
Fix $\epsilon>0$. Let $\{X_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ be a valid decision sequence that satisfies the desired constraints - and that achieves an objective value within $\epsilon/2$ of optimality: $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} {\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]} &\leq f^* + \epsilon/2 \\
\limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(X_t)\right]} &\leq 0 \quad , \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, there is a positive integer $T$ such that: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} {\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(X_t)\right]} &\leq f^* + \epsilon \\
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(X_t)\right]} &\leq 0 + \epsilon \quad , \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}
\end{aligned}$$ Since the vector of is in the set ${{{\cal{R} }}}$ and the vector $(f^*+\epsilon, \epsilon, \epsilon, \ldots, \epsilon)$ is entrywise greater than or equal to this vector, we know that: $$(f^*+\epsilon, \epsilon, \epsilon, \ldots, \epsilon) \in {{{\cal{R} }}}$$ This holds for all $\epsilon>0$. Since ${{{\cal{R} }}}$ is closed, it follows that: $$(f^*, 0, 0, \ldots, 0) \in {{{\cal{R} }}}$$ By definition of ${{{\cal{R} }}}$, there must be a deterministic vector $x^* \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ such that: $$({\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x^*)\right]}, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,1}(x^*)\right]}, \ldots, {\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,k}(x^*)\right]}) \leq (f^*, 0, 0, \ldots, 0)$$ Now if ${\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x^*)\right]}<f^*$, then the (valid) decisions $X_t = x^*$ for all $t$ would satisfy all constraints and reach an objective value strictly less than $f^*$ (contradicting the fact that $f^*$ is the optimal objective value). Hence, ${\mathbb{E}\left[f_t(x^*)\right]}=f^*$. This proves the first part of the lemma.
For the second part, we already know that $(f^*, 0, 0, \ldots, 0) \in {{{\cal{R} }}}$. To show this is on the *boundary* of ${{{\cal{R} }}}$, just note that for all $\delta>0$ the point $(f^*-\delta, 0, \ldots,0)$ cannot be in ${{{\cal{R} }}}$, else we could construct a valid decision sequence that satisfies all desired constraints and achieves an objective value strictly smaller than $f^*$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem:optimality\].
Convergence time to regret conversion {#appendix:regret}
-------------------------------------
This subsection shows how to use a doubling trick to convert between the convergence time bound and the regret bound. The doubling trick is standard and can be used in different contexts, see, for example, [@Shalev-Shwartz11FoundationTrends].
For simplicity we consider algorithms with deterministic guarantees. Expectation guarantees can be treated similarly. Consider a system with functions $\{f_t\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ and $\{g_{t,i}\}_{t=0}^{\infty}$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. Suppose there are constants $c$ and $d$, a set ${{{\cal{B} }}} \subseteq {{{\cal{X} }}}$, together with an algorithm parameterized by $\epsilon$ such that for all $\epsilon>0$ the algorithm can be configured to ensure: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(X_t) &\leq \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x) + c\epsilon + \frac{d}{\epsilon T} \quad, \forall x \in {{{\cal{B} }}} , \forall T>0 \label{eq:convergence1}\\
\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} g_{t,i}(X_t) &\leq c\epsilon + \frac{d}{\epsilon T} \quad , \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}, \forall T>0 \label{eq:convergence2} \end{aligned}$$ The algorithm of the current paper indeed ensures such performance (Theorems \[thm:performance-bound\] and \[thm:constraint-bound\]).
Now consider a modified algorithm implemented over successive frames with sizes $\{T_1, T_2, T_3, \ldots\}$ such that $T_m = 2^m$ for $m \in \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$. In each frame $m \in \{1, 2, 3, ...\}$, restart the algorithm and use $\epsilon_m = 1/\sqrt{T_m} =(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})^m$. We want to show that this algorithm ensures an $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret for both the objective function and constraints, for all $T>0$. Define ${{{\cal{T} }}}_m$ as the set of all integer times $t$ within frame $m$.
Fix $T>3$ and let $M>0$ be the integer such that $$\underbrace{T_1 + ... + T_M}_{2^{M+1}-1} < T \leq T_1 + ... + T_{M+1}$$ Fix $x \in {{{\cal{B} }}}$. Then under this modified algorithm with successively doubled frame sizes, we have for each frame $j \in \{1, ..., M\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{T_j}\sum_{t \in {{{\cal{T} }}}_j} f_t(X_t) &\leq \frac{1}{T_j}\sum_{t \in {{{\cal{T} }}}_j} f_t(x) + c\epsilon_j + \frac{d}{\sqrt{T_j}} \quad, \forall x \in {{{\cal{B} }}} , \forall T>0 \label{eq:convergence11}\\
\frac{1}{T_j}\sum_{t\in {{{\cal{T} }}}_j} g_{t,i}(X_t) &\leq c\epsilon_j + \frac{d}{\sqrt{T_j}} \quad , \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}, \forall T>0 \label{eq:convergence22} \end{aligned}$$ where the above uses $T_j \epsilon_j = \sqrt{T_j}$. Define $\theta= T-(T_1+...+T_M)$ and note that $0 \leq \theta \leq 2^{M+1}$. We have: $$\label{eq:for-case-2}
\frac{1}{\theta} \sum_{t=T_1+...+T_m}^{T-1} f_t(X_t) \leq \frac{1}{\theta} \sum_{t=T_1+...+T_M}^{T-1} f_t(x) + c\epsilon_{M+1} + \frac{d}{\epsilon_{M+1} \theta}$$ Multiplying by $\theta$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t=T_1+...+T_m}^{T-1} f_t(X_t) &\leq \sum_{t=T_1+...+T_m}^{T-1} f_t(x) + \theta c \epsilon_{M+1} + \frac{d}{\epsilon_{M+1}} \nonumber \\
&\overset{(a)}{\leq} \sum_{t=T_1+...+T_m}^{T-1} f_t(x) + c2^{M+1}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})^{M+1} + d\sqrt{2^{M+1}} \nonumber \\
&\overset{(b)}{=} \sum_{t=T_1+...+T_m}^{T-1} f_t(x) + (c+d)\sqrt{T} \label{eq:residue} \end{aligned}$$ where (a) uses $\theta \leq 2^{M+1}$ and (b) uses $2^{M+1}\leq T$. Multiplying by $T_j$ and using $\epsilon_j T_j = \sqrt{T_j}$ gives, for each $j \in \{1, \ldots, M\}$: $$\sum_{t\in {{{\cal{T} }}}_j} g_{t,i}(X_t) \leq (c+d) \sqrt{T_j}$$ Summing the above inequality over all $j \in \{1, \ldots, M\}$ with gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(X_t) &\leq \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x) + (c+d)\sum_{j=1}^M \sqrt{T_j} + (c+d)\sqrt{T}\\
&=\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x) + (c+d)\sqrt{T} + (c+d)\sum_{j=1}^M (\sqrt{2})^j \\
&= \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x) + (c+d)\sqrt{T} + (c+d)\sqrt{2}\frac{(\sqrt{2})^{M}-1}{\sqrt{2}-1}\\
&\leq \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x) + (c+d)\sqrt{T} + \frac{(c+d)\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2}-1}\sqrt{2^M} \\
&\leq \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} f_t(x) + (c+d)\sqrt{T} + \frac{(c+d)\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2}-1} \sqrt{T}\end{aligned}$$ and so the regret is $\beta \sqrt{T}$ for $\beta = (c+d)\left[1 + \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2}-1}\right]$. A similar $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret holds for the constraints (proof omitted for brevity).
[^1]: Note that fixed-stepsize algorithms are often preferred because they are more adaptive to emerging conditions and have *dynamic regret* properties, as discussed in [@online-convex], where regret guarantees hold over arbitrary subintervals of time.
[^2]: Notice that, for online problems, *convergence time* and *algorithm complexity* are two different things. Work in [@kale-universal] shows an example problem for which any algorithm that achieves an $\epsilon$-approximation must have convergence time $\Omega(1/\epsilon^2)$, even if that algorithm uses an “infinitely fast” computer that can solve arbitrarily complex problems on every slot. This is because only one sample is revealed per slot, and at least $\Omega(1/\epsilon^2)$ samples of the system must be observed.
[^3]: The set $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ must be bounded because it is a subset of the compact (and hence bounded) set ${{{\cal{X} }}}$. To show $\tilde{{{{\cal{A} }}}}$ is closed, note that $\hat{g}_i(y, \omega) - G{\left|\left|{x-y}\right|\right|} \leq \hat{g}_i(x,\omega) \leq \hat{g}_i(y,\omega) + G{\left|\left|{x-y}\right|\right|}$ for all $x,y \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$, $\omega \in \Omega$, $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. Taking expectations shows that ${\mathbb{E}\left[g_{t,i}(x)\right]}$ is a continuous function of $x \in {{{\cal{X} }}}$ for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$.
[^4]: If $\gamma_0>0$ then Assumption \[assumption:lagrange-multipliers\] holds by defining $\mu_i = \gamma_i/\gamma_0$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$.
[^5]: Strictly speaking, Theorem \[thm:model-1-performance\] is stated assuming that $V$ is a positive integer, while here we simply assume $V$ is positive. The assumption that $V$ is a positive integer was only needed for part (b) of Theorem \[thm:model-1-performance\], and hence the statement in the current theorem is correct.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Fokker-Planck equation derived by Brown for the probability density function of the orientation of the magnetic moment of single domain particles is one of the basic equations in the theory of superparamagnetism. Usually this equation is solved by expanding the solution into a series of spherical harmonics, which in this case is a complex and cumbersome procedure. This article presents the implementation procedure and some results of the numerical solution of the Fokker-Planck equation using the finite element method. A method for creating a sequence of triangular grids on the surface of a sphere based on an inscribed icosahedron is described. The equations of the finite element method are derived and examples of numerical solutions are presented. The processes of magnetization and demagnetization under heating of a particle with cubic magnetic anisotropy are simulated.'
author:
- 'N. V. Peskov'
title: 'Finite element solution of the Fokker-Planck equation for single domain particles'
---
Introduction
============
A particle of ferromagnetic material below a certain critical size (typically 30 nm in diameter) constitutes a single domain particle meaning that it is in a state of uniform magnetization for any applied field [@1]. The magnetic moment $\bm M$ per unit volume of such a particle can be represented as a vector of constant magnitude, $\bm M=M_s\bm u$, $|\bm u|=1$, where $M_s$ is the saturation magnetization per unit volume. In the course of time only the orientation of the magnetic moment, determined by the unit vector $\bm u$, can change. The orientation is influenced by internal magnetocrystalline anisotropy, an external magnetic field, and random fluctuations caused by thermal agitation.
The magnetic properties of single domain particles in the absence of thermal fluctuations described by Stoner and Wohlfarth [@2]. The theory of the thermal fluctuations of the magnetization of single domain particles was began with work of Néel [@3] and was further developed by Brown [@4].
A particle with orientation $\bm u = (\sin\theta\cos\phi,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\cos\theta)$ in a Cartesian coordinate system, where $\theta$ is the polar angle and $\phi$ is the azimuth, is assumed to be in internal thermodynamic equilibrium at temperature $T$, with Helmholtz free energy per unit volume $E_a(\theta,\phi,T)$. The particle is not necessarily in external equilibrium with the applied field $\bm H=H\bm h$, $|\bm h|=1$. The Gibbs free energy per unit volume is $V(\theta,\phi,T,\bm H) = E_a(\theta,\phi,T)-M_sH(\bm u\cdot\bm h)$, which will be written below as $V(\theta,\phi)$.
In the absence of thermal agitation, changes of $\bm u$ are assumed to obey the Gilbert equation [@5] $$\frac{d\bm u}{dt}= -\frac{h^\prime M_s}{\alpha}\left(\bm u\times
\nabla V\right) + h^\prime\left(\bm u\times\left(\bm u\times
\nabla V\right)\right),
\label{ge}$$ where $t$ is the time, $\alpha$ is a dimensionless damping coefficient and $h^\prime = (\alpha\gamma)/((1+\alpha^2)M_s)$, $\gamma$ is the ratio of magnetic moment to angular momentum, and $\nabla$ is the angular part of the gradient.
In Ref. 4 the evolution of the magnetic moment was considered as a Brownian motion along the surface of a unit sphere of a point, representing the orientation of the magnetic moment, subjected to the applied field and magnetic anisotropy. As the Langevin equation for this motion Brown took Gilbert’s equation, supplemented by a random Gaussian white noise field, which takes into account the collisional damping. Using the obtained Langevin equation, Brown derived the Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) for the probability density function $W(\theta,\phi,t)$ of orientations of magnetic moments, i.e. representing points on the unit sphere.
The FPE derived by Brown can be written in the form of a continuity equation $$\label{b0}
\frac{\partial W}{\partial t} - \nabla\cdot \left(k\nabla W + \frac{d\bm u}{dt}W\right)=0,$$ where the coefficient $k$ should be chosen so that the Boltzmann distribution $W_B\propto \exp(-(vV)/(k_BT))$ is a stationary solution of (\[b0\]) for a particle of volume $v$, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant.
Brown’s approach to the theory of magnetism of single domain particles opened up the possibility of applying the methods developed in the theory of Brownian motion to the study of a superparamagnetism. A comprehensive review of these methods, as well as the most important results obtained with their help, are presented in the book [@6] by Coffey and Kalmykov. Since the present paper is devoted to the numerical solution of Brown’s FPE, we restrict ourselves to a brief overview of commonly used methods for solving this equation.
The solution of the equation (\[b0\]) is usually associated with a decomposition of $W$ in a basis consisting of angular eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator (spherical harmonics), which results in an infinite system of differential-recurrent equations for the coefficients of decomposition. The procedure for deriving of this system from the FPE equation is given in Ref. 7. The system of differential-recurrent equations has the form $$\label{x}
\frac{d}{dt}\bm X(t)=\mathbf A \bm X(t),$$ where $\bm X=\{x_0(t),x_1(t),\dots\}$ is the infinite vector of expansion coefficients, and $\mathbf A$ is a matrix that can depend on time.
One of the peculiarities of the system (\[x\]) is that if the elements of the vector $\bm X$ are properly ordered, then the matrix $\mathbf A$ becomes the $d$-diagonal matrix for any magnetic anisotropy that can be expressed as the finite combination of spherical harmonics. The number of diagonals, $d$, is determined by the type of magnetic anisotropy. For isotropic particles, $d = 3$, for anisotropic particles, $d> 3$.
The time dependence of the matrix $\mathbf A$ may, in particular, arise due to the time dependence of the applied field $\bm H$. In studies related to the simulation of dynamic magnetic hysteresis or the calculation of dynamic magnetic susceptibilities a periodic applied field (ac field), $\bm H(t)=\bm H_0\cos\omega t$ is usually considered. This field generates a time dependence through $\cos\omega t$ of some elements of $\mathbf A$. It seems that, for the first time, a study of dynamic hysteresis using the numerical solution of FPE, transformed in the form (\[x\]), was undertaken in Ref. 8, where the hysteresis of isotropic superparamagnets was studied.
For anisotropic particles for solving FPE under ac field the system (\[x\]) is reduced to a linear algebraic system for the coefficients $F_m^n$ by substituting $$x_m(t) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty {F_m^n e^{\imath n\omega t}},\;m=0,1,\dots.$$ The obtained linear system can be solved with the matrix sweep algorithm [@9], or by the matrix continued fraction method [@10].
In connection with linear systems, continued fractions appear, in particular, when solving a linear system with a 3-diagonal matrix by successively eliminating unknowns (Gauss method). For anisotropic particles, the equation system for the coefficients $F_m^n$ has a $d$-diagonal matrix, $d>3$. However, by grouping the unknowns into sub-vectors of the same length so that for sub-vectors it is possible to obtain a linear system with a 3-diagonal matrix, whose elements will be matrices of small dimension [@10]. Therefore the solution of the new system can be obtained as a matrix-valued continued fraction [@11]. The process of magnetic relaxation of single-domain particles can be described by the FPE with a constant applied field $\bm H = \bm H_0$ (dc field). For a dc field, the system (\[x\]) can also be reduced to a linear algebraic system using the Laplace transform of $X(t)$ and solved by the matrix continued fraction method. Over the past two decades, many physical problems associated with single domain particles have been solved using the matrix continued fraction method. Various examples of such problems can be found in Ref. 6.
An alternative method for investigating the statistical properties of single-domain particles is the Monte Carlo method [@12], which allows one to obtain macroscopic observables by averaging microscopic ones. One of the difficulties in applying the Monte Carlo method to the study of superparamagnetism is the uncertainty of the time scale of the Monte Carlo steps. Using a numerical FPE solution is expected to help overcome this difficulty [@13; @14].
This work continues and develops the theme begun in the previous paper [@15] and devoted to the application of the finite element method (FEM) for solving Brown’s FPE. The FEM approach to FPE is relatively simple and independent of the type of magnetic anisotropy. FEM directly gives the FPE solution, not spherical harmonics, as the matrix continued fractions gives. The probability density function provided by FEM solution of FPE enables one to calculate any statistical characteristics of the single domain particle magnetization.
This work uses the deterministic procedure for creating a triangular grid on the surface of a sphere based on an inscribed icosahedron, which is much simpler and more efficient than the random number procedure described in the previous article [@15]. In Ref. 15, a FPE solution was demonstrated with an applied ac field simulating dynamic magnetic hysteresis. Here are the solutions of the PFE with a dc field simulating the magnetization of a particle and its demagnetization with increasing temperature. The examples are calculated for cubic magnetic anisotropy taking into account two anisotropy constants.
Finite element scheme
=====================
Substituting $d\bm u/dt$ from Eq. (\[ge\]) into Eq. (\[b0\]), after some transformations, equation (\[b0\]) can be written in a form convenient for applying the finite element method: $$\label{b2}
\frac{\partial W}{\partial \tau} = \nabla\cdot\left[\nabla W + W\left(\nabla\tilde V + \frac{1}{\alpha} \left(\bm u\times\nabla\tilde V\right)\right)\right],$$ where $\tilde V = vV/k_BT$; $\tau = t/2\tau_N$ is the dimensionless time, $$\tau_N = \frac{vM_s(1+\alpha^2)}{2k_BT\gamma\alpha}$$ is the characteristic relaxation time.
The next step of construction the FEM scheme is the generation of a triangular grid on the surface of the sphere.
Triangular grid
---------------
In the present paper, for the finite element method, a regular triangular grid is constructed on the surface of the sphere. Here, regularity means that the positions of the grid nodes are calculated using a deterministic procedure and are not random, as was the case in the previous work [@15].
An easy way to cover the sphere with triangles is to build a uniform triangular grid on the surface of the inscribed icosahedron and transfer it to the surface of the sphere using the central projection. Such a grid can be called a ’raw grid’[@16]. The faces of the icosahedron are equal equilateral triangles. Therefore, it is possible to build a uniform grid on the surface of the icosahedron by dividing each of its edges into $n$ equal segments and connecting the dividing points lying on adjacent edges with lines parallel to the closing edge. The result is a uniform grid consisting of $N_t=20n^2$ triangles and $N_p=10n^2+2$ nodes. When one transfers the grid to the surface of the sphere using the central projection, the initially uniform grid will be distorted. The degree of grid distortion is usually characterized by two parameters: the ratio $r_1$ of the lengths of the shortest and the longest linear elements, and the ratio $r_2$ of the areas of the smallest and largest grid cells. For the ’raw grid’ with $n=81$ (presented below results were obtained with this $n$) one has $r_1=0.686$, and $r_2=0.349$.
Sophisticated methods of optimizing the “raw grid” were developed to reduce its distortion, that is, increase the values of $r_1$ and $r_2$. In particular, the authors of Ref. 16 report an optimized grid with $r_1=0.786$ and $r_2=0.952$ for the number of nodes close to $N_p$ at $n=81$. Since the main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the potential of FEM to apply to the Brown equation, a very perfect grid that is difficult to build is not necessary here. Therefore, the grid used in the further calculations is constructed in the following rather simple way.
![Mapping a triangular grid from the icosahedron face to the surface of a sphere[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps)
The basic grid is the uniform grid on the surface of the icosahedron described above. Instead of the central projection, the following procedure is used to transfer the grid to the sphere. The vertices of the inscribed icosahedron remain in their places. The edges of the icosahedron, shown in Figure 1 by thick dashed lines, are mapped into arcs of large circles connecting adjacent vertices, which are shown by blue lines. Grid points on an arc, similar to grid points on an edge, divide each arc into $n$ equal segments.
Each node of the base grid on the face of the icosahedron lies at the intersection of three straight lines parallel to the edges that limit this face and passing through certain opposite nodes on the icosahedron edges. One of such nodes is shown in Fig. 1 by red dot. The analogues of these lines on the sphere are arcs of three great circles passing through related nodes lying on arcs corresponding to edges. Arcs intersect in pairs, but all three do not intersect at one point. Therefore, the center of a spherical triangle with vertices located at the points of pairwise intersection of the arcs is taken as the image on the surface of the sphere of the base grid node. This node is also indicated by red dot in Fig. 1. The grid constructed in this way for $n = 81$ has the following distortion parameter values: $r_1 = 0.851$, $r_2 = 0.898$.
![Triangular grid with $n = 9$, $N_p=812$, $N_t=1620$. Red dots indicate the vertices of the inscribed icosahedron.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps)
As an illustration of the grid constructed in this way, a triangular grid on a sphere at $n = 9$ is shown in Fig. 2. Twelve nodes coinciding with the vertices of the inscribed icosahedron (marked in red in Fig. 2) each have 5 nearest neighbors. All other nodes have 6 nearest neighbors each.
Finite element equations
------------------------
The triangular grid constructed above can be considered as a polyhedron inscribed in the sphere with flat triangular faces and vertices $P_i$, $i = 1,2,\dots,N_p$, which are grid nodes. Let $O_i$ be a neighborhood of the node $P_i$, i.e. the union of triangular faces in which $P_i$ is one of the vertices. A neighborhood $O_i$ is composed of five adjacent triangles with a common vertex $P_i$, if this vertex is the vertex of the inscribed icosahedron, or of six adjacent triangles, if their common vertex is not the vertex of the icosahedron. On the surface of the polyhedron we define a real continuous function $\varphi_i$, $0\leq\varphi_i\leq1$, so that it is linear on each triangle, $\varphi_i(P_i)=1$ and $\varphi_i\equiv 0$ outside of $O_i$. Functions $\varphi_i$, $i = 1,2,\dots,N_p$ will be called finite elements.
Since there is a one-to-one mapping (central projection) between the polyhedron and the sphere, any function defined on the polyhedron can be considered on the sphere, and vice versa. Therefore, both sides of Eq. (\[b2\]) can be multiplied by function $\varphi_i$ and integrated over the surface of the sphere $$%begin{equation}
\int{\varphi_i\frac{\partial W}{\partial \tau}\,d\Omega} =
\int{\varphi_i\nabla\cdot\left[\nabla W + W\left(\nabla\tilde V + \frac{1}{\alpha} \left(\bm u\times\nabla\tilde V\right)\right)\right]\,d\Omega}.$$ Now we apply the Green formula to the integral on the right-hand side, in which there will be no integral over the boundary, since the surface of the sphere has no boundary. $$\label{f0}
\int{\varphi_i\frac{\partial W}{\partial \tau}\,d\Omega} =
-\int{\nabla\varphi_i\cdot\left[\nabla W + W\left(\nabla\tilde V + \frac{1}{\alpha} \left(\bm u\times\nabla\tilde V\right)\right)\right]\,d\Omega}.$$ The solution to the last equation will be sought in the form$$\label{w}
W(\theta,\phi,\tau)=\sum_{j=1}^{N_p}{W_j(\tau)\,\varphi_j(\theta,\phi)}.$$
Substituting (\[w\]) into (\[f0\]) one obtains the following system of linear ordinary differential equations $$\label{f1}
\mathbf M\dot{\bm W} = -\left(\mathbf L + \mathbf F + \alpha^{-1}\mathbf G \right)\bm W,$$ where $\bm W$ is the vector $(W_1,W_2,\dots,W_{N_p})^T$, dot denotes the derivative with respect to $\tau$. $\mathbf M$, $\mathbf L$, $\mathbf F$ and $\mathbf G$ are square matrices of dimension $N_p\times N_p$. Matrix elements are calculated by the following formulas $$\begin{aligned}
&&m_{ij}=\int{\varphi_i\varphi_j\,d\Omega}, \nonumber \\
&& l_{ij}=\int{(\nabla\varphi_i\cdot\nabla\varphi_j)\,d\Omega}, \\
&& f_{ij}=\int{(\nabla\varphi_i\cdot\nabla \tilde V)\,\varphi_j\,d\Omega},\nonumber \\
&&g_{ij}=\int{(\nabla\varphi_i\cdot(\bm u\times\nabla\tilde V))\,\varphi_j\,d\Omega}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
To calculate the matrix elements, the integrals over the sphere are approximated by the integrals over the surface of the embedded polyhedron corresponding to the triangular grid. And by virtue of the definition of finite elements $\varphi_i$, the integration domain is reduced to the intersection of neighborhoods $O_{ij}=O_i\cap O_j$. The set $O_{ij}$ at $i\neq j$ consists of two adjacent triangles with a common side $P_iP_j$ provided that $P_i$ and $P_j$ are the nearest neighbors in the grid.
Matrices $\mathbf M$ and $\mathbf L$ depend only on the grid and are calculated accurately. $$m_{ij}=S(O_{ij})(1+\delta_{ij})/12,$$ where $S(O_{ij})$ is the area of $O_{ij}$ and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta. The calculation of the gradient $\nabla\varphi_i$ is described in detail in Ref. 15. We only note here that since $\varphi_i$ is linear on each triangle, therefore, its gradient is constant on each triangle, and the matrix elements $l_{ij} $ are also calculated accurately. Magnetic energy dependent matrix elements $f_{ij}$ and $g_{ij}$ can be calculated using numerical integration over grid triangles included in $O_{ij}$.
Numerical examples
==================
To demonstrate the capabilities of the finite element method as applied to the Brown equation, we present results of two simulations. In both simulations, the parameter values for Fe presented in Ref. 1 will be used. Fe possesses cubic magnetic anisotropy with internal magnetic energy per unit volume that can by expressed as $$\label{ca}
V_a(x,y,z) = K_1[(xy)^2+(yz)^2+(zx)^2]+K_2(xyz)^2,$$ where $K_1$, $K_2$ are the anisotropy constants and $x,y,z,\,x^2+y^2+z^2 = 1$, are the guided cosines of magnetic moment $\bm M$, which can be considered as well as the Cartesian coordinates of a point on the surface of a unit sphere. The function (\[ca\]) defined on a sphere has 26 critical points: 6 minima, 8 maxima and 12 saddle points. The directions corresponding to these points will be used as the directions of the applied magnetic field in further simulation.
For cubic anisotropy (\[ca\]), the dimensionless function $\tilde V$ can be written in spherical coordinates as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde V(\theta,\phi) &&= \epsilon_a\left[\cot^2\theta + (1 + \kappa\cos^2\theta)\cos^2\phi\sin^2\phi\right]\sin^4\theta \nonumber \\
&&-\epsilon_h[(h_x\cos\phi + h_y\sin\phi)\sin\theta + h_z\cos\theta],\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa = K_2/K_1$, $h_x,h_y,h_z$ are the Cartesian components (guided cosines) of the unit vector $\bm h$, and $$\epsilon_a = \frac{vK_1}{k_BT},\; \epsilon_h = \frac{vM_sH}{k_BT}.$$
According to Ref. 1, $K_1$ = 4.8$\times10^5$ erg/cm$^3$, $K_2$ = 0.5$\times10^5$ erg/cm$^3$, therefore $\kappa = 0.104$. The saturation magnetization per unit volume $M_s$ at $T$ = 20$^\circ$C is equal 1714.0 emu/cm$^3$. For definiteness, we consider a Fe particle of a cubic shape with an edge size 24 nm, therefore, the particle volume is $v=24^3$ nm$^3$. Using the given parameter values, one can obtain $\epsilon_a = 164.023$ at $T = 20^\circ$C (293 K). For simulation of magnetization the value of $\epsilon _h = 4\epsilon_a$ was taken.
All calculations were performed on the grid described above for $n=81$, the grid has $N_p=65612$ nodes and $N_t=131220$ triangles. Formula for the angular part of the gradient on a unit sphere $$\nabla=\bm e_\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta} +\frac{\bm e_\phi}{\sin\theta}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi},$$ where ${\bm e}_\theta, {\bm e}_\phi$ are the angular basic unit vectors of the spherical coordinate system, was used to calculate $\nabla\tilde V$. Since component expression for $\bm u$ in spherical coordinates is $\bm u = (0,0,1)$, the matrix elements $g_{ij}$ were calculated by the formula $$g_{ij} = \int_{O_{ij}}{\nabla\varphi_i\cdot\left(-\frac{1}{\sin\theta}\frac{\partial \tilde V}{\partial\phi}\bm e_\theta + \frac{\partial \tilde V}{\partial\theta}\bm e_\phi\right)\varphi_j\,d\Omega}.$$ The integrals in $f_{ij}$ and $g_{ij} $ were estimated numerically for each triangle of the grid by dividing the triangle into 9 equal triangles and using the prismoidal formula.
The first simulation presented here is connected with the process of magnetization of a single-domain particle in a constant magnetic field. This problem was considered for various purposes in several papers [@17; @18; @19; @20; @21; @22], where FPE was solved using expansion in spherical harmonics followed by the Laplace transform and the method of matrix continued fractions.
![Magnetization of a particle in constant field. (a) Average magnetization for three directions of applied field. (b) Mean square root deviation of average magnetization. (c) Normalized deviation of current distribution $W(\tau)$ from final distribution $W_H$. The value of damping parameter $\alpha=0.01$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps)
We present only the results of the FEM FPE solution without any physical interpretation. FPE was solved for the initial equilibrium distribution $W_0=Z^{-1}\exp(-vV_a/k_BT)$, $Z=\int{\exp(-vV_a/k_BT)\,d\Omega}$, for three directions of the applied field $\bm h$ corresponding to the critical points $V_a$. In Cartesian coordinates, these directions are expressed as ${\bm h}_{min} = (0,0,1)$, ${\bm h}_{max} = (1/\sqrt{3}, 1/\sqrt{3}, 1/\sqrt{3})$ and ${\bm h}_{sad} = (0,1/\sqrt{2}, 1/\sqrt{2})$.
It is difficult to show the solution itself, that is, the probability density distribution over the unit sphere so that it is sufficiently informative. That is why we restrict ourselves to demonstration of the average magnetization $\mu(\bm u\cdot\bm h)$, – the average projection of $\bm u$ on the direction of applied field $\bm h$: $$\mu(\bm u\cdot\bm h) = \int{(\bm u\cdot\bm h)W(\bm u.\tau)\,d\Omega},$$ the mean square root deviation of the magnetization: $$\sigma(\bm u\cdot\bm h) = \int{((\bm u\cdot\bm h)-\mu(\bm u\cdot\bm h))^2\,W(\bm u,\tau)\, d\Omega},$$ and the normalized deviation of current density distribution from final equilibrium distribution $W_H\propto \exp(-\tilde V)$: $$\delta W=\frac{\int{|W(\tau)-W_H|\,d\Omega}}
{\int{|W_0-W_H|\,d\Omega}}.$$ All these integrals are calculated numerically using the numerical solution of FPE and the prismoidal formula. In particular, $$\mu(\bm u\cdot\bm h)\approx \frac{1}{3}\sum_{k=1}^{N_t}{{((\bm u}_{k1}W_{k1}+ {\bm u}_{k2}W_{k2} + {\bm u}_{k3}W_{k3})\cdot\bm h)S_k},$$ where ${\bm u}_{k1}, {\bm u}_{k2}, {\bm u}_{k3}$ are the radius-vectors of the vertices of $k$-th triangle, and $S_k$ is the area of $k$-th triangle.
Figure 3 shows three characteristics of magnetization process listed above obtained from numerical solution of FPE for initial equilibrium distribution at zero applied field. At turning on the external field the magnetic moment quickly alined with the direction of applied field. The mean square root of the average magnetization tends to zero, while the probability density distribution converges to the equilibrium (Boltzmann) distribution corresponding to the applied field $H$.
![Demagnetization of a particle under increasing temperature condition. The heating rate $k_T=10^{-3}$K. (a) Average magnetization. (b) The standard deviation of the magnetization. (c) The deviation of current solution from the Boltzmann distribution at current temperature.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps)
FPE was resolved for the damping parameter $\alpha$ of 0.01. It should be noted that the stiffness of the system of equations strongly depends on $\alpha$ and rapidly increases with decreasing $\alpha$. The computation time also increases rapidly, since a very small time step is required to achieve the required accuracy. , The numerical examples presented here were calculated on a PC with a 4 GHz processor. With $\alpha = 1$, the calculation takes less than 1 minute, with $\alpha = 0.1$ it takes less than 5 minutes, and 3-4 hours at $\alpha = 0.01$.
The second numerical example simulates the process of demagnetization that follows the moment of turning off the magnetic field considered in the first example. The process of demagnetization at constant (room) temperature is too long and cannot be adequately calculated from numerical solution of FPE because of accumulation of computational errors. To accelerate demagnetization we use heating of a particle with constant heating rate $k_T$, $T=T_0+k_T\tau$.
When $\epsilon_h = 0$ and the FPI numerical solution begins with the distribution $W_H$ – the final distribution in the first simulation, the distribution $W(\tau)$ changes very quickly and if $\alpha <1$, it takes too much computational time to obtain the solution on PC. Therefore, we solved FPI at $\alpha=1$ with initial condition $W_0=W_H$ and the heating rate $k_T=10^{-3}$ K per unit of dimensionless time. The results, graphs of the average magnetization, the standard deviation of the magnetization, and the deviation of the current probability density distribution from the Boltzmann distribution at current $T$, in dependency on the particle temperature, are shown in Figure 4. Also, as in the first example, the graphs are plotted for the three directions of the external field at which the particle was magnetized. Here the deviation $\delta W$ is not normalized, $$\delta W(\tau) = \int{|W(\tau)-W_B(T(\tau))|\,d\Omega}.$$
![Demagnetization of a particle under increasing temperature with different heating rates. Graphs of the average magnetization: blue line – $k_T=10^{-1}$K, black line – $k_T=10^{-3}$K, red line – $k_T=10^{-5}$K. Solid lines – $\alpha=1$, dashed lines – $\alpha = 0.1$.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.eps)
When heated, the average magnetization of the magnetized particle remains almost at the initial level until a certain temperature is reached, and then quickly drops. The temperature at which the falling magnetization becomes less than a certain value depends on the heating rate. For example, the average magnetization of a particle magnetized in an external field directed to the saddle point of $V_a$, becomes less than 0.01 at $T_1=940^\circ$C if $k_t=10^{-1}$K, at $T_2=580^\circ$C if $k_t=10^{-3}$K, and at $T_3=390^\circ$C if $k_t=10^{-5}$K. These values are obtained from the FPE solution with $\alpha=1$. With a decrease in $\alpha$, these temperatures are also decrease. In particular, for $\alpha=0.1$ $T_1=820$K, $T_2=510$K, and $T_3=340$K. As mentioned above, solving Eq. (\[f1\]) with the initial condition $W_H$ for $\alpha=0.1$ takes a lot of time on a PC. Therefore, here, as an initial condition, we take a solution to the equation with $\alpha = 1$ at the time $\tau = 1$. The graphs of the average magnetization versus temperature for three different heating rates are shown in Figure 5.
Conclusion
==========
The results of this and previous works [@15] show that the finite element method allows one to efficiently solve Brown’s FPI for single-domain particles with apparently much lower computational and programmatic efforts than the traditional method of decomposition into spherical harmonics.
The procedure for generating triangular grids on the surface of a sphere using an inscribed icosahedron enables one to create an infinite sequence of regular (deterministic) grids with a fairly high quality. A comparison of the results obtained on grids with an increasing number of nodes makes it possible to draw a conclusion about the convergence of the numerical method. In this work, the calculations were performed on grids with $n$ = 72, 81, and 99. The results of calculations on these grids almost coincided, which makes it possible to conclude that it is inappropriate to increase the number of nodes to solve the problems considered.
All matrices of the system (\[f1\]) have the same structure, nonzero elements in all matrices are in the same places. The number of nonzero elements, $N_{nz}=7N_p-12$, is relatively small, so storing matrices does not require a lot of memory, and many calculations can be done on a regular PC. Another feature of the system (\[f1\]) is that it is not resolved with respect to time derivatives. Therefore, for its numerical solution, it is necessary to use special codes for linear implicit systems, for example, the LSODIS codes. All the numerical examples presented in the paper were run on a regular PC using the MATLAB environment. To solve the system (\[f1\]), the MATLAB function ’ode15s’ was used. However, as parameter $\alpha$ decreases, the system stiffness increases rapidly, and solving a problem on a PC becomes problematic due to a very long computational time. Therefore, it is advisable to develop special codes for solving the system (\[f1\]), taking into account its features and capabilities of multi-core processors.
[00]{}
B.D. Cullity, C.D. Graham, Introduction to magnetic materials, IEEE Press, 2009.
E.C. Stoner, E.P. Wohlfarth, A mechanism of magnetic hysteresis in heterogeneous alloys, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, [**240**]{} (1948) 599-642.
L. Néel, Influence des fluctuations thermiques sur l’aimantation de grains ferromagnétiques très fins, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, [**228**]{} (1949) 664-666.
W.F. Brown Jr., Thermal fluctuations of a single-domain particle, Phys. Rev., [**130**]{} (1963) 1677-1686.
T.L. Gilbert, A phenomenological theory of damping in ferromagnetic materials, IEEE Trans. Magn., [**40**]{} (2004) 3443-3449. DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.2004.836740.
W.T. Coffey, Yu.P. Kalmykov, The Langevin Equation, 4nd ed. World Scientific, Singapore, 2017.
Yu.P. Kalmykov, S.V. Titov, Derivation of matrix elements for the system of moment equations governing the kinetics of superparamagnetic particles, J. Magn. Magn. Mater., [**210**]{} (2000) 233-243. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-8853(99)00594-6
V.A. Ignatchenko, B.S. Gekht, Dynamic hysteresis of a superparamagnet, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 67 (1974) 1506-1515. \[Sov. Phys. JETP, [**40**]{} (1975) 750-758.
I.S. Poperechny, Yu.L. Raikher, V.I. Stepanov, Dynamic magnetic hysteresis in single-domain particles with uniaxial anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B, [**82**]{} (2010) 174423. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.174423
H. Risken, The Fokker–Planck Equation, Methods of Solutions and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
H. Zhaoa, G. Zhu, Matrix-valued continued fractions, J. Approx. Theory, [**120**]{} (2003) 136-152. DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9045(02)00016-3
D.A. Dimitrov, G.M. Wysin, Magnetic properties of superparamagnetic particles by a Monte Carlo method. Phys. Rev. B, [**54**]{} (1996) 9237-9241. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.9237
X.Z. Cheng, M.B.A. Jalil, H.K. Lee, Y. Okabe, Mapping the Monte Carlo Scheme to Langevin Dynamics: A Fokker-Planck Approach. Phys. Rev. Lett., [**96**]{} (2006) 067208. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.067208
P. V. Melenev, Yu. L. Raikher, V. V. Rusakov, R. Perzynski, Time quantification for Monte Carlo modeling of superparamagnetic relaxation. Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{} (2012) 104423. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.104423
N.V. Peskov, N.L. Semendyaeva, Numerical solution of Fokker-Planck equation for single domain particles. Phusica B: Condensed Matter, [**571**]{} (2019) 142–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.physb.2019.07.004
R.P. Heikes, D.A. Randall, C.S. Konor, Optimized Icosahedral Grids: Performance of Finite-Difference Operators and Multigrid Solver. Mon. Weather Rev., [**141**]{} (2013) 4450–4469. DOI: 10.1175/MWR-D-12-00236.1
W.T. Coffey, D.S.F. Crothers, Yu.P. Kalmykov, J.T. Waldron, Constant-magnetic-field effect in Néel relaxation of single-domain ferromagnetic particles, Phys. Rev. B, [**51**]{} (1995) 15947-15956. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.51.15947
Yu.P. Kalmykov, S.V. Titov, W.T. Coffey, Longitudinal complex magnetic susceptibility and relaxation time of superparamagnetic particles with cubic magnetic anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B, [**58**]{} (1998) 3267-3276. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.58.3267
W.T. Coffeya, Yu.P. Kalmykovb, S.V. Titov. Nonlinear response of fine superparamagnetic particles to the sudden change of a strong uniform DC magnetic field, J. Magn. Magn. Mater., [**241**]{} (2002) 400–414. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-8853(01)00951-9
Yu.P. Kalmykov, W.T. Coffey, B. Ouaria, S.V. Titov, Damping dependence of the magnetization relaxation time of single-domain ferromagnetic particles, J. Magn. Magn. Mater., [**292**]{} (2005) 372–384. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2004.11.233
B. Ouari, Yu.P. Kalmykov, Dynamics of the magnetization of single domain particles having triaxial anisotropy subjected to a uniform dc magnetic field, J. Appl. Phys., [**100**]{} (2006) 123912. DOI: 10.1063/1.2399304
B. Ouari, S. Aktaou, Yu.P. Kalmykov, Reversal time of the magnetization of antiferromagnetic nanoparticles, Phys. Rev. B, [**81**]{} (2010) 024412. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.024412
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We calculate the energy distribution of the relativistic particles injected in the ICM during a phase of reacceleration of the relativistic particles in the cluster volume. We apply our results to the case of the Coma cluster in which recent merging activity and the presence of the radio halo may suggest that reacceleration processes are efficient. We find that the electron population injected in the central part of the cluster by the head–tail radio galaxy NGC 4869 may account for a large fraction, if not all, of the detected EUV excess via inverse Compton scattering of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) photons.
If radio haloes are powered by reacceleration mechanisms active in the cluster volume, moderate non–thermal EUV excesses (of order of $\sim 1-5 \cdot 10^{42}$erg s$^{-1}$) should be a common feature of clusters containing powerful head–tail radio galaxies and/or AGNs.
[*PACS*]{}: 95.30.Cq; 95.30.Gv; 98.54.Gr; 98.65.Cw; 98.65.Hb
address:
- ' Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universitá di Bologna, via Ranzani 1, I–40127 Bologna, Italy. Istituto di Radioastronomia del CNR, via Gobetti 101, I–40129 Bologna, Italy.'
- ' Istituto di Radioastronomia del CNR, via Gobetti 101, I–40129 Bologna, Italy.'
- ' Dipartimento di Fisica, Universitá di Bologna, via Berti–Pichat 6/2, I–40127 Bologna, Italy. Istituto di Radioastronomia del CNR, via Gobetti 101, I–40129 Bologna, Italy.'
author:
- 'G. Brunetti'
- 'G. Setti'
- 'L. Feretti'
- 'G. Giovannini'
title: 'Particle injection and reacceleration in clusters of galaxies and the EUV excess: the case of Coma'
---
å[’27a]{} ł[’40l]{}
,
,
,
acceleration of particles – radiation mechanisms: non-thermal – galaxies: active - galaxies: clusters: general - galaxies: clusters: individual: Coma - ultraviolet: general
Introduction
============
Observations of a few galaxy clusters with the [*Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer*]{} have revealed extreme ultraviolet emission (EUV) in excess of that expected by extrapolating downward the thermal X–ray spectrum (Lieu et al. 1996a,b; Bowyer, Lampton and Lieu 1996; Mittaz, Lieu and Lockman 1998). The EUV excess has been claimed by these authors as a new feature of clusters of galaxies with important physical implications.
The suggestion that spurious EUV excesses may derive by underestimating the line–of–sight Galactic absorption (Arabadjis & Bregman 1999) has been excluded by further EUV investigations (Bowyer, Bergöfer and Korpela 1999). These authors have also pointed out that the measured EUVs are strongly influenced by the variation of the telescope sensitivity over the field of view. By making use of the appropriate corrections, EUV extended excess was confirmed in the case of Coma (Bowyer et al. 1999) and Virgo (Berghöfer, Bowyer and Korpela 2000), whereas no evidence of extended EUV excess was found in A1795 and A2199 (Bowyer et al. 1999). The presence of EUV excess in the latter two clusters is, however, still debated (Bonamente, Lieu and Mittaz 2000; Lieu, Bonamente and Mittaz 2000).
The EUV excess may be interpreted as due to a relatively cool ($\sim 10^6$ K) emitting gas (e.g. Lieu et al.1996a), but, at these temperatures the gas cooling is particularly efficient, so that a non–thermal interpretation is usually favoured with respect to the thermal scenario (Hwang 1997; Ensslin & Biermann 1998; Bowyer & Berghöfer 1998; Sarazin & Lieu; Lieu et al. 1999). Indeed, synchrotron emission in the radio band and inverse Compton (IC) emission in the EUV and hard X–rays are expected from clusters of galaxies in the framework of continuous injection of relativistic electrons (Sarazin 1999; Völk & Atoyan 1999) and of a [*two phase*]{} model invoking reacceleration of previously injected relic particles (Brunetti et al. 2000).
Due to the large amount of data the Coma cluster represents the best case to compare model predictions with observations. Since the EUV profile is narrower than the radio one, it cannot be accounted for by IC emission of the low energy halo electrons with the CMB photons (Bowyer & Berghöfer 1998). Thus, alternative scenarios have been explored.
Ensslin et al. (1999) have calculated that anisotropic IC scattering of the optical photons (from the central galaxies in the cluster) by an assumed ad hoc very dense population of mildly relativistic electrons (with a cut–off in the energy distribution at a few MeV) can, in principle, account for the EUV properties.
Atoyan & Völk (2000) have argued that the EUV can be accounted for by IC scattering of the CMB photons from a relic electron population with a radiative cut–off at $\gamma \geq 500$, injected in the ICM at the epoch of starburst activity and recently slightly re–energized.
Sarazin (1999; 2000) has pointed out that clusters of galaxies can contain a large number of relic relativistic electrons (with $\gamma < 300$) injected in the past which can account for the EUV excess via IC scattering of CMB photons.
In a recent paper Brunetti et al.(2000) have shown that the radio spectral steepening observed in the case of Coma C (Giovannini et al. 1993; Deiss et al. 1997) may imply the presence of diffuse reacceleration in the cluster volume and the spectrum of a relic population would be stretched toward higher energies thus reducing the emitted EUV flux.
Following the original proposal of Brunetti et al.(1999), in this paper we investigate the possibility that a substantial fraction, if not all, of the EUV excess emission from the Coma cluster can be accounted for by the IC scattering of the CMB photons due to relativistic electrons recently injected in the central part of the cluster by AGN activity and reaccelerated by moderate turbulence in the ICM.
In Sections 2.1 and 2.2 we illustrate the proposed scenario and in Section 2.3 we discuss the possibility that NGC 4869 may supply the required number of relativistic particles; a general discussion is given in Section 3. In Appendix A we calculate the time evolution of the energy distribution of relativistic electrons continuously injected and reaccelerated in the ICM, while relevant formulae used to calculate the synchrotron and IC emitted spectra are given in the Appendix B.
$H_0 = 50$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ is assumed throughout.
Modelling the EUV excess in the Coma cluster
============================================
The proposed scenario
---------------------
We assume the scenario of the [*two phase*]{} model (Brunetti et al. 2000) in which relic relativistic electrons, continuously injected in the cluster volume in the past, have been recently reaccelerated by diffuse shocks/turbulence probably induced by a cluster merger. These electrons (the main electron population, [*MeP*]{}) are responsible for both the diffuse radio emission and at least for a large fraction of the hard X–rays emitted by Coma via the IC scattering of the CMB photons. The resulting IC spectrum is however flat and falls well below the observed EUV flux.
As already stated in the Introduction, the brightness profile of the EUV excess is much narrower than the radio profile (Bowyer et al. 1999 and references therein) so that, an IC origin of the EUV excess should involve an additional electron population ([*AeP*]{}). The requirement is that the synchrotron radio contribution from the [*AeP*]{} should be considerably smaller than that from the [*MeP*]{} ($\leq 20-30\%$), i.e. the energy distribution of the [*AeP*]{} should be considerably steeper than that of the [*MeP*]{}.
In order to preserve a relatively steep energy distribution during a reacceleration phase it is necessary that the injection of the [*AeP*]{} has started recently, i.e. not more than $\sim$3 times the reacceleration time. The problem, in this case, is that an efficient injector of relativistic electrons is required to match the energetics necessary to account for the measured EUV. Although the main consequences of this scenario do not depend on the details of the injection, we examine and propose that it can be identified with the recent activity of relatively powerful radio loud AGNs, such as the head tail radio source NGC 4869.
In order to test this hypothesis, in the next Section we model the time–evolution of the [*AeP*]{} energy distribution injected in a turbulent ICM.
The model
---------
We consider a simplified model based on the following assumptions:
a\) the [*AeP*]{} is uniformly injected in the cluster core (spherical geometry) at a constant rate for a time interval $\Delta t_{inj}$ and with an energy spectrum, typical of the radio galaxies, of the form:
$$Q_{inj}(\gamma)= K_e \gamma^{-\delta}
\left( 1- {{\gamma}\over{\gamma_{b}^{rg} }} \right)^{\delta-2}
\label{inj_rg}$$
where $\gamma$ is the electron Lorentz factor, $\gamma_b^{rg}$ the break energy and $\delta > 2$;
b\) following Sarazin (1999) the electrons lose their energy by synchrotron and Compton losses, the last being dominant because of the relative weakness of the cluster magnetic fields, and at low energies by Coulomb losses, whereas they are continuously reaccelerated by systematic Fermi processes ($d \gamma / dt \propto \gamma$).
The evolution of the reaccelerated relativistic particles changes depending on wether or not $\gamma_b^{rg}$ is larger than the asymptotic break energy $\gamma_b(\infty)$ resulting from the balance between energy losses and gains in the ICM. The time evolution of the [*AeP*]{} energy spectra are represented in Fig.1 and Fig.2 for these two relevant cases and for values of the parameters representative of the astrophysical problem being discussed (the detailed derivation of the formulae is given in the Appendix A). Fig.1 illustrates the case of $\gamma_b^{rg} >
\gamma_b(\infty)$. With increasing $\Delta t_{inj}$ an increasing number of electrons is accumulated below $\gamma_b(\infty)$, the spectrum flattens at lower energies due to combined reacceleration and Coulomb losses, while at higher energies (but $<< \gamma_b^{rg}$) it is $\propto \gamma^{-\delta+1}$ as in the standard case of continuous injection.
Fig.2 shows the case in which $\gamma_b^{rg} < \gamma_b(\infty)$; again the electron spectrum flattens with increasing $\Delta t_{inj}$, but a sharp cut–off is maintained at $\gamma \leq \gamma_b(\infty)$.
We have then applied standard formulae (Appendix B) to compute the IC and synchrotron emissions from a spherical volume of 15 arcmin radius (about the extension of EUV excess) by adopting the physical parameters consistent with the two phase model of Brunetti et al.(2000) for Coma. These are: a magnetic field of average strength $0.5-0.6
\mu G$ (within $\sim 15$ arcmin), an acceleration parameter $\chi = 3.5 \cdot 10^{-16}$s$^{-1}$ and a Coulomb loss coefficient $\xi = 1.3 \cdot 10^{-15}$s$^{-1}$. With these values $\gamma_b(\infty) \simeq 1.8 \cdot 10^4$ and electrons of this energy would typically emit synchrotron radiation at a frequency $\nu \sim 100 $MHz. In the framework of the present model there are then two consequences which follow from the requirement that the predicted radio emission should have a steep spectrum in order not to significantly contribute to the 327–1400 MHz radio spectrum of the Coma cluster: first, the injection period $\Delta t_{inj}$ cannot be larger than $\sim 0.3$ Gyr and, second, $\gamma_b^{rg}$ must be significantly smaller than $\gamma_b(\infty)$ (Fig. 1 and 2).
By assuming $\delta = 2.6$, typical of radio galaxies, and $\gamma_b^{rg}=1000$ we have normalized the electron spectrum by requiring that the IC scattering with the CMB photons matches the observed EUV excess and computed the IC and synchrotron emissivities as shown in Fig. 3 and 4.
It is seen that the model accounts for the EUV flux without introducing any significant contribution to the IC X–ray flux derived by Brunetti et al.(2000) model, whose parameters have been adopted here, but the predicted synchrotron emission at low radio frequencies may be significant and may account for the apparent upturn of the radio spectrum indicated by the measurements at low frequencies. If the 74 MHz flux is significantly contributed by the additional electron population (the case $\Delta t_{inj} =0.3$ Gyr in Fig.4) the 74–327 MHz synchrotron spectrum within $\sim$15 arcmin should be steeper ($\alpha \geq 1$) than that between 327–1400 MHz; detailed VLA observations at 74 MHz would help in testing this.
It should also be noticed that in the model the values of $\gamma_b^{rg}$ and $\Delta t_{inj}$ are (roughly) inversely correlated: for instance, the adoption of a somewhat higher value for $\gamma_b^{rg}$, e.g. 2000, would still be consistent with the low frequency radio data by simply reverting to a smaller value of $\Delta t_{inj}$.
NGC 4869 and the EUV excess in Coma
-----------------------------------
In this Section we compare the energetics of the electron population required by the model to match the EUV excess via IC scattering of CMB photons by the electron population continuously released in the ICM by the AGNs in the Coma cluster. NGC 4869, the head tail radio source, is presently the most powerful radio galaxy in the core of the Coma cluster. The question is whether or not it may supply a sufficient fraction of the energetic electrons required to explain the EUV excess according to the model described in the preceding Section 2.1.
Dallacasa et al.(1989) have reported three frequency (327, 1465, 4885 MHz) spectra of NGC 4869 up to a distance of $\sim 180$ arcsec from the nucleus and the 327–1465 spectral index up to $\sim 280$ arcsec.
Feretti et al.(1990) have fitted the synchrotron spectrum of NGC 4869 at different distances from the radio nucleus up to 180 arcsec finding that the break frequency ranges from $>$ 50 GHz close to the nucleus (where the slope of the emitted spectrum is $0.8$, i.e. $\delta = 2.6$) to $<$ 1 GHz at larger distances. They interpreted the systematic decrease of the break frequency with distance from the nucleus as due to the ageing of the emitting electrons.
Since we are particularly interested in constraining the electron population at the end of the tail, where electrons are mixed with the ICM, we have fitted the spectral indices of the external part of the tail reported by Dallacasa et al.(1989). We have assumed $\delta = 2.6$ and a KP model (Kardashev 1962; Pacholczyk 1970) which corresponds to a non re–isotropization of the electron momenta due to the dominance of the synchrotron losses in the tail volume (the SYNAGE fitting software package developed by Murgia & Fanti 1996 has been used). At distances $> 220$ arcsec the break frequency is not well determined ($\nu_b$$200$ MHz) since the 327–1465 MHz spectral index approaches the KP–asymptotic value $\sim 2$. By considering the spectral fits and by assuming the particle age to be proportional to the distance from the nucleus (in agreement with Feretti et al. (1990) findings) a break energy $\gamma_b$$4000/ \sqrt{ B_{\mu G} }$ is estimated in the oldest detectable parts of the radio tail ($\sim 280$ arcsec). It should be stressed that this break energy is only an upper limit to $\gamma_b^{rg}$ in Eq.(\[inj\_rg\]) since the detected radio flux is emitted by plasma still confined in the radio tail and not yet well mixed with the ICM. We conclude that $\gamma_b^{rg} \sim 1000$ (given a magnetic field of the radio galaxy $B \sim 10 \mu$G; see below), adopted in the model of the preceding Section 2.2, is appropriate to the case of NGC 4869.
Under the simple assumption of an injection rate ($Q_{inj} = \int Q_{inj}(\gamma) d\gamma$) constant with time, the total electron number injected in the cluster volume is $Q_{inj} \Delta t_{inj}$. In order to test if NGC 4869 can account for the total number of electrons necessary to match the EUVs, we have calculated $Q_{inj}$ between 30 and 60 arcsec from the nucleus of the radio galaxy under minimum energy conditions. Since the EUV flux is due to IC by the electrons of the [*AeP*]{} with Lorentz factor $\gamma \sim 300$, the classical equipartition formulae are not sufficient and we should include low energy electrons in the computation of the minimum energy parameters (Brunetti et al. 1997). By assuming a low energy cut–off in the injected electron spectrum $\gamma_{min} =50$ (below which Coulomb losses in the tail would flatten the electron distribution), a ratio = 1 between proton and electron energies and a filling factor = 1, we obtain an equipartition magnetic field in the radio galaxy $B_{eq} \sim 14.5 \mu G$ at a projected distance between 30 and 60 arcsec (20–40 kpc) from the nucleus. The corresponding radiative age $\sim 4.5 \cdot 10^6$yr, combined with the synchrotron brightness in the same region (corrected for the steepening of the spectrum), gives $Q_{inj} \sim 6.5 \cdot 10^{54}$el yr$^{-1}$.
By normalizing Eq.1 to this value, we find that the IC contribution to the observed EUV flux from the [*AeP*]{} injected in the ICM is $\sim 30 \%$ and $\sim 40 \%$ for $\Delta t_{inj} =$ 0.2 and 0.3 Gyr, respectively. Although this time could be long if compared with the typical age of the radio galaxies, we point out that it is similar to the ages estimated in the case of some head tail radio galaxies (e.g. IC 310 and 3C 129, Feretti et al. 1998) and in the case of giant radio galaxies (e.g. B 0313+683, Schoenmakers et al. 1998; B 0319-454, Saripalli, Subrahmanyan, Hunstead 1994).
There is no firm evidence so far of a perfect energy equipartition between magnetic fields and relativistic particles in the radio galaxies, thus we have also investigated the consequences of a moderate departure from equipartition. By assuming a magnetic field strength lower than the equipartition value both the number density of the relativistic electrons and the radiative age increase, thus $Q_{inj}$ does not critically depend on the departure from the equipartition condition. Specifically we obtain :
$${{Q_{inj}(B)}\over{Q_{inj}(B_{eq}) }}
=
\left( {{B_{eq} }\over{ B}} \right)^{ {{\delta+2}\over 2} }
{{
\left[ 1 +
\left(
{{B}\over{B_{IC}} }
\right)^2
\right]
}\over{
\left[ 1 +
\left(
{{B_{eq}}\over{B_{IC}} }
\right)^2
\right]
}}
\label{re}$$
where $B_{IC} \sim 3 \mu$G is the equivalent field of the CMB. Eq.(\[re\]) is reported in Fig.5 : a net increase of $Q_{inj}$ requires a magnetic field $B < 0.2$ $B_{eq}$.
In order to match the EUV flux a magnetic field strength $B \sim 1/3-1/4 B_{eq}$ is required.
Implications on the pressure equilibrium between the tailed radio source and the ICM can finally be obtained. By making use of standard equipartition equations, Feretti et al. (1990) have shown that NGC 4869 is in apparent imbalance with the external thermal pressure by a factor $\sim 10-15$ in the region between 30–60 arcsec and by a larger factor with increasing distance from the nucleus; this imbalance is partly reduced by considering the contribution of the low energy electrons. We have calculated the expected pressure inside the radio volume under our assumptions. The equipartition pressure at 30–60 arcsec from the nucleus is $\simeq 10^{-11}$dyne cm$^{-2}$, while it is $\simeq 4 \cdot 10^{-12}$dyne cm$^{-2}$ with standard formulae.
Out of equipartition (for an ordered magnetic field) the pressure can be obtained from Brunetti et al. (1997) equations; one has :
$${{P(B)}\over{P(B_{eq})}}=
{{ 3\delta +3}\over{3\delta +7}}
\left( {{B}\over{ B_{eq} }} \right)^2
\left(
1+
{1\over 3}
{4\over{\delta+1}}
\left( {{B_{eq}}\over{B}} \right)^{
{{\delta +5 }\over 2} }
\right)
\label{pressureuv}$$
which is reported in Fig.5. Since under our hypothesis the particles contribute to the pressure for only $1/3$ of their energy, a moderate departure from equipartition causes a slight decrease of the pressure, which however, rapidly increases for larger departures.
By assuming the magnetic field in NGC 4869 required to match the EUV excess via IC scattering, the internal pressure increases up to $\sim 2-2.5 \cdot 10^{-11}$dyne cm$^{-2}$ which is rather close (but a factor $\sim 2-2.5$ below) to the thermal pressure.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
It has been previously shown (Brunetti et al 2000) that the radio (synchrotron) and hard X-rays (IC on the CMB photons) properties of Coma C may be explained by a two phase model in which diffuse relic electrons have been efficiently reaccelerated throughout the cluster volume for a period of $\sim$1 Gyr by the turbulence and associated Fermi type mechanisms excited in the ICM by a recent merger (main electron population, [*MeP*]{}).
By adopting this model we have shown here that a steady injection in the cluster core of an additional fresh population of relativistic electrons (Fig.6) may explain the EUV excess, recently determined by Bowyer et al.(1999), as IC scattering of the CMB photons. Detailed computations of the time evolution of the injected electron spectrum show that internal consistency within the complete model requires a relatively steep injection spectral index ($\delta \sim 2.6$), however typical of the radio galaxies, and an injection starting time $\leq 0.3$ Gyr, in which case there is no significant contribution to the synchrotron emission in the 327-1400 MHz band and to the total X-ray flux. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that an important contribution to the emission at low radio frequencies ($\leq 100$ MHz; Fig.4) may be present, so that improved measurements at long radio wavelengths may provide a test of the proposed interpretation of the EUV excess and, of course, constrain the model parameters.
The luminosity of the EUV excess is $\sim 1.5 \cdot
10^{42}$ erg/sec. An IC origin with the spectral shape of our model needs a total number of injected electrons $\sim 4\cdot 10^{63}$. We have explored the possibility that a large fraction of these electrons may have been injected by the powerful head tail radio galaxy NGC 4869 orbiting in the cluster core. By assuming that NGC 4869 has been constantly active in the past 0.3 Gyr (an age comparable to that of a number of giant and head tail radio galaxies) we find, based on minimum energy conditions in the tail, that about 40% of the required number of electrons may have been released to the ICM; a full complement is achieved with a moderate departure from the equipartition resulting in a magnetic field intensity about a factor $\sim 3$ weaker. The total energy of the electrons deposited in the ICM is $\sim 4 \cdot 10^{59}$ erg which is not unreasonable for a radio galaxy.
We stress that, although the internal pressure is considerably increased with respect to previous estimates based on classical equipartition formulae, the radio tail is still well confined by the hot ICM: the pressure gap is reduced by almost an order of magnitude, but the tail is still underpressurized by a factor 2–3. The introduction of a filling factor and of a relativistic proton component may now easily bring to a pressure equilibrium.
In Fig.7 the observed EUV radial profile is compared with that predicted by our model based on the simple assumption of a spherical and uniform distribution of the relativistic particles centered on the cluster centre. It is seen that the model provides a very good fit of the data at an angular distance $> 3$ arcmin from the centre which includes $\sim 90-95\%$ of the EUV excess. We note that in the innermost 3 arcmin the radial profile samples a region containing the cD galaxy NGC 4874 so that an additional contribution to the EUV flux may be expected. Furthermore, it should be stressed that at smaller radii the azimuthal distribution of the EUV excess is very sensitive to small scale brightness/temperature fluctuations of the hot ICM. If the relativistic electrons are mainly supplied by NGC 4869 then the EUV brightness distribution should be related to some extent with the orbital path followed by the tailed radio source. At present the tail’s end is positioned at an angular distance of $\sim 6$ arcmin from the cluster centre, so that a shift between the X-ray and EUV maxima may be expected. However, most of the injected relativistic plasma could have been stirred around the cluster core in the available time scale by the turbulence generated by the random motion of the galaxies; this may have considerably smoothed out the distribution of the relativistic particles on the cluster core size and thus that of the emitted EUV photons. Detailed mapping of the EUV excess would obviously be of great importance.
We point out that our model, although specifically developed for the Coma cluster, may have a wider application predicting the existence of sizeable fluxes of excess EUV photons from galaxy clusters where large numbers of relativistic electrons are injected in the cluster cores by powerful AGN activity, or other energetic events such as a minor merger, during a reacceleration phase. However, due to the requirement of a contemporaneous presence of efficient Fermi type turbulence reacceleration and of an efficient recent injection of relativistic electrons in the cluster core (i.e. the presence of powerful AGNs), we claim that in the clusters with radio haloes a non–thermal EUV excess due to the proposed scenario would be more rare than the hard X–ray excess.
Finally, if a relic population of relativistic electrons is commonly associated with clusters of galaxies (Sarazin 1999), the related EUV excess from IC scattering of CMB photons is expected to be more common in clusters without radio halo than in those with radio halo where diffuse reacceleration processes may stretch toward higher energies the electron spectrum.
We are grateful to S. Bowyer and T. Ensslin for useful discussions and suggestions. This work was partly supported by the Italian Ministry for University and Research (MURST) under grant Cofin98-02-32.
Appendix A: Time evolution of injected and reaccelerated electrons
==================================================================
The time evolution of the particle energy distribution $N(\gamma,t)$ is obtained by solving the kinetic equation (e.g. Kardashev 1962):
$${{\partial N(\gamma, t)}\over
{\partial t}} =
-{{\partial}\over{\partial \gamma}}
\left[ {{d \gamma}\over{d t}} N(\gamma, t) \right]
+ Q_{inj}(\gamma, t)
\label{kinetic}$$
where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor. We assume an injection function $Q_{inj}(\gamma)$ typical of the radio galaxies (Eq.\[inj\_rg\]).
Once injected, the electrons lose energy via Coulomb and radiation losses and are reaccelerated by Fermi processes (here assumed to be systematic : $d\gamma/dt = \chi \gamma$), thus, the evolution of the energy of the electrons is :
$${{d\gamma}\over{dt}}=
\chi \gamma - \xi - \beta \gamma^2
\label{energy_evol}$$
where $\chi$ is the reacceleration efficiency, $\xi$ the coefficient of the Coulomb losses :
$$\xi \simeq 1.2\cdot 10^{-12} n
\left(1 + {{ln(\gamma/n)}\over{75}} \right)
\sim 1.4 \cdot 10^{-12} n
\label{culomblosses}$$
and $\beta$ that of the radiative losses :
$$\beta(z)=
1.9 \cdot 10^{-9} \left( {2\over 3} B^2 + B_{IC}^2(z)
\right)
\label{radiativelosses}$$
$B_{IC}(z)$ being the equivalent magnetic field strength of the CMB. Under these assumptions the time evolution of the energy of the electrons is :
$$\gamma(\tau)=
{{ \gamma(t_i)
(\sqrt{q}/tanh(x) + \chi ) -2\xi }\over{
2\beta \gamma(t_i) + \sqrt{q} / tanh(x) -\chi}}
\label{gamma(t)}$$
with $t_i$ the time at which the injection has started, $q= \chi^2 -4 \xi \beta > 0$, $x =
{{\sqrt{q}}\over 2} \tau $ and $\tau$ the time interval since the injection.
The time–evolution of the spectrum injected in the unit time interval is obtained by solving the kinetic equation with $Q_{inj}=0$. We obtain :
$$\begin{aligned}
N(\gamma,\tau)=
K_e q
{{ (1-tanh(x))^2}\over{ ( 2 \beta \gamma_b tanh (x) )^2 }}
\left( 1- {{\gamma}\over{\gamma_b(\tau)}} \right)^{\delta-2}
\cdot \nonumber \\
\gamma^{-\delta}
\left\{ 1 + S\left[\gamma; \gamma_b(\tau)\right] \right\}^{-\delta}
\left( 1 - {{\gamma}\over{ \gamma_b^{rg} }}
{{ 1 + S[\gamma; \gamma_b(\tau)] }
\over{ 1 - \gamma/\gamma_b(\tau)}}
\right)^{\delta-2}
\label{inj_evol}\end{aligned}$$
where
$$S[\gamma; \gamma_b(\tau)]=
{{ \xi \gamma^{-1} - \chi }\over
{\beta \gamma_b(\tau)}}
\label{s(g)}$$
and the break energy at time $\tau$ is:
$$\gamma_b(\tau)=
{1\over {2\beta}}
\left\{ {{\sqrt{q} }\over{ tanh(x)}}
+\chi \right\} \,\,
{ \buildrel \tau \rightarrow \infty \over
\longrightarrow } \,\,
{{ \sqrt{q} + \chi}\over{2 \beta}}
\equiv
\gamma_b(\infty)
\label{gb(tau)}$$
The solution of Eq.(\[kinetic\]) after an injection and reacceleration period $\Delta t_{inj}$ is then obtained by integrating Eq.(\[inj\_evol\]) over the injection time. However, for a given Lorentz factor $\gamma$, only the contributions of the injected electrons with a maximum energy larger than $\gamma$ should be considered. In order to do this we introduce the largest energy of the electron population with $\tau=\Delta t_{inj}$ (i.e. the oldest one); from Eq.(\[gamma(t)\]), with $\gamma(t_i)=\gamma_b^{rg}$, one has :
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{max}=
{{ \gamma_b(\Delta t_{inj})
-\xi/(\beta \gamma_b^{rg}) }\over
{ 1 + [\gamma_b(\Delta t_{inj}) -
\chi /\beta ] (\gamma_b^{rg})^{-1}
}}
\cases{
{ \buildrel \gamma_b^{rg} \rightarrow \infty \over
\longrightarrow } \gamma_b(\Delta t_{inj})
\cr \cr
{ \buildrel \gamma_b^{rg} = \gamma_b(\infty) \over = }
\gamma_b(\infty)
\cr }
\label{gammamax}\end{aligned}$$
The integration is performed as follows (Fig A1):
$\bullet \, \,$ case $\gamma_b^{rg} > \gamma_b(\infty)$ :
$$N(\gamma, \Delta t_{inj}) =
\int_0^{{\cal T}} N(\gamma, \tau) d\tau
\label{nfin}$$
where ${\cal T}= \Delta t_{inj}$ for $\gamma < \gamma_{max}$, while
$${\cal T} = {1\over{\sqrt{q}}}
ln \left(
{{
\chi -\sqrt{q}
-2\beta {\cal F}(\gamma)
}\over{
\chi +\sqrt{q}
-2\beta {\cal F}(\gamma)
}} \right)
\label{tfin}$$
for $\gamma > \gamma_{max}$, where the function
$${\cal F(\gamma)} =
{{\gamma \gamma_b^{rg}}\over
{\gamma_b^{rg} - \gamma}}
\left\{
1+ S\left[\gamma; \gamma_b^{rg} \right]
\right\}
%{{\xi(1-\gamma)}\over{\beta \gamma_b^{rg}}} +
%\gamma
%\right)
%\left(1 - {{\gamma}\over{\gamma_b^{rg}}} \right)^{-1}
\,
{ \buildrel \gamma_b^{rg} \rightarrow \infty \over
\longrightarrow } \,
\gamma
\label{calf}$$
$\bullet \,\,$ case $\gamma_b^{rg} < \gamma_b(\infty)$ :
$$N(\gamma, \Delta t_{inj}) =
\int_{{\cal T}}^{ \Delta t_{inj} }
N(\gamma, \tau) d\tau
\label{nfin2}$$
where ${\cal T}= 0$ for $\gamma < \gamma_b^{rg}$, while it is given by Eq.(\[tfin\]) for $\gamma > \gamma_b^{rg}$.
In the calculations we have not considered the effect of statistical Fermi acceleration; this would further complicate the equations. In this case the main effect of the electron diffusion in the momentum space is a smoothing of the calculated features of the energy distribution. In particular the energy cut off at $\gamma_{max}$ would become an exponential decrease. However, the synchrotron and IC emitted spectrum are not sensitive to minor differences in the energy distribution being given by the convolution with the synchrotron and IC Kernel functions, respectively. As a consequence, the systematic Fermi approach is adequate to the aim of this paper.
Appendix B: Synchrotron and IC formulae used in the model computations
======================================================================
In order to calculate the synchrotron emission by the [*AeP*]{} we have assumed a magnetic field smoothly varying in space and tangled on a scale significantly smaller than the variation scale of its intensity. This allows us to consider the emitted synchrotron spectrum isotropic. In this case the synchrotron emissivity is obtained by integrating the isotropic synchrotron Kernel over the electron energy and angular distribution (cf. Westfold 1959; Pacholczyk 1970). The synchrotron emissivity per unit solid angle is:
$$\begin{aligned}
j^{S}\left( {{\nu}\over{\nu_b}},
\Delta t_{inj} \right)=
{{ \sqrt{3} }\over{8 \pi}}
{{e^3}\over{m c^2}}
{K_e B \over { w^{\delta-1} }} { q \over{\beta^2}}
\int_0^{ {{\pi}\over 2} }
d \theta
sin^2 \theta
\nonumber\\
\int_0^1 du
F \left( {{ \nu/\nu_b }\over{
u^2 sin\theta }} \right) u^{-\delta}
\int_0^{ {\cal T}(u) } d\tau
\left\{
1+
S \left(u, \tau \right)
\right\}^{-\delta}
\nonumber\\
\left(
1- u {{ w}\over{\gamma_b^{rg} }}
{{
1 +
S\left(
u,\tau
\right) }\over
{
1- u w /\gamma_b(\tau) }}
\right)^{\delta-2} \cdot
\nonumber\\
\gamma_b^{-2}(\tau)
\left(
1 - {1\over{tanh(x) }} \right)^2
\left( 1- u {{w}\over{\gamma_b(\tau)}} \right)^{
\delta-2}
\label{syn}\end{aligned}$$
where
$$S\left( u, \tau \right)
=
{{
\xi u^{-1} w^{-1} -\chi }\over
{ \beta \gamma_b(\tau) }}
\label{ss}$$
$u = \gamma/w$, $w= \gamma_b^{rg}$ or $\gamma_b(\Delta t_{inj})$ if $\gamma_b^{rg} > \gamma_b(\infty)$ or $\gamma_b^{rg} < \gamma_b(\infty)$, respectively, $F$ is the isotropic electron Kernel (e.g. Pacholczyk 1970) and the other quantities are defined in Appendix A.
Because of the angular distribution of the CMB photons is isotropic, the IC spectrum is obtained by integrating the electron energy distribution of the [*AeP*]{} over the isotropic IC Kernel in the ultrarelativistic case (e.g. Blumenthal & Gould 1970). The assumptions for the magnetic field distribution adopted in the case of the synchrotron spectrum, guarantee the isotropy of the IC emission even if the effect of synchrotron losses are important for the electron energy distribution. The IC emissivity per unit solid angle is given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
j^{IC}\left( \epsilon_1 ,
\Delta t_{inj} \right)=
K_e
{{ 2^{\delta+3} r_0^2 \pi }
\over{c^2 h^2
}} {q \over {\beta^2}}
\int {{ (\epsilon/\epsilon_1)^{ {{\delta+5}\over 2} } d\epsilon}\over{
exp\left\{\epsilon/kT_{cmb} \right\} - 1 }}
\nonumber\\
\int_{1}^{ y_{max} }
dy y^{ {{\delta+1}\over2} }
\left( 1 - 2{ y} +2 ln{ y} +
{1\over { { y} }} \right)
\nonumber\\
\int_0^{ {\cal T}(\gamma) } d\tau
\left\{
1+ S\left( { y}, \tau \right)
\right\}^{-\delta}
\nonumber\\
\left\{
\left( 1- {{ { y} }\over{ { y}_b(\tau)}} \right)
\left(
1- {{ { y} }\over{ { y}_b^{rg} }}
{{
1 +
S\left( { y}, \tau \right)
}\over
{
1- { y}/{ y}_b(\tau) }}
\right) \right\}^{\delta-2}
\nonumber\\
y_b(\tau)
\left(
1 - {1\over{tanh(x) }} \right)^2
\label{ic}\end{aligned}$$
where
$$S\left( y, \tau \right)
=
{{
\xi y^{-1} \left(y_b^{rg}\right)^{-1} -\chi }\over
{ \beta y_b(\tau) }}
\label{ss}$$
while, $y_b^{rg}= (\epsilon_1 / 4\epsilon)(\gamma_b^{rg})^{-2}$, $y_{max}= (\epsilon_1 / 4\epsilon)w^{-2}$, and $y_b(\tau)= (\epsilon_1 / 4\epsilon)(\gamma_b(\tau))^{-2}$.
An example of the synchrotron spectrum obtained from Eq.(\[syn\]) is given in Fig.B1. Here, the break frequency is defined as the critical synchrotron frequency of the electrons with the maximum Lorentz factor (in this case $\gamma_b^{rg}$) and pitch angle $\theta$=90$^o$. Following the evolution of the electron energy distribution (e.g. Figs. 1 & 2) the synchrotron spectrum flattens with increasing $\Delta t_{inj}$.
1 truecm
[**References**]{}
Arabadjis J.S., Bregman J.N., 1999, Apj 514, 607
Atoyan A.M., Völk H.J., 2000, in press; astro-ph/9912557
Berghöfer T.W., Bowyer S., Korpela E., 2000, ApJ 535, 615
Blumenthal G.R., Gould R.J., 1970 Rev. of Mod. Phys. 42, 237
Bonamente M., Lieu R., Mittaz J.P.D., 2000, ApJ L in press; astro-ph/0011186
Bowyer S., Lampton M., Lieu R., 1996, Science 274, 1338
Bowyer S., Berghöfer T.W., 1998, ApJ 506, 502
Bowyer S., Berghöfer T.W., Korpela E., 1999, ApJ 526, 592
Brunetti G., Setti G., Comastri A., 1997, A&A 325, 898
Brunetti G., Feretti L., Giovannini G., Setti G., 1999 in [*Diffuse Thermal and Relativistic Plasma in Galaxy Clusters*]{}, eds. H.Böhringer, L.Feretti, P.Schuecker, MPE Report 271, p.263
Brunetti G., Setti G., Feretti L., Giovannini G., 2000, MNRAS in press; astro-ph/0008518
Donnelly R.H., Markevitch M., Forman W., Jones C., Churazov E., Gilfanov M., 1999, ApJ 513, 690
Ensslin T.A., Biermann P.L., Kronberg P.P., Wu X.-P., 1997, ApJ 477, 560
Ensslin T.A., Lieu R., Biermann P.L., 1999, A&A 344, 409 1978, A&A 69, 253
Dallacasa D., Feretti L., Giovannini G., Venturi T., 1989, A&AS 79, 391
Feretti L., Dallacasa D., Giovannini G., Venturi T., 1990, A&A 232, 337
Feretti L., Dallacasa D., Giovannini G., Tagliani A., 1995, A&A 302, 680
Feretti L., Giovannini G., 1996, IAUS 175, 347
Feretti L., Giovannini G., Klein U., et al., 1998, A&A 331, 475
Fusco–Femiano R., Dal Fiume D., Feretti L., et al., 1999 ApJ 513, 197L
Giovannini G., Feretti L., Venturi T., Kim K.T., Kronberg P.P., 1993, ApJ 406, 399
Giovannini G., Tordi M., Feretti L., 1999, NewA 4, 141.
Kardashev N.S., 1962, Sov. Ast. 6, 317
Lieu R., Mittaz J.P.D., Bowyer S., et al., 1996, Science 274, 1335
Lieu R., Mittaz J.P.D., Bowyer S., et al., 1996, ApJ 458, L5
Lieu R., Ip W.-H., Axford W.I., Bonamente M., 1999, ApJ 510, L25
Lieu R., Bonamente M., Mittaz J.P.D., 2000, A&A, in press; astro-ph/0010610
Murgia M, Fanti R., 1996, IRA [*internal report*]{}, 228/96
Pacholczyk A.G., 1970, Radio Astrophysics, eds. G. Burbidge & M. Burbidge, Freeman and Company, San Francisco
Sarazin C.L., 1999, ApJ 520, 529
Sarazin C.L., 2000, in [*Large Scale Structure in the X–ray Universe*]{}, p.81, eds. M.Plionis, I. Georgantopoulos
Sarazin C.L., Lieu R., 1998, ApJL 494, 177
Saripalli L., Subrahmanyan R., Hunstead R.W., 1994, MNRAS 269, 37
Schoenmakers A.P., Mack K.-H., Lara L., et al., 1998, A&A 336, 455
Völk H.J., Atoyan A.M., 1999, APh 11, 73
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Central Molecular Zone (CMZ, the central 500 pc of the Milky Way) contains the largest reservoir of high-density molecular gas in the Galaxy, but forms stars at a rate 10–100 times below commonly-used star formation relations. We discuss recent efforts in understanding how the nearest galactic nucleus forms its stars. The latest models of the gas inflow, star formation, and feedback duty cycle reproduce the main observable features of the CMZ, showing that star formation is episodic and that the CMZ currently resides at a star formation minimum. Using orbital modelling, we derive the three-dimensional geometry of the CMZ and show how the orbital dynamics and the star formation potential of the gas are closely coupled. We discuss how this coupling reveals the physics of star formation and feedback under the conditions seen in high-redshift galaxies, and promotes the formation of the densest stellar clusters in the Galaxy.'
author:
- 'J. M. Diederik Kruijssen'
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: |
Towards a multi-scale understanding\
of the gas-star formation cycle\
in the Central Molecular Zone
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The gas-star formation cycle near the Galactic Centre is inherently a multi-scale process. There exists a close interplay between large-scale gas flows, galactic dynamics, star formation, feedback, and the feeding of the central supermassive black hole, Sgr A$^*$. The dominant mass reservoir containing the fuel for star formation near the Galactic Centre is the Central Molecular Zone (CMZ; i.e. the central 500 pc of the Milky Way). This region contains the largest concentration of high-density molecular gas in the Galaxy ($M_{\rm gas}\sim5\times10^7~{\rm M}_\odot$, @ferriere07) and obtaining an understanding of the gas-star formation cycle in the CMZ is not just valuable from a star formation perspective, but also has key implications for wider areas in astrophysics and Galactic Centre research.
There are several examples of the wider implications of CMZ studies. For instance, the physics driving the accretion and activity of Sgr A$^*$ govern a large range of spatial scales with several independent bottlenecks. How is the gas deposited into the CMZ from the Galactic disc? Which transport mechanisms drive it further inwards once it has passed the inner Lindblad resonance (ILR)? How does it reach the sphere of influence of the nuclear cluster? How does it eventually reach the accretion disc of Sgr A$^*$? The large-scale flow plays a critical role in providing the material for the eventual activity of Sgr A$^*$.
A related, major example of the importance of the gas in the CMZ is its three-dimensional geometry. How does the distribution of absorbers along the line of sight affect the ongoing search for dark matter annihilation signals from the Galactic Centre [e.g. @daylan16]? A three-dimensional model for the gas in the CMZ would also provide a detailed record of the recent ($<10^3$ years) accretion history of Sgr A$^*$ from X-ray light echoes [e.g. @clavel13; @clavel14 and these proceedings]. While the accretion history over much longer time-scales may be reconstructed with high-energy observations of the outflowing relics in the Galactic halo, there exists an important degeneracy with feedback from (possibly bursty) star formation [e.g. @su10]. If we can achieve an understanding of where and how stars from in the CMZ, this may allow this degeneracy to be lifted. At the same time, such an understanding will yield insights in the growth and structural evolution of the central regions of the bulge, where the baryons dominate the gravitational potential by orders of magnitude. Finally, the densest stellar clusters in the Milky Way are situated within 100 pc of the Galactic Centre (@walker16; including the nuclear cluster, e.g. @genzel10b). The close proximity of the CMZ provides a unique opportunity for studying how such extreme stellar populations are formed, as well as for constraining the formation rates and mechanisms of compact objects within these clusters.
Below, we describe our first steps in synthesising the multi-scale structure of the gas-star formation cycle in the CMZ, from the inflow of fresh gas along the bar (of the order $1~{\rm M}_\odot~{\rm yr}^{-1}$) to the accretion onto the supermassive black hole in Sgr A\* (of the order $10^{-9}~{\rm M}_\odot~{\rm yr}^{-1}$). The end goal is to obtain a complete understanding of the structure and evolution of the CMZ, which will help answering many of the questions raised above.
Macro-evolution of the gas-star formation cycle in the CMZ {#sec:macro}
==========================================================
A low star formation rate in the CMZ
------------------------------------
Despite the large reservoir of dense gas ($M_{\rm gas}\sim5\times10^7~{\rm M}_\odot$) in the CMZ, it forms stars at a rate of ${\rm SFR}=0.05$–$0.15~{\rm M}_\odot~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ [e.g. @yusefzadeh09; @immer12; @barnes16], which is 10-100 times lower than expected based on commonly-used star formation relations [@longmore13] or the predictions of turbulent star formation theory [e.g. @krumholz05; @padoan11]. The underproduction of stars is particularly surprising in view of the gas properties – the CMZ is characterised by gas pressures, velocity dispersions, and densities that are orders of magnitude higher than those in the solar neighbourhood, but similar to those in high-redshift galaxies [@kruijssen13b]. These empirical, macroscopic properties of the gas and star formation content suggest that the gas-star formation balance in the CMZ is unlikely to remain static over multiple dynamical times.
There are three possible explanations for the low SFR in the CMZ. Firstly, it could be an observational error due to systematics in the conversions from gas and star formation tracer emission to physical gas masses and SFRs. Secondly, it may be that there is something about the gas in the CMZ that makes it consistently inefficient over long time-scales (e.g. a large number of dynamical times). Thirdly, it could be that the SFR in the CMZ undergoes an (episodic) time-variation, in which case the CMZ may currently reside near a star formation minimum. The first of these explanations has recently been ruled out by @barnes16, who find that a broad range of independent gas and star formation tracers all yield gas masses and SFRs that agree to within a factor of $\sim2$.
A self-consistent cycle of episodic star formation
--------------------------------------------------
In @kruijssen14b, we carried out a systematic study of all mechanisms we considered could conceivably suppress the SFR in the CMZ over long time-scales, such as extreme stability of the gas disc, cloud disruption by tidal perturbations, galactic shear, extreme turbulence, magnetic fields, radiation pressure feedback, or cosmic rays (either from star formation or from Sgr A$^*$). We concluded that none of these mechanisms could inhibit star formation for more than 5–10 Myr and therefore proposed that the reason for the [*presently*]{}-low SFR in the CMZ is that it undergoes an episodic cycle of gas inflow, star formation, and feedback. This suggestion is corroborated by observed signs of past starburst activity in the CMZ. The region hosts a large population of 24$\mu$m sources at negative longitudes [e.g. @bally10] that may have formed during a previous star formation episode, as well as the two young, massive Arches and Quintuplet clusters [e.g. @longmore14], and the CMZ also resides at the root of the Fermi bubbles, which are possibly star formation-driven [e.g. @su10; @carretti13].
Further evidence for nuclear episodicity is provided by star formation studies in extragalactic centres. @leroy13 find that, while the [*median*]{} gas depletion time ($t_{\rm depl}=M_{\rm gas}/{\rm SFR}$) decreases towards galactic centres (i.e. star formation gets more efficient on average), the scatter of the gas depletion time also greatly increases. In principle, this increase of the scatter could arise if there exist larger systematic differences in gas or star formation properties between galactic centres than between galactic discs, but an equally plausible explanation is that over time, galactic centres undergo larger excursions in their gas depletion time than galactic discs.
Specifically, @kruijssen14b proposed a scenario for episodic star formation in the CMZ that is schematically illustrated in Figure \[fig:schem\]. The torques exerted by the bar drive a large-scale gas inflow to within the ILR (box 1), which in the Milky Way resides at $\sim1$ kpc [@krumholz15] and where density waves form from pressure-driven acoustic instabilities (box 2, @montenegro99). Contrary to density waves outside the ILR, the acoustic instability is maintained by the repulsive force from the pressure gradients of the waves, whereas the attractive force from self-gravity erases the instability. The density waves are thus stable to gravitational collapse and can consistently drive turbulent energy into the gas (box 3), which in turn increases the critical (over)density threshold for star formation [box 4, e.g. @krumholz05; @padoan11]. Over time, this highly stable gas reservoir grows, until it finally reaches a high enough density to become gravitationally unstable (box 5). As the virial ratio of the gas decreases towards self-gravity, gas overcomes the density threshold for star formation (box 6), which at the high densities ($\sim10^4$ cm$^{-3}$) and short free-fall times ($<0.5$ Myr) of the CMZ leads to rapid star formation (box 7). The feedback from the young stellar population eventually drives down the star formation rate and the cycle starts anew.
A dynamical model for star formation in the CMZ {#sec:model}
-----------------------------------------------
In @krumholz15 and @krumholz16, we develop a dynamical model for episodic star formation and feedback in CMZs that quantifies the scenario of Figure \[fig:schem\] further. The former of these papers focuses on boxes 1–5 and in particular on modelling the acoustic instability. We describe a one-dimensional hydrodynamical disc model, with an outer boundary condition set by the gas inflow rate. Further radial inflow is caused by shear-driven angular momentum transport by acoustic instabilities. The transport drives turbulence and keeps the gas temporarily highly gravitationally stable. Because turbulence dissipates on a vertical crossing time ($<1$ Myr), collapse takes place almost immediately once the turbulence driving mechanism shuts off. In the context of this model, that driving mechanism is shear, and a key prediction of the model is therefore that the dynamical state of molecular clouds in CMZs is closely linked to the shape of the rotation curve.
One of the main quantitative predictions of the @krumholz15 model for the Galactic CMZ is that at large radii ($R=150$–$500$ pc), the gas is inflowing at $v_R\sim-20$ km s$^{-1}$, with a low surface density ($\Sigma\sim30$ M$_\odot$ pc$^{-2}$) and a large linewidth ($\sigma_{1{\rm D}}\sim30$ km s$^{-1}$), rendering it highly gravitationally stable ($Q_{\rm gas}\sim100$) with a low star formation efficiency. However, as the gas is flowing in, the rotation curve eventually turns over from flat to being close to solid body. This happens at a radius of $R\sim100$ pc, where the shear drops steeply, the inflow stalls, the gas density increases, the turbulent energy dissipates, and the clouds become gravitationally unstable and prone to star formation. This dichotomy in gas properties between $R\sim100$ pc and larger radii is consistent with observed differences in the total gas mass, the gas density and scale height, and most importantly the virial parameters of the clouds [@kruijssen14b; @walker15].
The model is expanded by including a simple description of star formation and feedback in @krumholz16, where we thus add boxes 6 and 7 in Figure \[fig:schem\] and close the cycle. This addition enables the modelling of multiple cycles as well as feedback-driven galactic winds. As discussed in the paper, we indeed find that star formation in the CMZ is episodic, with a characteristic period of 10–20 Myr. However, contrary to the original expectation of box 7 in Figure \[fig:schem\], the starburst is not truncated by gas consumption or removal, but by the large increase of the turbulent energy in the gas due to stellar feedback. This puts the clouds back in a highly supervirial state, allowing the cycle to restart from the beginning. Interestingly, the @krumholz16 model does not only reproduce the current Galactic CMZ, but its predicted time-evolution also provides a good match to the distribution of gas depletion times observed in extragalactic CMZs.
As described, the qualitative scenario of Figure \[fig:schem\] has now matured to a first quantitative model that describes the macroscopic gas-star formation cycle in CMZs. Out of the three possible explanations for the low observed SFR in the CMZ, the evidence is now clearly pointing to the third option: the SFR in the CMZ undergoes an (episodic) time-variation and the CMZ currently resides near a star formation minimum.
Origin, dynamical evolution and 3D structure of the 100-pc stream
=================================================================
Orbital structure
-----------------
As discussed in §\[sec:macro\], the transition of the Galactic rotation curve from flat at large radii to near-solid body at $R\sim100$ pc is predicted to result in a pile-up of the inflowing gas at that radius due to the shear minimum in the Galactic rotation curve. By accumulating at this radius, the gas can finally become gravitationally unstable and undergo widespread star formation. Indeed, @molinari11 have reported the existence of such a ring-like gas stream with a radius of $R\sim100$ pc. The observation of @molinari11 was followed up by @kruijssen15, who calculated orbital models in the gravitational potential of the central Milky Way [@launhardt02] to fit the $\{l,b,v_{\rm los}\}$ structure of the gas in the CMZ. As discussed in §\[sec:intro\], having a three-dimensional model of the gas in the CMZ is a key goal in Galactic Centre physics.
![ \[fig:orbit\] Orbital models revealing the three-dimensional geometry of the major gas streams in the CMZ, with the observer located in the negative-$y$ direction. [*Left*]{}: Top-down view of the best-fitting orbital solution to the 100-pc gas stream [adapted from Figure 6 in @kruijssen15]. Several of the main clouds are indicated, as well as the pericentre ($+$) and apocentre ($\times$) passages, while the inset shows an NH$_3$(1,1)–21.3$\mu$m–8.3$\mu$m (red, green, blue) composite image of the same region as seen from Earth [adapted from Figure 1 in @kruijssen14b]. The figure clearly shows that the orbit is not closed and that the most prominent CMZ clouds reside on the near side of the Galactic Centre. [*Right*]{}: The same orbital model with the addition of a constant radial velocity component of $-20$ km s$^{-1}$ (Kruijssen et al. in prep.), illustrating how the gas may have been deposited on the 100-pc stream from larger radii through the angular momentum transport process discussed in §\[sec:macro\]. Arrows indicate the direction of motion. ](orbit_topdown.pdf "fig:"){width="6.44cm"} ![ \[fig:orbit\] Orbital models revealing the three-dimensional geometry of the major gas streams in the CMZ, with the observer located in the negative-$y$ direction. [*Left*]{}: Top-down view of the best-fitting orbital solution to the 100-pc gas stream [adapted from Figure 6 in @kruijssen15]. Several of the main clouds are indicated, as well as the pericentre ($+$) and apocentre ($\times$) passages, while the inset shows an NH$_3$(1,1)–21.3$\mu$m–8.3$\mu$m (red, green, blue) composite image of the same region as seen from Earth [adapted from Figure 1 in @kruijssen14b]. The figure clearly shows that the orbit is not closed and that the most prominent CMZ clouds reside on the near side of the Galactic Centre. [*Right*]{}: The same orbital model with the addition of a constant radial velocity component of $-20$ km s$^{-1}$ (Kruijssen et al. in prep.), illustrating how the gas may have been deposited on the 100-pc stream from larger radii through the angular momentum transport process discussed in §\[sec:macro\]. Arrows indicate the direction of motion. ](orbit_topdown_drift.pdf "fig:"){width="6.44cm"}
Figure \[fig:orbit\] (left) shows a top-down view of the best-fitting orbital model from @kruijssen15, which provides the three-dimensional geometry of the gas stream. The figure shows that the gas resides on an eccentric orbit that is open rather than closed. The orbit covers a radial range from $R=60$–$120$ pc, with azimuthal and radial periods of 3.7 Myr and 2.0 Myr, respectively. While the figure only shows the part of the orbit traced in $\sim6$ Myr around the current positions of the gas clouds, the orbit can be integrated beyond that range. Over time, the stream will continue in the clockwise direction to trace a rosetta-shaped structure, extending the orbit shown here from the tip of Stream 1 in the top left of the diagram.
The orbital solution is chosen to conserve angular momentum, because the model of §\[sec:macro\] predicts that the angular moment transport by shear has stalled in the 100-pc stream. However, the deposition of gas onto this stream is characterised by a non-zero radial drift velocity, i.e. the angular momentum of the gas evolves as it approaches the 100-pc stream. A first illustration of this process is shown in Figure \[fig:orbit\] (right). This model takes the near-side pericentre upstream of the Brick (also known as G0.253+0.016) from the left-hand panel and integrates the orbit from that point in both directions, this time including a constant radial velocity component of $-20$ km s$^{-1}$ as an approximate parameterisation of the angular momentum transport and the resulting radial inflow (see §\[sec:model\] and @krumholz15). The figure shows that the gas gradually spirals in towards the 100-pc stream, undergoing multiple pericentre passages before it reaches the stalling radius.
Comparison to previous work
---------------------------
Previous representations of the orbital structure and three-dimensional geometry of the gas in the CMZ differ from the @kruijssen15 model in a number of key aspects. For instance, @sofue95 and @sawada04 proposed that the clouds are situated on two point-symmetric spiral arms, with Sgr C and the 20 and 50 km s$^{-1}$ clouds on the far side of the Galactic Centre. @molinari11 parameterised the 100-pc stream using a closed ellipse with a constant circular velocity and placed the 20 and 50 km s$^{-1}$ clouds much closer to an off-centre Sgr A$^*$, at $R<20$ pc rather than $R=60$–$70$ pc in the @kruijssen15 model.
@henshaw16 carries out a detailed kinematic comparison between these three representations. It is concluded that the spiral arm geometry may be indistinguishable from the @kruijssen15 model in terms of the $\{l,b,v_{\rm los}\}$ kinematics, but is inconsistent with the fact that the 20 and 50 km s$^{-1}$ clouds are seen in absorption at $70\mu$m, which places them on the near side of the Galactic Centre. @henshaw16 also finds that the closed ellipse provides a poor match to the observed kinematics of the 100-pc stream. This confirms the analysis of @kruijssen15, where it was shown that the shallow gradient of the line-of-sight velocity with Galactic longitude rules out geometries in which the 20 and 50 km s$^{-1}$ clouds reside at radii $R\leq40$ pc. Further tests of these geometries will be carried out measuring the proper motions of masers within the clouds on the 100-pc stream using the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA, see §\[sec:outlook\]).
An evolutionary sequence of star-forming clouds
===============================================
Cloud condensation and tidally-triggered collapse
-------------------------------------------------
We now take a closer look at how star formation proceeds once the gas becomes prone to gravitational instability. As shown in Figure \[fig:orbit\] (right), the gas undergoes multiple pericentre passages while spiralling in towards the 100-pc stream. The tidal field during these passages is strongly compressive, especially in the vertical direction, and the passages therefore drive tidal perturbations of increasing strength as the gas spirals in. The growth time of the gravitational instabilities in the model of @krumholz15 initially exceeds the radial oscillation period of the orbit, implying that the compressive tidal perturbations may play an important role in driving the condensation of self-gravitating molecular clouds, possibly giving them their final nudge into collapse.
The idea of tidally-triggered collapse of molecular clouds in the 100-pc stream was first proposed by @longmore13b, who noted that the clouds on the ‘dust ridge’ (from the Brick to Sgr B2 in Figure \[fig:orbit\]) exhibit an increase of the star formation efficiency downstream from the Brick. They hypothesised that this systematic behaviour results from tidally-triggered collapse during the preceding pericentre passage. If true, this would imply that the CMZ provides an extremely powerful probe of the physics of star formation and feedback, because in the orbital model of @kruijssen15, the time since pericentre passage (i.e. $t=0$) is known. In other words, it would be possible to study these physics as a function of absolute time.
To further investigate this scenario and assess the feasibility of an absolute evolutionary timeline, we are currently carrying out hydrodynamical simulations of molecular clouds on the @kruijssen15 orbital model (Kruijssen, Dale, Longmore et al. in prep.). One of these simulations is shown in Figure \[fig:brick\] (left) and follows a large ($r=20$ pc), turbulent ($\sigma_{1{\rm D}}=12$ km s$^{-1}$), and massive ($M=2\times10^6$ M$_\odot$) gas reservoir on its evolution towards, through, and past pericentre. The simulation only includes hydrodynamics, self-gravity, initial turbulence, and sink particle formation. It is intended to focus on the influence of the orbital dynamics on the evolution of gas condensations forming out of the gas reservoir, and therefore excludes stellar feedback, magnetic fields, or turbulence driving. In this setup, the turbulent energy always dissipates, and the gas inevitably reaches a high star formation efficiency. However, we find that the sink particle formation rate is moderately accelerated relative to a control run of the same cloud on a circular orbit. Figure \[fig:brick\] shows a comparison between a single snapshot from this simulation close to the position of the Brick and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) dust image of the Brick [@rathborne15]. Despite the limited range of physics included in the simulation, it reproduces several of the key properties of the Brick, such as its curvature, its velocity gradient, and internal structure. While the latter is sensitive to the initial turbulent velocity field and therefore is likely a coincidence, the former two observables are set by the cloud’s response to the tidal deformation during the recent pericentre passage (Kruijssen, Dale, Longmore et al. in prep.). These simulations therefore support the idea that the Brick formed through tidally-triggered collapse.
Evidence and implications
-------------------------
Since the paper by @longmore13b, the observational evidence in favour of the tidally-triggered collapse scenario has also been mounting. @barnes16 extend the gradual increase of star formation activity to an analogous increase of feedback activity even further downstream – hot gas bubbles driven by the young massive stellar populations are systematically larger the further downstream from the pre-Brick pericentre passage they are. @rathborne14 argue that the kinematics of the Brick are also consistent with tidally-triggered collapse, as it has a dynamical time-scale similar to the time since pericentre and exhibits bulk radial motions indicative of the expected tidal deformation. In addition, the density probability distribution function (PDF) of the Brick follows the traditional lognormal shape caused by turbulent motion, but the power law tail at high densities ( that indicates gravitational collapse and fragmentation towards star formation is scarcely populated [@rathborne14b; @federrath16]. Because the cloud is gravitationally bound [@walker15], this means that it must be young – of the order of a dynamical time, which coincides with the time since the most recent pericentre passage. @kauffmann13 and @mills15 confirm the nearly starless nature of the Brick, further underlining its youth. Temperature measurements using line emission from H$_2$CO [@ginsburg16] and NH$_3$ (N. Krieger et al., these proceedings) show that the dust ridge clouds exhibit a pronounced gradient of increasing temperature with time since pericentre passage. @ginsburg16 show that this behaviour is quantitatively consistent with increased heating by turbulent energy dissipation, which is expected if the most recent pericentre passage nudged the clouds into gravitational collapse.
In summary, there are clear indications of systematic cloud evolution with time since pericentre. However, if the gas condensations in the 100-pc stream upstream from pericentre have strongly differing properties (e.g. densities, dynamical times, virial ratios), then there is no guarantee that they will all respond in the same way to the tidal perturbation during the upcoming pericentre passage. At the very least, this introduces noise in any absolute evolutionary timeline after pericentre, but in the worst case it may erase the systematic trends in evolutionary state altogether.
In @henshaw16b, we address this problem by studying the properties of the gas upstream from the pericentre passage near the Brick. We identify line-of-sight velocity corrugations as a function of Galactic longitude in this upstream gas, with an amplitude of $\sim4$ km s$^{-1}$ and a wavelength of $\sim20$ pc. At the velocity extremes, the gas stream hosts compact ($R\sim2$ pc) condensations with masses of $\sim10^4$ M$_\odot$, that are quasi-regularly spaced with a separation of $\sim10$ pc. The wavelength and separation closely match the predicted Toomre length and Jeans length, showing that gravitational instabilities drive the initial condensation of molecular clouds from the gas stream (as predicted by models, see §\[sec:macro\]). This suggests that the seeds for the dust ridge clouds had similar properties. The tidally-triggered collapse of these condensations during their pericentre passage is therefore likely to proceed at similar rate, although individual outliers may exist due to small but present differences in density between the condensations – the standard deviation of the $\{$masses, radii, volume densities, free-fall times$\}$ in the sample of condensations from @henshaw16b is $\{0.19, 0.09, 0.16, 0.08\}$ dex.
In view of the above differences, the ‘absolute timeline’ of the post-pericentre clouds and star-forming regions is predicted to exist in the sense of a systematic trend, but is not expected to be strictly monotonic. To provide insight in the physics of star formation, the timeline should be expressed in terms of the number of elapsed free-fall times. The standard deviation of the free-fall time thus implies that the timeline itself has an uncertainty of 0.08 dex or 20%. Such deviations likely increase further when comparing clouds near the different pericentre passages in the orbital model of Figure \[fig:orbit\]. It is therefore inadvisable to stack the cloud samples around each pericentre to improve statistics. Even if the trends downstream from other pericentre passages are similar to those seen on the dust ridge (e.g. N. Butterfield et al., these proceedings), systematic offsets will cause these trends to weaken significantly or vanish when stacked.
If the evidence in favour of an evolutionary sequence of star-forming clouds holds even after further and more detailed scrutiny, then the 100-pc stream represents a long-awaited, real-Universe analogy to a numerical simulation, in which correlated snapshots can be compared and followed, allowing the characterisation of cloud evolution, star formation, and feedback as a function of absolute time. Under this assumption, it is interesting to note that the quiescent Brick cloud and the vigorously star-forming Sgr B2 complex are separated by $1$–$1.5$ free-fall times (i.e. $0.4$–$0.5$ Myr) of evolution, indicating that star formation proceeds rapidly once collapse is initiated, even in the notoriously inefficiently star-forming CMZ (also see @kruijssen15 and @barnes16). This simple example demonstrates the possible implications of the proposed scenario.
Massive star and cluster formation in the CMZ
=============================================
At the high gas densities and pressures that characterise the CMZ in general and the dust ridge in particular, about 50% of all star formation is predicted to take place in bound stellar clusters, which is about 5–10 times higher than in the solar neighbourhood [@kruijssen12d]. This high bound cluster formation efficiency is reached due to the high densities and short free-fall times in the CMZ, which can cause density peaks within clouds to locally exhaust their gas before feedback expels the residual gas or shuts off the gas inflow [@kruijssen12; @longmore14; @dale15; @ginsburg16b]. The maximum mass scale of these clusters is thought to be set by the Toomre mass [@kruijssen14c; @adamo15b], i.e. the largest scale that can collapse against shear. In the 100-pc stream, the Toomre mass is $2\times10^5$ M$_\odot$ [cf. @henshaw16b], which for the above 50% cluster formation efficiency and a fiducial star formation efficiency of 10% implies that the most massive clusters expected to form in the CMZ have masses of $\sim10^4$ M$_\odot$. This almost exactly matches the masses of the Arches and Quintuplet clusters [@portegieszwart10], whereas the Toomre mass itself matches the mass of the Brick [@longmore12]. It is thus not guaranteed that the dust ridge clouds form Arches-like clusters, but it is certainly possible.
The Arches and Quintuplet clusters have ages and three-dimensional velocity vectors that are consistent with having formed on the dust ridge after accounting for their subsequent orbital motion [@kruijssen15]. Next to lending further support to the tidally-triggered collapse model, this also suggests that the dust ridge clouds may indeed be able to form Arches-like clusters. For the particular case of the Brick, this has been suggested in a large number of recent papers [e.g. @longmore12; @rathborne14; @rathborne15; @walker16b]. Even if the formation of Arches-like clusters is a common mode of star formation in the CMZ, it is important to note that such clusters are expected to be extremely short-lived, with disruption time-scales as low as $\sim10$ Myr [@kruijssen14b] due to a combination of tidal evaporation [@portegieszwart01] and impulsive shocks from passing gas clouds, which are prevalent in galactic centres [@kruijssen11].
Even if the clusters do not survive, they represent an important bottleneck in the context of the global transport of gas towards Sgr A$^*$. The gas mass fraction that gets locked up in stars is unlikely to add to further supermassive black hole growth. Conversely, feedback from Arches-like clusters may push gas onto highly eccentric orbits plunging towards Sgr A$^*$, in which case star and cluster formation could stimulate black hole activity [as has been suggested for extragalactic nuclei, see e.g. @davies07].
Outlook {#sec:outlook}
=======
The CMZ provides a unique laboratory for studying star formation in an environment that is the best local analogue for the conditions seen in high-redshift galaxies. At the same time, it represents a hallmark example of a system in which large-scale gas flows, galactic dynamics, star formation, feedback, and the feeding of the central supermassive black hole are intertwined. While an understanding of the multi-scale physics driving the gas-star formation cycle in this system is slowly emerging, the number of open questions and exciting new avenues for follow-up work keeps increasing. In this context, it is promising that several large observational surveys of the CMZ are currently under way, with a clear focus on testing theoretical models. For instance, the CMZoom Survey with the Submillimeter Array (C. Battersby et al., these proceedings) is providing a complete census of the massive protostellar cores in the CMZ, testing the current ideas on where and under which conditions (massive) star formation can commence in the CMZ. The SWAG survey (J. Ott et al., these proceedings) is carrying out multi-line observations of the CMZ in H$_2$O and NH$_3$, enabling detailed temperature measurements and maser detections. Orbital models are about to be undergo a critical test thanks to an ongoing VLBA survey (Immer et al., in prep.), aiming to measure proper motions of masers in several clouds on the 100-pc stream. Finally, ALMA is now capable of observing extragalactic CMZs at resolutions similar to pre-ALMA observations of the Galactic CMZ.
Above all, the various Galactic Centre communities are starting to connect on key interdisciplinary questions in which CMZ research can play an important role, such as relating the gas-star formation cycle to the accretion activity of Sgr A$^*$, as well as combining the constraints on the three-dimensional geometry of the gas from X-ray light echoes and orbital modelling. This will enable more accurate models of the absorption along the line of sight, which may potentially contribute to the search for dark matter annihilation signals. The Galactic Centre ecosystem may be one of the most complex physical systems in the local Universe, but the field is entering a very promising phase.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The conference organisers are gratefully acknowledged for the kind invitation and for financial support, as well as for organising a very lively and stimulating conference. In addition, I am indebted to my collaborators for their insights and contributions to the projects discussed here. I particularly would like to thank Jim Dale, Jonathan Henshaw, Mark Krumholz, Steve Longmore, and Jill Rathborne. I gratefully acknowledge support in the form of an Emmy Noether Research Group from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), grant number KR4801/1-1.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'At the quantum level, feedback-loops have to take into account measurement back-action. We present here the structure of the Markovian models including such back-action and sketch two stabilization methods: measurement-based feedback where an open quantum system is stabilized by a classical controller; coherent or autonomous feedback where a quantum system is stabilized by a quantum controller with decoherence (reservoir engineering). We begin to explain these models and methods for the photon box experiments realized in the group of Serge Haroche (Nobel Prize 2012). We present then these models and methods for general open quantum systems.'
author:
- 'Pierre Rouchon [^1]'
date: 'January 8, 2014'
title: 'Models and Feedback Stabilization of Open Quantum Systems[^2]'
---
#### Classification:
Primary 93B52, 93D15, 81V10, 81P15; Secondary 93C20, 81P68, 35Q84.
#### Keywords:
Markov model, open quantum system, quantum filtering, quantum feedback, quantum master equation.
Introduction
============
Serge Haroche has obtained the Physics Nobel Prize in 2012 for a series of crucial experiments on observations and manipulations of photons with atoms. The book [@haroche-raimondBook06], written with Jean-Michel Raimond, describes the physics (Cavity Quantum Electro-Dynamics, CQED) underlying these experiments done at Laboratoire Kastler Brossel (LKB). These experimental setups, illustrated on figure \[fig:LKBsetup0\] and named in the sequel “the LKB photon box”, rely on fundamental examples of open quantum systems constructed with harmonic oscillators and qubits. Their time evolutions are captured by stochastic dynamical models based on three features, specific to the quantum world and listed below.
1. The state of a quantum system is described either by the wave function ${| \psi \rangle}$ a vector of length one belonging to some separable Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$ of finite or infinite dimension, or, more generally, by the density operator $\rho$ that is a non-negative Hermitian operator on ${\mathcal{H}}$ with trace one. When the system can be described by a wave function ${| \psi \rangle}$ (pure state), the density operator $\rho$ coincides with the orthogonal projector on the line spanned by ${| \psi \rangle}$ and $\rho ={| \psi \rangle}{\langle \psi |}$ with usual Dirac notations. In general the rank of $\rho$ exceeds one, the state is then mixed and cannot be described by a wave function. When the system is closed, the time evolution of ${| \psi \rangle}$ is governed by the Schrödinger equation $$\label{eq:Schrodinger}
{\frac{d}{dt}}{| \psi \rangle} = - \tfrac{i}{\hbar} {\boldsymbol{H}}{| \psi \rangle}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{H}}$ is the system Hamiltonian, an Hermitian operator on ${\mathcal{H}}$ that could possibly depend on time $t$ via some time-varying parameters (classical control inputs). When the system is closed, the evolution of $\rho$ is governed by the Liouville/von-Neumann equation $$\label{eq:Liouville}
{\frac{d}{dt}}\rho = -\tfrac{i}{\hbar}\big[{\boldsymbol{H}},\rho\big] = -\tfrac{i}{\hbar} \big({\boldsymbol{H}}\rho - \rho{\boldsymbol{H}}\big)
.$$
2. Dissipation and irreversibility has its origin in the “collapse of the wave packet” induced by the measurement. A measurement on the quantum system of state ${| \psi \rangle}$ or $\rho$ is associated of an observable ${\boldsymbol{O}}$, an Hermitian operator on ${\mathcal{H}}$, with spectral decomposition $\sum_{\mu} \lambda_\mu {\boldsymbol{P}}_\mu$: ${\boldsymbol{P}}_\mu$ is the orthogonal projector on the eigen-space associated to the eigen-value $\lambda_\mu$. The measurement process attached to ${\boldsymbol{O}}$ is assumed to be instantaneous and obeys to the following rules:
- the measurement outcome $\mu$ is obtained with probability ${\mathbb{P}}_\mu={\langle \psi |} {\boldsymbol{P}}_\mu{| \psi \rangle}$ or ${\mathbb{P}}_\mu={\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho {\boldsymbol{P}}_\mu\right)}$, depending on the state ${| \psi \rangle}$ or $\rho$ just before the measurement;
- just after the measurement process, the quantum state is changed to ${| \psi \rangle}_+$ or $\rho_+$ according to the mappings $${| \psi \rangle}\mapsto{| \psi \rangle}_+ = \frac{{\boldsymbol{P}}_\mu {| \psi \rangle}}{\sqrt{{\langle \psi |} {\boldsymbol{P}}_\mu{| \psi \rangle}}}\quad \text{ or }\quad
\rho\mapsto \rho_+ = \frac{{\boldsymbol{P}}_\mu \rho {\boldsymbol{P}}_\mu}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho {\boldsymbol{P}}_\mu\right)}}$$ where $\mu$ is the observed measurement outcome. These mappings describe the measurement back-action and have no classical counterpart.
3. Most systems are composite systems built with several sub-systems. The quantum states of such composite systems live in the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of each sub-system. This is a crucial difference with classical composite systems where the state space is built with Cartesian products. Such tensor products have important implications such as entanglement with existence of non separable states. Consider a bi-partite system made of two sub-systems: the sub-system of interest $S$ with Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_S$ and the measured sub-system $M$ with Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_M$. The quantum state of this bi-partite system $(S,M)$ lives in ${\mathcal{H}}={\mathcal{H}}_S\otimes {\mathcal{H}}_M$. Its Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}}$ is constructed with the Hamiltonians of the sub-systems, ${\boldsymbol{H}}_S$ and ${\boldsymbol{H}}_M$, and an interaction Hamiltonian $ {\boldsymbol{H}}_{int}$ made of a sum of tensor products of operators (not necessarily Hermitian) on $S$ and $M$: $${\boldsymbol{H}}={\boldsymbol{H}}_S\otimes{\boldsymbol{I}}_M+{\boldsymbol{H}}_{int}+{\boldsymbol{I}}_S\otimes {\boldsymbol{H}}_M$$ with ${\boldsymbol{I}}_S$ and ${\boldsymbol{I}}_M$ identity operators on ${\mathcal{H}}_S$ and ${\mathcal{H}}_M$, respectively. The measurement operator ${\boldsymbol{O}}={\boldsymbol{I}}_S \otimes \boldsymbol{O}_M $ is here a simple tensor product of identity on $S$ and the Hermitian operator ${\boldsymbol{O}}_M$ on ${\mathcal{H}}_M$, since only $M$ is directly measured. Its spectrum is degenerate: the multiplicities of the eigenvalues are necessarily greater or equal to the dimension of ${\mathcal{H}}_S$.
This paper shows that, despite different mathematical formulations, dynamical models describing open quantum systems admit the same structure, essentially given by the Markov model , and directly derived from the three quantum features listed here above. Section \[sec:photonBox\] explains the construction of such Markov models for the LKB photon box and its stabilization by measurement-based and coherent feedbacks. These stabilizing feedbacks rely on control Lyapunov functions, quantum filtering and reservoir engineering. The next sections explain these models and methods for general open quantum systems. In section \[sec:DiscreteTime\] (resp. section \[sec:ContinuousTime\]) general discrete-time (resp. continuous-time) systems are considered. In appendix, operators, key states and formulae are presented for the quantum harmonic oscillator and for the qubit, two important quantum systems. These notations are used and not explicitly recalled throughout sections \[sec:photonBox\], \[sec:DiscreteTime\] and \[sec:ContinuousTime\].
The LKB photon box {#sec:photonBox}
==================
![Scheme of the LBK experiment where photons are observed via probe atoms. The photons in blue are trapped between the two mirrors of the cavity $C$. They are probed by two-level atoms (the small pink torus) flying out the preparation box $B$, passing through the cavity $C$ and measured in $D$. Each atom is manipulated before and after $C$ in Ramsey cavities $R_1$ and $R_2$, respectively. It is finally detected in $D$ either in ground state ${| g \rangle}$ or in excited state ${| e \rangle}$. []{data-label="fig:LKBsetup0"}](LKBsetup0){width="80.00000%"}
The ideal Markov model
----------------------
The LKB photon box of figure \[fig:LKBsetup0\], a bi-partite system with the photons as first sub-system and the probe atom as second sub-system, illustrates in an almost perfect and fundamental way the three quantum features listed in the introduction section. This system is a discrete time system with sampling period $\tau$ around $80~\mu s$, the time interval between probe atoms. Step $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$ corresponds to time $t=k\tau$. At $t=k\tau$, the photons are assumed to be described by the wave function ${| \psi \rangle}_k$ of an harmonic oscillator (see appendix \[ap:oscillator\]). At $t=k\tau$, the probe atom number $k$, modeled as a qubit (see appendix \[ap:qubit\]), gets outside the box $B$ in ground state ${| g \rangle}$. Between $t\in[k\tau,(k+1)\tau[$, the wave function ${| \Psi \rangle}$ of this composite system, photons/atom number $k$, is governed by a Schrödinger evolution $${\frac{d}{dt}}{| \Psi \rangle} = - \frac{i}{\hbar} {\boldsymbol{H}}{| \Psi \rangle}$$ with starting condition ${| \Psi \rangle}_{k\tau} = {| \psi \rangle}_k \otimes {| g \rangle}$ and where ${\boldsymbol{H}}$ is the photons/atom Hamiltonian depending possibly on $t$. Appendix \[ap:JC\] presents typical Hamiltonians in the resonant and dispersive cases. We have thus a propagator between $t=k\tau$ and $t=(k+1)\tau^-$, $U_{(k\tau,(k+1)\tau^-)}$, from which we get ${| \Psi \rangle}$ at time $t=(k+1)\tau^-$, just before detector $D$ where the energy of the atom is measured via ${\boldsymbol{O}}={\boldsymbol{I}}_S\otimes{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}$. The following relation, $${| \Psi \rangle}_{(k+1)\tau^-} = U_{(k\tau,(k+1)\tau^-)} {| \psi \rangle}_k \otimes {| g \rangle}
\triangleq {\boldsymbol{M}}_g {| \psi \rangle}_k \otimes {| g \rangle} + {\boldsymbol{M}}_e {| \psi \rangle}_k \otimes {| e \rangle}
,$$ valid for any ${| \psi \rangle}_k$, defines the measurement operators ${\boldsymbol{M}}_g$ and ${\boldsymbol{M}}_e$ on the Hilbert space of the photons ${\mathcal{H}}_S$. Since, for all ${| \psi \rangle}_k$, ${| \Psi \rangle}_{(k+1)\tau^-}$ is of length $1$, we have necessarily ${\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag {\boldsymbol{M}}_g + {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag {\boldsymbol{M}}_e={\boldsymbol{I}}_S$. At time $t=(k+1)\tau^-$, we measure ${\boldsymbol{O}}= \lambda_e{\boldsymbol{I}}_S\otimes {\verte\rangle\langlee\vert} + \lambda_g{\boldsymbol{I}}_S\otimes{\vertg\rangle\langleg\vert}$ with two highly degenerate eigenvalues $\lambda_e=1$, $\lambda_g=-1$ of eigenspaces ${\mathcal{H}}_S \otimes {| e \rangle}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}_S \otimes {| g \rangle}$, respectively. According to the measurement quantum rules, we can get only two outcomes $\mu$, either $\mu=g$ or $\mu=e$. With outcome $\mu$, just after the measurement, at time $(k+1)\tau$ the quantum state ${| \Psi \rangle}$ is changed to $${| \Psi \rangle}_{(k+1)\tau^-} \mapsto {| \Psi \rangle}_{(k+1)\tau}= \frac{{\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu {| \psi \rangle}_k }{\sqrt{{\langle \psi_k |}{\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu{| \psi_k \rangle}}} \otimes {| \mu \rangle}.$$ Moreover the probability to get $\mu$ is ${\langle \psi_k |}{\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu{| \psi_k \rangle}$. Since ${| \Psi \rangle}_{(k+1)\tau}$ is now a simple tensor product (separate state), we can forget the atom number $k$ and summarize the evolution of the photon wave function between $t=k\tau$ and $t=(k+1)\tau$ by the following Markov process $${| \psi \rangle}_{k+1} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{{\boldsymbol{M}}_g {| \psi \rangle}_k}{\sqrt{{\langle \psi_k |}{\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag{\boldsymbol{M}}_g{| \psi_k \rangle}}},
& \hbox{with probability ${\langle \psi_k |}{\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag{\boldsymbol{M}}_g{| \psi_k \rangle}$;} \\
\frac{{\boldsymbol{M}}_e {| \psi \rangle}_k}{\sqrt{{\langle \psi_k |}{\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag{\boldsymbol{M}}_g{| \psi_k \rangle}}},
& \hbox{with probability ${\langle \psi_k |}{\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag{\boldsymbol{M}}_e{| \psi_k \rangle}$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ More generally, for an arbitrary quantum state $\rho_k$ of the photons at step $k$, we have $$\label{eq:MarkovChain}
\rho_{k+1} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{{\boldsymbol{M}}_g \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{M}}_g \rho_k{\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag\right)}},
& \hbox{with probability $p_g(\rho_k) ={\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{M}}_g \rho_k{\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag\right)}$;} \\
\frac{{\boldsymbol{M}}_e \rho_k{\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{M}}_e \rho_k{\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}},
& \hbox{with probability $p_e(\rho_k) ={\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{M}}_e \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ The measurement operators ${\boldsymbol{M}}_g$ and ${\boldsymbol{M}}_e$ are implicitly defined by the Schrödinger propagator between $k\tau$ and $(k+1)\tau$. They always satisfy ${\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag {\boldsymbol{M}}_g + {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag {\boldsymbol{M}}_e={\boldsymbol{I}}_S$.
Quantum Non Demolition (QND) measurement
----------------------------------------
For a well tuned composite evolution $U_{(k\tau,(k+1)\tau^-)}$ (see [@haroche-raimondBook06]) with a dispersive interaction, one get the following measurement operators, functions of the photon-number operator ${{\boldsymbol{N}}}$, $$\label{eq:MgMeDisp}
{\boldsymbol{M}}_g= \cos\left(\tfrac{\phi_0 {{\boldsymbol{N}}}+ \phi_R }{2}\right), \quad {\boldsymbol{M}}_e= \sin\left(\tfrac{\phi_0 {{\boldsymbol{N}}}+ \phi_R }{2}\right)$$ where $\phi_0$ and $\phi_R$ are tunable real parameters. The Markov process admits then a lot of interesting properties characterizing QND measurement.
- For any function $g:{{\mathbb R}}\mapsto {{\mathbb R}}$, $V_g(\rho)={\operatorname{Tr}\left(g({{\boldsymbol{N}}}) \rho\right)}$ is a martingale: $${\mathbb{E}\left(V_g(\rho_{k+1})~/~\rho_k\right)} = V_g(\rho_k)$$ where ${\mathbb{E}\left(x~/~y\right)}$ stands for conditional expectation of $x$ knowing $y$. This results from elementary properties of the trace and from the commutation of ${\boldsymbol{M}}_g$ and ${\boldsymbol{M}}_e$ with ${{\boldsymbol{N}}}$.
- For any integer $\bar n$, the photon-number state ${| \bar n \rangle}{\langle \bar n |}$ ($\bar n\in{{\mathbb N}}$) is a steady-state: any realization of starting from $\rho_0={| \bar n \rangle}{\langle \bar n |}$ is constant: $\forall k\geq 0$, $\rho_k \equiv {| \bar n \rangle}{\langle \bar n |}$.
- When $(\phi_R,\phi_0,\pi)$ are $\mathbb{Q}$-independent, there is no other steady state than these photon-number states. Moreover, for any initial density operator $\rho_0$ with a finite photon-number support ($\rho_0 {| m \rangle}=0$ for $m$ large enough), the probability that $\rho_k$ converges towards the steady state ${| \bar n \rangle}{\langle \bar n |}$ is ${\operatorname{Tr}\left({| \bar n \rangle}{\langle \bar n |}\rho_0\right)}= {\langle \bar n |}\rho_0{| \bar n \rangle}$. Since ${\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho_0\right)}=1= \sum_{\bar n\in{{\mathbb N}}} {\langle \bar n |}\rho_0{| \bar n \rangle}$, the Markov process converges almost surely towards a photon-number state, whatever its initial state $\rho_0$ is.
The proof of this convergence result is essentially based on a Lyapunov function, a super-martingale, $V(\rho)=-\sum_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}} {\langle n\left|\rho \right|n \rangle}^2$. Simple computations yield $${\mathbb{E}\left( V(\rho_{k+1})~/~\rho_k\right)} = V(\rho_k) - Q(\rho_k)$$ where $Q(\rho) \geq 0$ is given by the following formula $$\begin{gathered}
Q(\rho)=
\tfrac{\left(\sum_{n'}\cos^2\left(\tfrac{\phi_0 n'+ \phi_R }{2}\right) {\langle n' |}\rho{| n' \rangle}\right)\left(\sum_{n'}\sin^2\left(\tfrac{\phi_0 n'+ \phi_R }{2}\right) {\langle n' |}\rho{| n' \rangle}\right) }{4}
\\
\left( \sum_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}
\left(
\tfrac{\cos^2\left(\tfrac{\phi_0 n+ \phi_R }{2}\right) {\langle n |}\rho{| n \rangle}}{\sum_{n'} \cos^2\left(\tfrac{\phi_0 n'+ \phi_R }{2}\right) {\langle n' |}\rho{| n' \rangle}}
-
\tfrac{\sin^2\left(\tfrac{\phi_0 n+ \phi_R }{2}\right) {\langle n |}\rho{| n \rangle}}{\sum_{n'} \sin^2\left(\tfrac{\phi_0 n'+ \phi_R }{2}\right) {\langle n' |}\rho{| n' \rangle}}
\right)^2\right)
.\end{gathered}$$ Since $(\phi_0,\phi_R,\pi)$ are $\mathbb{Q}$-independent, $Q(\rho)=0$ implies that, for some $\bar n\in{{\mathbb N}}$, $\rho={| \bar n \rangle}{\langle \bar n |}$. One concludes then with usual probability and compactness arguments [@kushner-71], despite the fact that the underlying Hilbert space is of infinite dimension. Other and also more precise results can be found in [@BauerIHP2013].
Stabilization of photon-number states by feedback
-------------------------------------------------
Take $\bar n\in{{\mathbb N}}$. With measurement operators , the Markov process admits $\bar\rho={| \bar n \rangle}{\langle \bar n |}$ as steady state. We describe here the measurement-based feedback (quantum-state feedback) implemented experimentally in [@sayrin-et-al:nature2011] and that stabilizes $\bar\rho$. Here the scalar classical control input $u$ consists in applying, just after the atom measurement in $D$, a coherent displacement of tunable amplitude $u$. This yields the following control Markov process $$\label{eq:MarkovChainControl}
\rho_{k+1}=
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{{\boldsymbol{D}}_{u_k}{\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag {\boldsymbol{D}}_{u_k}^\dag}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag\right)}}\quad \text{$y_k=g$ with probability } p_{g,k}={\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag\right)}&\\
&\frac{{\boldsymbol{D}}_{u_k}{\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag {\boldsymbol{D}}_{u_k}^\dag}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}}\quad \text{$y_k=e$ with probability } p_{e,k}={\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}&
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $u_k\in{{\mathbb R}}$ is the control at step $k$, ${\boldsymbol{D}}_{u}=e^{u {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag - u{\boldsymbol{a}}}$ is the displacement of amplitude $u$ (see appendix \[ap:oscillator\]) and $y_k$ is the measurement outcome at step $k$.
The stabilization of $\bar\rho$ is based on a state-feedback function $f$, $u= f(\rho)$, such that almost all closed-loop trajectories of with $u_k=f(\rho_k)$ converge towards $\bar\rho$ for any initial condition $\rho_0$. The construction of $f$ exploits the open-loop martingales ${\operatorname{Tr}\left( g({{\boldsymbol{N}}})\rho\right)}$ to construct the following strict control Lyapunov function: $$V_\epsilon(\rho)= \sum_{n} \left( -\epsilon {\langle n\left|\rho \right|n \rangle}^2 +
\sigma_n{\langle n |}\rho{| n \rangle}\right)$$ where $\epsilon >0$ is small enough and $$\sigma_n = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\tfrac{1}{4} + \sum_{\nu=1}^{\bar n} \tfrac{1}{\nu}-\tfrac{1}{\nu^2}, & \hbox{if } n=0; \\
\sum_{\nu=n+1}^{\bar n} \tfrac{1}{\nu}-\tfrac{1}{\nu^2}, & \hbox{if } n\in[1,\bar n-1]; \\
0, & \hbox{if } n=\bar n; \\
\sum_{\nu=\bar n+1}^{n} \tfrac{1}{\nu}+\tfrac{1}{\nu^2}, & \hbox{if } n \in[\bar n +1, +\infty].
\end{array}
\right.$$ The weight $\sigma_n$ are all non negative, $n\mapsto \sigma_n$ is strictly decreasing (resp. increasing) for $n\leq \bar n$ (resp. $n\geq \bar n$) and minimum for $n=\bar n$. The feedback law $u=f(\rho)$ is obtained by choosing $u$ such that the expectation value of $V_{\epsilon}(\rho_{k+1})$, knowing $\rho_k=\rho$ and $u_k=u$, is as small as possible: $$u=f(\rho)=:\underset{\upsilon\in[-\bar u,\bar u]}{\text{Argmin}}\quad V_\epsilon\Big({\boldsymbol{D}}_\upsilon\left( {\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + {\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag \right) {\boldsymbol{D}}_\upsilon^\dag\Big)$$ where $\bar u >0$ is some prescribed bound on $|u|$. Such a feedback law achieves global stabilization since, in closed-loop, the Lyapunov function is strict: $$\forall \rho\neq {| \bar n \rangle}{\langle \bar n |}, \quad V_\epsilon\Big({\boldsymbol{D}}_{f(\rho)}\left( {\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + {\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag \right){\boldsymbol{D}}_{f(\rho)}^\dag\Big) < V_\epsilon\Big(\rho\Big)
.$$ Formal convergence proofs can be found in [@AminiSDSMR2013A] for any finite dimensional approximations resulting from a truncation to a finite number of photons and in [@SOMARAJU2013] for the infinite dimension.
A more realistic Markov model with detection errors
---------------------------------------------------
The experimental implementation of the above feedback law [@sayrin-et-al:nature2011] has to cope with several sources of imperfections. We focus here on measurement errors and show how the Markov process has to be changed to take into account these errors. Assume that we know the detection error rates characterized by $\mathbb{P}(y=e/\mu=g)=\eta_g\in[0,1]$ (resp. $\mathbb{P}(y=g/\mu=e)=\eta_e\in[0,1]$) the probability of erroneous assignation to $e$ (resp. $g$) when the atom collapses in $g$ (resp. $e$). Without error, the quantum state $\rho_k$ obeys to . A direct application of Bayes law provides the expectation of $\rho_{k+1}$, knowing $\rho_k$ and the effective detector signal $y_k$, possibly corrupted by a detection error. When $y_k=g$, this expectation value is given by $
\frac{ (1-\eta_g){\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + \eta_e {\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag }{{\operatorname{Tr}\left( (1-\eta_g){\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + \eta_e {\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}}
$ and, when $y_k=e$, by $
\frac{\eta_g {\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + (1-\eta_e){\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag }{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\eta_g {\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + (1-\eta_e){\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}}
.
$ Moreover the probability to get $y_k=g$ is [${\operatorname{Tr}\left( (1-\eta_g){\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + \eta_e {\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}$]{} and to get $y_k=e$ is [$ {\operatorname{Tr}\left(\eta_g {\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + (1-\eta_e){\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}$]{}. This means that the Markov process must be changed to $$\label{eq:MarkovChainError}
\rho_{k+1} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{ (1-\eta_g){\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + \eta_e {\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag }{{\operatorname{Tr}\left( (1-\eta_g){\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + \eta_e {\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}}
& \hbox{ when $y_k=g$,} \\[1.em]
\frac{\eta_g {\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + (1-\eta_e){\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag }{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\eta_g {\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + (1-\eta_e){\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}}
& \hbox{ when $y_k=e$,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ with [$
{\operatorname{Tr}\left( (1-\eta_g){\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + \eta_e {\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}$]{} and [${\operatorname{Tr}\left(\eta_g {\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + (1-\eta_e){\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag\right)}
$]{} being the probabilities to detect $y_k=g$ and $e$, respectively. The quantum state $\rho_k$ is thus a conditional state: it is the expectation value of the projector associated to the photon wave function at step $k$, knowing its value at step $k=0$ and the detection outcomes $(y_0,\ldots,y_{k-1})$.
All other experimental imperfections including decoherence can be treated in the same way (see, e.g., [@dotsenko-et-al:PRA09; @somaraju-et-al:acc2012]) and yield to a quantum state governed by a Markov process with a similar structure. In fact all usual models of open quantum systems admit the same structure, either in discrete-time (see section \[sec:DiscreteTime\]) or in continuous-time (see section \[sec:ContinuousTime\]).
The real-time stabilization algorithm
-------------------------------------
Let us give more details on the real-time implementation used in [@sayrin-et-al:nature2011] of this quantum-state feedback. The sampling period $\tau$ is around $80~\mu s$. The controller set-point is an integer $\bar n$ labelling the steady-state $\bar \rho={| \bar n \rangle}{\langle \bar n |}$ to be stabilized. At time step $k$, the real-time computer
1. reads $y_k$ the measurement outcome for probe atom $k$;
2. updates the quantum state from previous step value $\rho_{k-1}$ to $\rho_{k}$ using $y_k$ and a Markov model slightly more complicated but of same structure as ; this update corresponds to a quantum filter (see subsection \[ssec:filtering\]).
3. computes $u_k$ as $f(\rho_{k})$ (state feedback) where $f$ results from minimizing the expectation of the control Lyapunov function $V_{\epsilon}(\rho)$ at step $k+1$, knowing $\rho_{k}$;
4. send via an antenna a micro-wave pulse calibrated to obtain the displacement ${\boldsymbol{D}}_{u_{k}}$ on the photons.
All the details of this quantum feedback are given in [@sayrin:thesis]. In particular, the Markov model takes into account several experimental imperfections such as finite life-time of the photons (around $1/10~s$) and a delay of $5$ steps in the feedback loop. Convergence results related to this feedback scheme are given in [@AminiSDSMR2013A].
Reservoir engineering stabilization of Schrödinger cats {#ssec:LKBcat}
-------------------------------------------------------
It is possible to stabilize the photons trapped in cavity $C$ (figure \[fig:LKBsetup0\]) without any such measurement-based feedback, just by well tuned interactions with the probe atoms and without measuring them in $D$. Such kind of stabilization, known as reservoir engineering [@PoyatCZ1996PRL], can be seen as a generalization of optical pumping techniques [@Kastl1967S]. Such stabilization methods are illustrative of coherent (or autonomous) feedback where the controller is an open quantum system. In [@sarlette-et-al:PRL2011], a realistic implementation of such passive stabilization method is proposed. It stabilizes a coherent superposition of classical photon-states with opposite phases, a Schrödinger phase-cats with wave functions of the form $({| \alpha \rangle} + i {| {\text{-}}\alpha \rangle})/\sqrt{2}$, where ${| \alpha \rangle}$ is the coherent state of amplitude $\alpha\in{{\mathbb R}}$. We explain here the convergence analysis of such passive stabilization using the notations and operator definitions given in appendix \[ap:oscillator\].
The atom entering the cavity $C$ is prepared through $R_1$ in a partially excited state $\cos(u/2) {| g \rangle} + \sin(u/2) {| e \rangle}$ with $u\in[0,\pi/2[$ (south hemisphere of the Bloch sphere). Its interaction with the photons is first dispersive with positive detuning during its entrance, then resonant in the cavity middle and finally dispersive with negative detuning when leaving the cavity. The resulting measurement operators ${\boldsymbol{M}}_g$ and ${\boldsymbol{M}}_e$ appearing in admit then the following form (see [@sarlette-et-al:PRA2012] for detailed derivations): $${\boldsymbol{M}}_g= e^{- i {\widetilde{h}}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})} {\boldsymbol{\widetilde{M}}}_g e^{ i {\widetilde{h}}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})}, \quad {\boldsymbol{M}}_e= e^{- i {\widetilde{h}}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})} {\boldsymbol{\widetilde{M}}}_e e^{ i {\widetilde{h}}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})}$$ with $n\mapsto {\widetilde{h}}(n)$ a real function, with ${\boldsymbol{I}}$ standing for ${\boldsymbol{I}}_S$, with $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{\widetilde{M}}}_g &= \cos(\tfrac{u}{2}) \cos\left(\tfrac{\theta({{\boldsymbol{N}}})}{2}\right) + \epsilon\sin(\tfrac{u}{2}) \frac{\sin\left(\tfrac{\theta({{\boldsymbol{N}}})}{2}\right)}{\sqrt{{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}} \, {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag
\\
{\boldsymbol{\widetilde{M}}}_e &= \sin(\tfrac{u}{2}) \cos\left(\tfrac{\theta({{{{\boldsymbol{N}}}+{\boldsymbol{I}}}})}{2}\right) - \epsilon\cos(\tfrac{u}{2}) \, {\boldsymbol{a}}\frac{\sin\left(\tfrac{\theta({{\boldsymbol{N}}})}{2}\right)}{\sqrt{{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}}\end{aligned}$$ and with $n\mapsto \theta(n)$ a real function such that $\theta(0)=0$, $\forall n>0$, $\theta(n)\in]0,\pi[$ and $\lim_{n\mapsto+\infty}\theta(n)=\pi/2$.
Since we do not measure the atoms, the photon state $\rho_{k+1}$ at step $k+1$ is given by the following recurrence from the state $\rho_k$ at step $k$: $$\rho_{k+1}={\boldsymbol{K}}(\rho_k)\triangleq {\boldsymbol{M}}_g\rho_k{\boldsymbol{M}}_g^\dag + {\boldsymbol{M}}_e\rho_k{\boldsymbol{M}}_e^\dag
.$$ Consider the change of frame associated to the unitary transformation $e^{- i {\widetilde{h}}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})}$: $
\rho = e^{- i {\widetilde{h}}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})} {\widetilde{\rho}}e^{ i {\widetilde{h}}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})}.
$ Then we have $
{\widetilde{\rho}}_{k+1}={\boldsymbol{\widetilde{K}}}({\widetilde{\rho}}_{k})\triangleq{\boldsymbol{\widetilde{M}}}_g{\widetilde{\rho}}_k ({\boldsymbol{\widetilde{M}}}_g)^\dag+{\boldsymbol{\widetilde{M}}}_e{\widetilde{\rho}}_k ({\boldsymbol{\widetilde{M}}}_e)^\dag
.
$ It is proved in [@LeghtasPhD] that, since $|u|\leq \pi/2$, exists a unique common eigen-state ${| {\widetilde{\psi}}\rangle} \in {\mathcal{H}}_S$ of ${\boldsymbol{\widetilde{M}}}_g$ and ${\boldsymbol{\widetilde{M}}}_e$. Thus ${\widetilde{\rho}_{\infty}}={| {\widetilde{\psi}}\rangle}{\langle {\widetilde{\psi}}|}$ is a fixed point of ${\boldsymbol{\widetilde{K}}}$. It is also proved in [@LeghtasPhD] that the ${\widetilde{\rho}}_{k}$’s converge to ${\widetilde{\rho}_{\infty}}$ when the function $\theta$ is strictly increasing. Since the underlying Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_S$ is of infinite dimension, it is important to precise the type of convergence. For any initial condition ${\widetilde{\rho}}_0$ such that ${\operatorname{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol{N}}}{\widetilde{\rho}}_0\right)} < +\infty$, then $\lim_{k\mapsto +\infty} {\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\widetilde{\rho}}_k-{\widetilde{\rho}_{\infty}})^2\right)} = 0$ (Frobenius norm on Hilbert-Schmidt operators). Since ${\operatorname{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol{N}}}\rho\right)} \equiv{\operatorname{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol{N}}}{\widetilde{\rho}}\right)}$, we have the convergence of $\rho_k$ towards $\rho_{\infty}=e^{- i {\widetilde{h}}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})} {\widetilde{\rho}_{\infty}}e^{ i {\widetilde{h}}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})}$ as soon as the initial energy ${\operatorname{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol{N}}}\rho_0\right)}$ is finite: $\lim_{k\mapsto +\infty} {\operatorname{Tr}\left(\left((\rho_k-\rho_\infty\right)^2\right)} =0$. When $\theta$ is not strictly increasing, we conjecture that such convergence towards $\rho_\infty$ still holds true.
For well chosen experimental parameters [@sarlette-et-al:PRA2012], ${\widetilde{\rho}_{\infty}}$ is close to a coherent state ${| \alpha_\infty \rangle}{\langle \alpha_\infty |}$ for some $\alpha_\infty\in{{\mathbb R}}$ and ${\widetilde{h}}({{\boldsymbol{N}}})\approx \pi{{\boldsymbol{N}}}^2/2$ . Since $$e^{-i\frac{\pi}{2} {{\boldsymbol{N}}}^2} {| \alpha_\infty \rangle}= \frac{e^{-i\pi/4}}{\sqrt{2}}\big({| \alpha_\infty \rangle} + i {| {\text{-}}\alpha_\infty \rangle}\big),$$ we have under realistic conditions $
\lim_{k\mapsto +\infty} \rho_k\approx \tfrac{1}{2} \Big({| \alpha_\infty \rangle} + i {| {\text{-}}\alpha_\infty \rangle}\Big) \Big( {\langle \alpha_\infty |} - i {\langle {\text{-}}\alpha_\infty |} \Big)
$, a coherent superposition of the classical states ${| \alpha_\infty \rangle}$ and ${| {\text{-}}\alpha_\infty \rangle}$ of same amplitude but of opposite phases, i.e. a Schrödinger phase-cat. Figure \[fig:CatfullLin\] displays numerical computations of the Wigner function of $\rho_\infty$ obtained with realistic parameters.
![ Left: Wigner function of $\rho_\infty$ stabilized by reservoir engineering in [@sarlette-et-al:PRA2012]. Right: Wigner function of a prefect Schrödinger phase-cat, $\tfrac{1}{2} \Big({| \alpha_\infty \rangle} + i {| {\text{-}}\alpha_\infty \rangle}\Big) \Big( {\langle \alpha_\infty |} + i {\langle {\text{-}}\alpha_\infty |} \Big)$, with an average number of photons identical to $\rho_\infty$ ($\alpha_\infty=\sqrt{{\operatorname{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol{N}}}\rho_\infty\right)}}$). The color map is identical to figure \[fig:Wigner\_intro\]. []{data-label="fig:CatfullLin"}](CatfullLin "fig:"){width="70.00000%"}\
Discrete-time systems {#sec:DiscreteTime}
=====================
The theory of open quantum systems starts with the contributions of Davies [@daviesBook1976]. The goal of this section is first to present in an elementary way the general structure of the Markov models describing such systems. Some related stabilization problems are also addressed. Throughout this section, ${\mathcal{H}}$ is an Hilbert space; for each time-step $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$, $\rho_k$ denotes the density operator describing the state of the quantum Markov process; for all $k$, $\rho_k$ is an Hilbert-Schmidt operator on ${\mathcal{H}}$, Hermitian and of trace one; the set of continuous operators on ${\mathcal{H}}$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{H}})}$; expectation values are denoted by the symbol ${\mathbb{E}\left(~\right)}$.
Markov models
-------------
Take a positive integer $m$ and consider a finite set $({\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu)_{\mu \in \{1,\ldots, m\}}$ of operators on ${\mathcal{H}}$ such that $$\label{eq:PartitionUnity}
{\boldsymbol{I}}= \sum_{\mu=1}^m {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu$$ where ${\boldsymbol{I}}$ is the identity operator. Then each ${\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu \in{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{H}})}$. Take another positive integer $m'$ and consider a left stochastic $m'\times m$-matrix $(\eta_{\mu'\mu}) $: its entries are non-negative and $\forall \mu\in\{1, \ldots, m\}$, $\sum_{\mu'=1}^{m'}\eta_{\mu'\mu} =1$. Consider the Markov process of state $\rho$ and output $y\in\{1,\ldots, m'\}$ (measurement outcome) defined via the transition rule $$\label{eq:GenMarkovChain}
\rho_{k+1} = \frac{\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag\right)}}, \quad
y_k=\mu^\prime \text{ with probability } {\mathbb{P}}_{\mu'}(\rho_k)$$ where ${\mathbb{P}}_{\mu'}(\rho)= {\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu \rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag\right)}$.
Kraus and unital maps
---------------------
The Kraus map ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ corresponds to the master equation of . It is given by the expectation value of $\rho_{k+1}$ knowing $\rho_k$: $$\label{eq:KrausMap}
{\boldsymbol{K}}(\rho) \triangleq \sum_\mu {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu \rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag = {\mathbb{E}\left(\rho_{k+1}~/~\rho_k=\rho\right)}
.$$ In quantum information [@nielsen-chang-book] such Kraus maps describe quantum channels. They admit many interesting properties. In particular, they are contractions for many metrics (see [@petz:LAA1996] for the characterization, in finite dimension, of metrics for which any Kraus map is a contraction). We just recall below two such metrics. For any density operators $\rho$ and $\sigma$ we have $$\label{eq:ContractionKraus}
D({\boldsymbol{K}}(\rho),{\boldsymbol{K}}(\sigma)) \leq D(\rho,\sigma) \text{ and } F({\boldsymbol{K}}(\rho),{\boldsymbol{K}}(\sigma)) \geq F(\rho,\sigma)$$ where the trace distance $D$ and fidelity $F$ are given by $$\label{eq:TraceFidelity}
D(\rho,\sigma)\triangleq{\operatorname{Tr}\left(|\rho-\sigma|\right)} \text{ and } F(\rho,\sigma) \triangleq {\operatorname{Tr}^2\left(\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho}\sigma\sqrt{\rho}}\right)}.$$ Fidelity is between $0$ and $1$: $F(\rho,\sigma)=1$ if and only if, $\rho=\sigma$. Moreover $F(\rho,\sigma)=F(\sigma,\rho)$. If $\sigma={| \psi \rangle}{\langle \psi |}$ is a pure state (${| \psi \rangle}$ element of ${\mathcal{H}}$ of length one), $F(\rho,\sigma)$ coincides with the Frobenius product: $
F(\rho, {| \psi \rangle}{\langle \psi |}) \equiv {\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho {| \psi \rangle}{\langle \psi |}\right)}={\langle \psi |}\rho {| \psi \rangle}.
$ Kraus maps provide the evolution of open quantum systems from an initial state $\rho_0$ without information coming from the measurements (see [@haroche-raimondBook06 chapter 4: the environment is watching]): $$\rho_{k+1}={\boldsymbol{K}}(\rho_k) \text{ for } k=0,1,\ldots,
.$$ This corresponds to the “Schrödinger description” of the dynamics.
The “Heisenberg description” is given by the dual map ${\boldsymbol{K}}^*$. It is characterized by ${\operatorname{Tr}\left(A {\boldsymbol{K}}(\rho)\right)} = {\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{K}}^*(A)\rho\right)}$ and defined for any operator $A$ on ${\mathcal{H}}$ by $${\boldsymbol{K}}^*(A)= \sum_\mu {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag A {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu
.$$ Technical conditions on $A$ are required when ${\mathcal{H}}$ is of infinite dimension, they are not given here (see, e.g., [@daviesBook1976]). The map ${\boldsymbol{K}}^*$ is unital since reads ${\boldsymbol{K}}^*({\boldsymbol{I}})={\boldsymbol{I}}$. As ${\boldsymbol{K}}$, the dual map ${\boldsymbol{K}}^*$ admits a lot of interesting properties. It is noticed in [@SepulSR2010] that, based on a theorem due of Birkhoff [@Birkhoff1957], such unital maps are contractions on the cone of non-negative Hermitian operators equipped with the Hilbert’s projective metric. In particular, when ${\mathcal{H}}$ is of finite dimension, we have, for any Hermitian operator $A$: $$\lambda_{min}(A) \leq \lambda_{min}({\boldsymbol{K}}^*(A)) \leq \lambda_{max}({\boldsymbol{K}}^*(A)) \leq \lambda_{max}(A)$$ where $\lambda_{min}$ and $\lambda_{max}$ correspond to the smallest and largest eigenvalues. As shown in [@ReebKastoryanoWolfJMP2011], such contraction properties based on Hilbert’s projective metric have important implications in quantum information theory.
To emphasize the difference between the “Schrödinger description” and the ’Heisenberg description“ of the dynamics, let us translate convergence issues from the ”Schrödinger description“ to the ”Heisenberg one". Assume, for clarity’s sake, that ${\mathcal{H}}$ is of finite dimension. Suppose also that ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ admits the density operator $\bar\rho$ as unique fixed point and that, for any initial density operator $\rho_0$, the density operator at step $k$, $\rho_k$, defined by $k$ iterations of ${\boldsymbol{K}}$, converges towards $\bar\rho$ when $k$ tends to $\infty$. Then $k\mapsto D(\rho_k,\bar\rho)$ is decreasing and converges to $0$ whereas $k\mapsto F(\rho_k,\bar\rho)$ is increasing and converges to $1$.
The translation of this convergence in the “Heisenberg description” is the following: for any initial operator $A_0$, its $k$ iterates via ${\boldsymbol{K}}^*$, $A_k$, converge towards ${\operatorname{Tr}\left(A_0\bar\rho\right)} {\boldsymbol{I}}$. Moreover when $A_0$ is Hermitian, $k\mapsto \lambda_{min}(A_k)$ and $k\mapsto \lambda_{max}(A_k)$ are respectively increasing and decreasing and both converge to ${\operatorname{Tr}\left(A_0\bar\rho\right)}$.
Quantum filtering {#ssec:filtering}
-----------------
Quantum filtering has its origin in Belavkin’s work [@Belavkin1992] on continuous-time open quantum systems (see section \[sec:ContinuousTime\]). The state $\rho_k$ of is not directly measured: open quantum systems are governed by hidden-state Markov model. Quantum filtering provides an estimate ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k$ of $\rho_k$ based on an initial guess ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{0}$ (possibly different from $\rho_0$) and the measurement outcomes $y_l$ between $0$ and $k-1$: $$\label{eq:DiscreteFilter}
{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{l+1} = \frac{\sum_\mu \eta_{y_l\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_l {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{y_l\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_l {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag\right)}},\quad l\in\{0, \ldots, k-1\}
.$$ Thus $(\rho,{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}})$ is the state of an extended Markov process governed by the following rule $$\rho_{k+1} = \frac{\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag\right)}}\text{ and }
{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{k+1} = \frac{\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag\right)}}$$ with transition probability ${\mathbb{P}}_{\mu'}(\rho_k)= {\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag\right)}$ depending on $\rho_k$ and independent of ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k$.
When ${\mathcal{H}}$ is of finite dimension, it is shown in [@somaraju-et-al:acc2012] with an inequality proved in [@Rouch2011ACITo] that such discrete-time quantum filters are always stable in the following sense: the fidelity between $\rho$ and its estimate ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}$ is a sub-martingale for any initial condition $\rho_0$ and ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_0$: $
{\mathbb{E}\left(F(\rho_{k+1},{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{k+1})~|~(\rho_k,{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k)\right)} \geq F(\rho_k,{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k)
.
$ This result does not guaranty that ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k$ converges to $\rho_k$ when $k$ tends to infinity. The convergence characterization of ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}$ towards $\rho$ via checkable conditions on the left stochastic matrix $(\eta_{\mu'\mu})$ and on the set of operators $({\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu)$ remains an open problem [@handel:thesis; @van-handel:proba2009].
\
Stabilization via measurement-based feedback
--------------------------------------------
Assume now that the operators ${\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu$ appearing in and satisfying , depend also on a control input $u$ belonging to some admissible set $\mathcal{U}$ (typically a discrete set or a compact subset of ${{\mathbb R}}^p$ for some positive integer $p$). Then we have the following control Markov model with input $u\in\mathcal{U}$, hidden state $\rho$ and measured output $y\in\{1,\ldots,m'\}$: [$$\label{eq:GenControlMarkovChain}
\rho_{k+1} = \frac{\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu(u_k) \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag(u_k)}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu(u_k) \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag(u_k)\right)}}, ~
y_k=\mu^\prime \text{ with probability } {\mathbb{P}}_{\mu'}(\rho_k,u_k)$$]{} where ${\mathbb{P}}_{\mu'}(\rho,u)= {\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu(u) \rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag(u)\right)}$. Assume that for some nominal admissible input $\bar u\in\mathcal{U}$, this Markov process admits a steady state $\bar\rho$. This means that, for any $\mu'\in\{1,\ldots,m'\}$ we have $
\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu(\bar u) \bar\rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag(\bar u)= {\mathbb{P}}_{\mu'}(\bar\rho,\bar u) \bar\rho
.
$ The measurement-based feedback stabilization of the steady-state $\bar\rho$ is the following problem: for any initial condition $\rho_0$, find for any $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$ a control input $u_k\in\mathcal{U}$ depending only on $\rho_0$ and on the past $y$ values, $(y_0,\ldots,y_{k-1})$, such that $\rho_k$ converges almost surely towards $\bar\rho$.
Quantum-state feedback scheme, $u=f(\rho)$, can be used here. They can be based on Lyapunov techniques. Potential candidates of Lyapunov functions $V(\rho)$ could be related to the metrics for which the open-loop Kaus map with $\bar u$ is contracting. Specific $V$ depending on the precise structure of the system could be more adapted as for the LKB photon box [@AminiSDSMR2013A]. Such Lyapunov feedback laws are then given by the minimization versus $u\in\mathcal{U}$ of ${\mathbb{E}\left(V(\rho_{k+1 })~|~\rho_k=\rho, u_k=u\right)}$.
Assume that we have a stabilizing feedback law $u=f(\rho)$: $\bar u =f(\bar\rho)$ and the trajectories of with $u_k=f(\rho_k)$ converge almost surely towards $\bar\rho$. Since $\rho$ is not directly accessible, one has to replace $\rho_k$ by its estimate ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k$ to obtain $u_k$. Experimental implementations of such quantum feedback laws admit necessarily an observer/controller structure governed by a Markov process of state $(\rho,{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}})$ with the following transition rule: $$\label{eq:ObsController}
\begin{split}
\rho_{k+1} &= \frac{\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu(f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k)) \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag(f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k))}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu(f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k)) \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag (f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k))\right)}} \\
{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{k+1} &= \frac{\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu(f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k)) {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag(f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k))}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu(f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k)) {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag(f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k))\right)}}
\end{split}$$ with probability ${\mathbb{P}}_{\mu'}(\rho_k,f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k))= {\operatorname{Tr}\left(\sum_\mu \eta_{\mu^\prime\mu} {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu(f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k)) \rho_k {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag(f({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k))\right)}$ depending on $\rho_k$ and ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_k$. In [@bouten-handel:2008] a separation principle is proved with elementary arguments (see also [@AminiSDSMR2013A]): if ${\mathcal{H}}$ is of finite dimension, if $\bar\rho$ is a pure state ($\bar\rho ={| \bar\psi \rangle}{\langle \bar\psi |}$ for some ${| \bar\psi \rangle}$ in ${\mathcal{H}}$) and if ${\operatorname{Ker}}({\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_0) \subset {\operatorname{Ker}}(\rho_0)$, then almost all realizations of converge to the steady-state $(\bar\rho,\bar\rho)$. The stabilizing feedback schemes used in experiments [@sayrin-et-al:nature2011] and [@zhouPRL2012] exploit such observer/controller structure and rely on this separation principle where the design of the stabilizing feedback (controller) and of the quantum-state filter (observer) are be done separately.
With such feedback scheme we loose the linear formulation of the ensemble-average master equation with a Kraus map. In general, there is no simple formulation of the master equation governing the expectation value of $\rho_k$ in closed-loop. Nevertheless, for systems where the measurement step producing the output $y_k$ is followed by a control action characterized by $u_k$, it is possible via a static output feedback, $u_k=f(y_k)$ where $f$ is now some function from $\{1,\ldots,m'\}$ to $\mathcal{U}$, to preserve in closed-loop such Kraus-map formulations. These specific feedback schemes, called Markovian feedbacks, are due to Wiseman and have important applications. They are well explained and illustrated in the recent book [@wiseman-milburnBook].
Stabilization of pure states by reservoir engineering
-----------------------------------------------------
With $T$ as sampling period, a possible formalization of this passive stabilization method is as follows. The goal is to stabilize a pure state $\bar\rho_S={| \bar\psi_S \rangle}{\langle \bar\psi_S |}$ for a system $S$ with Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_S$ and Hamiltonian operator $H_S$ (${| \bar\psi_S \rangle}\in{\mathcal{H}}_S$ is of length one). To achieve this goal consider a “realistic” quantum controller of Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_C$ with initial state ${| \theta_C \rangle}$ and with Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}}_C$. One has to design an adapted interaction between $S$ and $C$ with a well chosen interaction Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}}_{int}$, an Hermitian operator on ${\mathcal{H}}_{S,C}={\mathcal{H}}_S\otimes {\mathcal{H}}_C$. This controller $C$ and its interaction with $S$ during the sampling interval of length $T$ have to fulfill the conditions explained below in order to stabilize $\bar\rho_S$.
Denote by ${\boldsymbol{U}}_{S,C}={\boldsymbol{U}}(T)$ the propagator between $0$ and time $T$ for the composite system $(S,C)$: ${\boldsymbol{U}}(t)$ is the unitary operator on ${\mathcal{H}}_{S,C}$ defined by $${\frac{d}{dt}}{\boldsymbol{U}}= - \tfrac{i}{\hbar} \Big({\boldsymbol{H}}_S\otimes {\boldsymbol{I}}_C+{\boldsymbol{H}}_{int}+{\boldsymbol{I}}_S\otimes {\boldsymbol{H}}_C\Big) {\boldsymbol{U}}, \quad {\boldsymbol{U}}(0)={\boldsymbol{I}}_{S,C}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{I}}_S$, ${\boldsymbol{I}}_C$ and ${\boldsymbol{I}}_{S,C}$ are the identity operators on ${\mathcal{H}}_S$, ${\mathcal{H}}_C$, and ${\mathcal{H}}_{S,C}$, respectively. To the propagator $U_{S,C}$ and the initial controller wave function ${| \theta_C \rangle}\in{\mathcal{H}}_C$ is attached a Kraus map ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ on ${\mathcal{H}}_S$, $${\boldsymbol{K}}(\rho_S)= \sum_\mu {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu \rho_S {\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu^\dag$$ where the operators ${\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu$ on ${\mathcal{H}}_S$ are defined by the decomposition, $$\forall {| \psi_S \rangle}\in{\mathcal{H}}_S, \quad {\boldsymbol{U}}_{S,C}\big( {| \psi_S \rangle}\otimes{| \theta_C \rangle}\big)= \sum_\mu \big({\boldsymbol{M}}_{\mu} {| \psi_S \rangle}\big)\otimes {| \lambda_\mu \rangle}
,$$ with $({| \lambda_{\mu} \rangle})$ any ortho-normal basis of ${\mathcal{H}}_C$. Despite the fact that the operators $({\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu)$ depend on the choice of this basis, the Kraus map ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ is independent of this choice: it depends only on $U_{S,C}$ and ${| \theta_C \rangle}$.
The first stabilization condition is the following: the Kraus operators ${\boldsymbol{M}}_\mu$ have to admit ${| \bar\psi_S \rangle}$ as a common eigen-vector since $\bar\rho_S$ has to be a fixed point of ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ (${\boldsymbol{K}}(\bar\rho_S)=\bar\rho_S$).
The second stabilization condition is the following: for any initial density operator $\rho_{S,0}$, the iterates $\rho_{S,k}$ of ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ converge to $\bar\rho_S$, i.e., $$\lim_{k\mapsto +\infty} \rho_{S,k}=\bar\rho_S \text{ where } \rho_{S,k}={\boldsymbol{K}}(\rho_{S,k-1})
.$$
When these two conditions are satisfied, the repetition of the same interaction for each sampling interval $[kT,(k+1)T]$ ($k\in{{\mathbb N}})$ with a controller-state ${| \theta_C \rangle}$ at $kT$ ensures that the density operator of $S$ at $kT$, $\rho_{S,k}$, converges to $\bar\rho_S$ since $\rho_{S,k}={\boldsymbol{K}}(\rho_{S,k-1})$. Here, the so-called reservoir is made of the infinite set of identical controller systems $C$ indexed by $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$, with initial state ${| \theta_C \rangle}$ and interacting sequentially with $S$ during $[kT,(k+1)T]$.
Continuous-time systems {#sec:ContinuousTime}
=======================
Stochastic master equations
---------------------------
These models have their origins in the work of Davies [@daviesBook1976], are related to quantum trajectories [@carmichael-book; @dalibard-et-al:PRL92] and are connected to Belavkin quantum filters [@Belavkin1992]. A modern and mathematical exposure of the diffusive models is given in [@BarchielliGregorattiBook]. These models are interpreted here as continuous-time versions of . They are based on stochastic differential equations, also called Stochastic Master Equations (SME). They provide the evolution of the density operator $\rho_t$ with respect to the time $t$. They are driven by a finite number of independent Wiener processes indexed by $\nu$, $(W_{\nu,t})$, each of them being associated to a continuous classical and real signal, $y_{\nu,t}$, produced by detector $\nu$. These SMEs admit the following form: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:DiffusiveSME}
d\rho_t=\left(-\tfrac{i}{\hbar}[{\boldsymbol{H}},\rho_t]+\sum_\nu {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu \rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2} ({\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu\rho_t+\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu)\right) dt
\\
+ \sum_\nu \sqrt{\eta_\nu}\bigg({\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu\rho_t+\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag-{\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu+{\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag)\rho_t\right)}\rho_t\bigg) dW_{\nu,t}\end{gathered}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{H}}$ is the Hamiltonian operator on the underlying Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu$ are arbitrary operators (not necessarily Hermitian) on ${\mathcal{H}}$. Each measured signal $y_{\nu,t}$ is related to $\rho_t$ and $W_{\nu,t}$ by the following output relationship: $$dy_{\nu,t}= dW_{\nu,t}+\sqrt{\eta_\nu}{\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu+{\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag)\,\rho_t\right)}\,dt$$ where $\eta_\nu \in[0,1]$ is the efficiency of detector $\nu$. The ensemble average of $\rho_t$ obeys thus to a linear differential equation, also called master or Lindblad-Kossakowski differential equation [@Kossakowski-1972; @Lindblad-1976]: $$\label{eq:Lindblad}
{\frac{d}{dt}}\rho=-\tfrac{i}{\hbar}[{\boldsymbol{H}},\rho]+\sum_\nu {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu \rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2} ({\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu\rho_t+\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu)
.$$ It is the continuous-time analogue of the Kraus map ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ associated to the Markov process .
In fact and have the same structure. This becomes obvious if one remarks that, with standard It$\bar{\text{o}}$ rules, admits the following formulation $$\rho_{t+dt}= \frac{
{\boldsymbol{M}}_{{\!{dy_{t}}}}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{M}}_{{\!{dy_{t}}}}^\dag + \sum_\nu (1-\eta_\nu ) {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag dt
}{
{\operatorname{Tr}\left(
{\boldsymbol{M}}_{{\!{dy_{t}}}}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{M}}_{{\!{dy_{t}}}}^\dag + \sum_\nu (1-\eta_\nu ) {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag dt
\right)}}$$ with $ {\boldsymbol{M}}_{{\!{dy_{t}}}} = {\boldsymbol{I}}+ \left(-\tfrac{i}{\hbar}{\boldsymbol{H}}-\tfrac{1}{2} \sum_\nu {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}\right) dt + \sum_\nu \sqrt{\eta_\nu} {{dy_{\nu t}}} {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}$. Moreover the probability associated to the measurement outcome $dy=(dy_{\nu})$, is given by the following density $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{P}}\left( dy \in\prod_{\nu} [\xi_\nu,\xi_\nu+d\xi_\nu]~\Big/~\rho_t\right)
\\
={\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{M}}_{{\!{\xi}}} \rho_t {\boldsymbol{M}}_{{\!{\xi}}}^\dag ++ \sum_\nu (1-\eta_\nu ) {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag dt\right)}~\prod_\nu e^{- \xi_\nu^2/2dt}\tfrac{d\xi_\nu}{\sqrt{2\pi dt}}\end{gathered}$$ where $\xi$ stands for the vector $(\xi_\nu)$. With such a formulation, it becomes clear that preserves the trace and the non-negativeness of $\rho$. This formulation provides also directly a time discretization numerical scheme preserving non-negativeness of $\rho$ (see appendix \[ap:num\]).
Mixed diffusive/jump stochastic master equations can be considered. Additional Poisson counting processes $(N_\mu(t))$ are added in parallel to the Wiener processes $(W_{\nu,t})$ [@AminiBelavkin2014]: [$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:DiffusiveJumpSME}
d\rho_t =\left(-\tfrac{i}{\hbar}[{\boldsymbol{H}},\rho_t] + \sum_\nu {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu} \rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2}({\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}\rho_t+\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}) \right)\,dt
\\
+ \sum_\nu \sqrt{\eta_\nu} \bigg({\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}\rho_t+\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag-{\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}+{\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag)\rho_t\right)}\rho_t\bigg){{dW_{\nu,t}}}
\\
+ \left(\sum_\mu {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2}({\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}^\dag {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}\rho_t +\rho_t {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}^\dag {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}) \right)\,dt
\\
+ \sum_\mu \left(\tfrac{{\overline{\theta}}_\mu\rho_t+\sum_{\mu'} {\overline{\eta}}_{\mu,\mu'} {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}^\dag}{{\overline{\theta}}_\mu +
\sum_{\mu'}{\overline{\eta}}_{\mu,\mu'}{\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}^\dag\right)}} -\rho_t\right)
\left({{dN_\mu(t) }}-\Big( {\overline{\theta}}_\mu + \sum_{\mu'}{\overline{\eta}}_{\mu,\mu'} {\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}^\dag\right)}\Big)\,dt\right)\end{gathered}$$]{} where the ${\boldsymbol{V}}_\mu$’s are operators on ${\mathcal{H}}$, where the additional parameters ${\overline{\theta}}_\mu, {\overline{\eta}}_{\mu,\mu'}\geq 0$ with ${\overline{\eta}}_{\mu'}=\sum_{\mu} {\overline{\eta}}_{\mu,\mu'} \leq 1$, describe counting imperfections. For each $\mu$, $\Big( {\overline{\theta}}_\mu + \sum_{\mu'}{\overline{\eta}}_{\mu,\mu'} {\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}^\dag\right)}\Big)\,dt$ is the probability to increment by one $N_{\mu}$ between $t$ and $t+dt$.
For any vector $\xi=(\xi_\nu)$, take the following definition for ${\boldsymbol{M}}_\xi$ $${\boldsymbol{M}}_{{{\xi}}} = {\boldsymbol{I}}- \left(\tfrac{i}{\hbar}{\boldsymbol{H}}+\tfrac{1}{2} \sum_\nu {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu} + \tfrac{1}{2} \sum_\mu {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}^\dag {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}\right) dt + \sum_\nu \sqrt{\eta_\nu} {{\xi_{\nu}}} {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}$$ and consider the following partial Kraus map depending on $\xi$: $${\boldsymbol{K}}_\xi(\rho) = {\boldsymbol{M}}_{{{\xi}}}\rho {\boldsymbol{M}}_{{{\xi}}}^\dag + \sum_\nu (1-\eta_\nu ) {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}\rho {\boldsymbol{L}}_{\nu}^\dag dt+ \sum_\mu (1-{\overline{\eta}}_\mu ) {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu} \rho {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}^\dag dt
.$$ The stochastic model is similar to the discrete-time Markov process where the discrete-time outcomes $y_k$ is replaced by the continuous-time outcomes $(dy_t,dN(t))$. More precisely, the transition from $\rho_t$ to $\rho_{t+dt}$ is given by the following transition rules:
1. The transition corresponding to no-jump outcomes $(dy_t,dN(t)=0)$ reads $$\rho_{t+dt}= \frac{{\boldsymbol{K}}_{dy_t}(\rho_t)}{{\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{K}}_{dy_t}(\rho_t)\right)}}$$ and is associated to the following probability law: [$$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{P}}\left( dy \in\prod_{\nu} [\xi_\nu,\xi_\nu+d\xi_\nu]\text{ and } dN(t)=0~\bigg/~\rho_t\right)
\\
=\left(1-\left(\sum_\mu {\overline{\theta}}_\mu\right)dt\right){\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{K}}_\xi(\rho_t)\right)} \left(\prod_\nu e^{- \xi_\nu^2/2dt}\tfrac{d\xi_\nu}{\sqrt{2\pi dt}}\right)\end{gathered}$$ ]{} Since $$\int_\xi {\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{K}}_\xi(\rho_t)\right)}~\prod_\nu e^{- \xi_\nu^2/2dt}\tfrac{d\xi_\nu}{\sqrt{2\pi dt}}
= 1- \left({\overline{\eta}}_{\mu}{\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}\rho_{t} {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}^\dag\right)}\right) dt + O(dt^2)$$ we recover the usual no-jump probability, $1- \left(\sum_\mu {\overline{\theta}}_\mu+ {\overline{\eta}}_{\mu}{\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}\rho_{t} {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu}^\dag\right)} \right) dt$, up to $O(dt^2)$ terms.
2. The transition corresponding to outcomes with a single jump of label $\mu$, $(dy_t,dN(t)=(\delta_{\mu,\mu'})_{\mu'})$, reads $$\rho_{t+dt}= \frac{
{\boldsymbol{K}}_{dy_t}\left( {\overline{\theta}}_\mu\rho_{t}+\sum_{\mu'}{\overline{\eta}}_{\mu,\mu'} {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}\rho_{t} {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}^\dag \right)
}{
{\operatorname{Tr}\left( {\boldsymbol{K}}_{dy_t}\left( {\overline{\theta}}_\mu\rho_{t}+\sum_{\mu'}{\overline{\eta}}_{\mu,\mu'} {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}\rho_{t} {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}^\dag \right)\right)}
}$$ and is associated to the following probability law: [$$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{P}}\left( dy \in\prod_{\nu} [\xi_\nu,\xi_\nu+d\xi_\nu]\text{ and } dN(t)=(\delta_{\mu,\mu'})_{\mu'}~\bigg/~\rho_t\right)
\\
=dt~ {\operatorname{Tr}\left( {\boldsymbol{K}}_{\xi}\left( {\overline{\theta}}_\mu\rho_{t}+\sum_{\mu'}{\overline{\eta}}_{\mu,\mu'} {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}\rho_{t} {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}^\dag \right)\right)}\left(\prod_\nu e^{- \xi_\nu^2/2dt}\tfrac{d\xi_\nu}{\sqrt{2\pi dt}}\right)\end{gathered}$$ ]{} By integration versus $\xi$, we recover, up to $O(dt^2)$ terms, the probability of jump $\mu$: $\left({\overline{\theta}}_\mu+\sum_{\mu'} {\overline{\eta}}_{\mu,\mu'}{\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}\rho_{t+dt} {\boldsymbol{V}}_{\mu'}^\dag\right)} \right) dt$.
3. The probability to have at least two jumps, i.e. $dN_{\mu}(t)=dN_{\mu'}(t)=1$ for some $\mu\neq \mu'$, is an $O(dt^2)$ and thus negligible.
Standard computations show that such time discretization schemes converge in law to the continuous-time process when $dt$ tends to $0$. They preserve the fact that $\rho\geq 0$ and can be used for Monte-Carlo simulations and quantum filtering.
Quantum filtering {#quantum-filtering}
-----------------
For clarity’s sake, take in a single measurement $y_t$ associated to operator ${\boldsymbol{L}}$, detection efficiency $\eta \in[0,1]$ and scalar Wiener process $W_t$: ${{dy_t}}= \sqrt{\eta} {\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}+{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag)\,\rho_t\right)}\,dt + {{dW_t}}$. The continuous-time counterpart of provides the estimate ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t}$ by the Belavkin quantum filtering process $$\begin{gathered}
d{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} =-\tfrac{i}{\hbar}[{\boldsymbol{H}},{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t}] \,dt+\left({\boldsymbol{L}}{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2}({\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} +{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}) \right)\,dt
\\
+\sqrt{\eta}
\left( {\boldsymbol{L}}{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} + {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - {\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}+{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag){\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t}\right)} \rho_t^e\right)
\left({{dy_t}}- \sqrt{\eta}{\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}+{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag){\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t}\right)}\,dt\right).\end{gathered}$$ initialized to any density matrix ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{0}$. Thus $(\rho,{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}})$ obeys to the following set of nonlinear stochastic differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
&d\rho_t =-\tfrac{i}{\hbar}[{\boldsymbol{H}},\rho_t] \,dt+\left({\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2}({\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_t +\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}})\right) \,dt
\\&\quad + \sqrt{\eta}\left( {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_t + \rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - {\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}+{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag)\rho_t\right)} \rho_t \right) \, {{dW_t}}
\\[1.em]
&d{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} =-\tfrac{i}{\hbar}[{\boldsymbol{H}},{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t}] \,dt+\left({\boldsymbol{L}}{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t}{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2}({\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} +{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}) \right)\,dt
\\
&+\sqrt{\eta}
\left( {\boldsymbol{L}}{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} + {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - {\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}+{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag){\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t}\right)} {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t}\right){{dW_t}}
\\
&+{\eta
\left( {\boldsymbol{L}}{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} + {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t} {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - {\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}+{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag){\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t}\right)} {\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t}\right) {\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}+{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag){(\rho_t-{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_{t})}\right)}\,dt }
.\end{aligned}$$ It is proved in [@AminiBelavkin2014] that such filtering process is always stable in the sense that, as for the discrete-time case, the fidelity between $\rho_t$ and ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_t$ is a sub-martingale. In [@van-handel:proba2009] a first convergence analysis of these filters is proposed. Nevertheless the convergence characterization in terms of the operators ${\boldsymbol{H}}$, ${\boldsymbol{L}}$ and the parameter $\eta$ remains an open problem as far as we know.
Formulations of quantum filters for stochastic master equations driven by an arbitrary number of Wiener and Poisson processes can be found in [@AminiBelavkin2014].
Stabilization via measurement-based feedback
--------------------------------------------
Assume that the Hamiltonian $H=H_0+ u H_1 $ appearing in depends on some scalar control input $u$, $H_0$ and $H_1$ being Hermitian operators on ${\mathcal{H}}$. Assume also that $\bar\rho={| \bar\psi \rangle}{\langle \bar\psi |}$ is a steady-state of for $u=0$. Necessarily ${| \bar\psi \rangle}$ is an eigen-vector of each ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu$, ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu{| \bar\psi \rangle}=\lambda_\nu {| \bar\psi \rangle}$ for some $\lambda_\nu \in{{\mathbb C}}$. This implies that $\bar\rho$ is also a steady-state of with $u=0$, since ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu\bar\rho + \bar\rho {\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag = {\operatorname{Tr}\left(({\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu+{\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu^\dag)\bar\rho\right)} \bar\rho$. The stabilization of $\bar\rho$ consists then in finding a feedback law $u=f(\rho)$ with $f(\bar\rho)=0$ such that almost all trajectories $\rho_t$ of the closed-loop system with $H=H(t)=H_0+f(\rho_t) H_1$ converge to $\bar\rho$ when $t$ tends to $+\infty$. Such feedback law could be obtained by Lyapunov techniques as in [@mirrahimi-handel:siam07]. As in the discrete-case, $\rho_t$ is replaced, in the feedback law, by its estimate ${\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_t$ obtained via quantum filtering. Convergence is then guarantied as soon as ${\operatorname{Ker}}{{\rho^{\text{\tiny est}}}_0} \subset {\operatorname{Ker}}{\rho_0}$ [@bouten-handel:2008]. Other feedback schemes not relying directly on the quantum state $\rho_t$ but still based on past values of the measurement signals $y_{\nu}$ can be considered (see [@wiseman-milburnBook] for Markovian feedbacks; see [@VijayMSWMNKS2012N; @CampaFRDMMDMH2013PRX] for recent experimental implementations).
Stabilization via coherent feedback
-----------------------------------
This passive stabilization method has its origin, for classical system, in the classical Watt regulator where a mechanical system, the steam machine, was controlled by another mechanical system, a conical pendulum. As initially shown in [@maxwell-1868], the study of such closed-loop systems highlights stability and convergence as the main mathematical issues. For quantum systems, these issues remain similar and are related to reservoir engineering [@PoyatCZ1996PRL; @Lloyd2000PRA].
As in the discrete-time case, the goal remains to stabilize a pure state $\bar\rho_S={| \bar\psi_S \rangle}{\langle \bar\psi_S |}$ for system $S$ (Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_S$ and Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}}_S$) by coupling to the controller system $C$ (Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_C$, Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}}_C$) via the interaction ${\boldsymbol{H}}_{int}$, an Hermitian operator on ${\mathcal{H}}_S\otimes {\mathcal{H}}_C$. The controller $C$ is subject to decoherence described by the set $\Big({\boldsymbol{L}}_{C,\nu}\Big)$ of operators on ${\mathcal{H}}_C$ indexed by $\nu$. The closed-loop system is a composite system with Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}={\mathcal{H}}_S\otimes{\mathcal{H}}_C$. Its density operator $\rho$ obeys to with ${\boldsymbol{H}}={\boldsymbol{H}}_S\otimes {\boldsymbol{I}}_C+{\boldsymbol{I}}_S\otimes {\boldsymbol{H}}_C + {\boldsymbol{H}}_{int}$ and ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\nu = {\boldsymbol{I}}_S\otimes{\boldsymbol{L}}_{C,\nu}$ ( ${\boldsymbol{I}}_S$ and ${\boldsymbol{I}}_C$ identity operators on ${\mathcal{H}}_S$ and ${\mathcal{H}}_C$, respectively). Stabilization is achieved when $\rho(t)$ converges, whatever its initial condition $\rho(0)$ is, to a separable state of the form $\bar\rho_S \otimes \bar\rho_C$ where $\bar\rho_C$ could possibly depend on $t$ and/or on $\rho(0)$. In several interesting cases, such as cooling [@HamerM2012PRL], coherent feedback is shown to outperform measurement-based feedback.
The asymptotic analysis (stability and convergence rates) for such composite closed-loop systems is far from being obvious, even if such analysis is based on known properties for each subsystem and for the coupling Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}}_{int}$.
When ${\mathcal{H}}$ is of infinite dimension, convergence analysis becomes more difficult. To have an idea of the mathematical issues, we will consider two examples of physical interest. The first one is derived form [@sarlette-et-al:PRA2012]: $$\label{eq:CatKerr}
\tfrac{d}{dt}\rho =u [ {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag-{\boldsymbol{a}}, \rho] +\kappa \big({\boldsymbol{a}}\rho {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag - ({{\boldsymbol{N}}}\rho+\rho {{\boldsymbol{N}}})/2 \big)
+ \kappa_c \big( e^{i\pi{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}{\boldsymbol{a}}\rho {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag e^{-i\pi{{\boldsymbol{N}}}} - ({{\boldsymbol{N}}}\rho +\rho {{\boldsymbol{N}}})/2 \big)$$ where $u$, $\kappa$ and $\kappa_c$ are strictly positive parameters. It is shown in [@sarlette-et-al:PRA2012], that admits a unique steady state $\rho_{\infty}$ given by its Glauber-Shudarshan $P$ distribution: $$\rho_{\infty} = \int_{-\alpha^c_\infty}^{\alpha^c_\infty} \mu(x) {| x \rangle}{\langle x |}~ dx$$ where ${| x \rangle}$ is the coherent state of real amplitude $x$ and where the non-negative weight function $\mu$ reads $$\mu(x) = \mu_0\, \frac{\left(((\alpha^c_\infty) ^2 - x^2)^{(\alpha^c_\infty)^2}~e^{ x^2}\right)^{r_c}}{\alpha^c_\infty - x}\ ,$$ with $r_c=2\kappa_c/(\kappa+\kappa_c)$ and $\alpha^c_\infty=2u/(\kappa+\kappa_c)$. The normalization factor $\mu_0>0$ ensures that $ \int_{-\alpha^c_\infty}^{\alpha^c_\infty} \mu(x) dx\, =1$, i.e., ${\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho_\infty\right)}=1$. We conjecture that any solution $\rho(t)$ of starting from any initial condition $\rho(0)=\rho_0$ of finite energy (${\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho_0 {{\boldsymbol{N}}}\right)} < \infty$), converges in Frobenius norm towards $\rho_{\infty}$. When $\rho$ follows , its Wigner function $W^\rho$ (see appendix \[ap:oscillator\]) obeys to the following Fokker-Planck equation with non-local terms ($\Delta= {{\frac{\partial^2 ~}{\partial {x}^2}}}+{{\frac{\partial^2 ~}{\partial {p}^2}}}$): $$\begin{gathered}
\left. {{\frac{\partial W^{\rho}}{\partial t}}}\right|_{(t,x,p)} =
\tfrac{\kappa+\kappa_c}{2} \left({{\frac{\partial ~}{\partial x}}} \Big( (x-\alpha_\infty) W^{\rho}\Big) + {{\frac{\partial ~}{\partial p}}} \Big( p W^{\rho}\Big)
+ \tfrac{1}{4} \Delta W^{\rho} \right)_{(t,x,p)}
\\
+ \kappa_c \left((x^2+p^2+\tfrac{1}{2})\left( \left.W^{\rho}\right|_{{{(t,-x,-p)}}} - \left.W^{\rho}\right|_{(t,x,p)} \right) + \tfrac{1}{16}\left( \left.\Delta W^{\rho}\right|_{{{(t,-x,-p)}}} - \left.\Delta W^{\rho} \right|_{(t,x,p)} \right)
\right)
\\
- \kappa_c \left( \tfrac{x}{2}\left( \left.{{\frac{\partial W^{\rho}}{\partial x}}}\right|_{{{(t,-x,-p)}}}+ \left.{{\frac{\partial W^{\rho}}{\partial x}}}\right|_{(t,x,p)} \right)
+ \tfrac{p}{2}\left( \left.{{\frac{\partial W^{\rho}}{\partial p}}}\right|_{{{(t,-x,-p)}}}+ \left.{{\frac{\partial W^{\rho}}{\partial p}}}\right|_{(t,x,p)} \right) \right)
.\end{gathered}$$ This partial differential equation is derived from the correspondence relationships and $W^{e^{i\pi{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}\rho e^{-i\pi{{\boldsymbol{N}}}} } (x,p)\equiv W^{\rho}(-x,-p)$. We conjecture that $W^\rho(t,x,p)$ converges, when $t \mapsto +\infty$, towards $$W^{\rho_\infty}(x,p) = \int_{-\alpha^c_\infty}^{\alpha^c_\infty} \tfrac{2 \mu(\alpha)}{\pi} e^{-2 (x-\alpha)^2-2p^2}~ d\alpha$$ for any initial condition $W_0=W^{\rho_0}$ with finite energy, i.e., such that (see, e.g.,[@haroche-raimondBook06]\[equation (A.42)\]), $$\iint_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} (x^2+p^2)W_0(x,p) ~dx dp = \tfrac{1}{2}+{\operatorname{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol{N}}}\rho_0\right)} < +\infty
.$$
The second example is derived from [@MirrahimiCatComp2014] and could have important applications for quantum computations. It is governed by the following master equation: $$\label{eq:LindbladCatQubit}
{\frac{d}{dt}}\rho = u [ ({\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag)^r - {\boldsymbol{a}}^r,\rho] + \kappa \left(( {\boldsymbol{a}}^r \rho ({\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag)^r - \tfrac{1}{2}({\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag)^r{\boldsymbol{a}}^r \rho - \tfrac{1}{2}\rho ({\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag)^r{\boldsymbol{a}}^r \right)$$ where $u> 0$ and $\kappa>0$ are constant parameters and $r$ is an integer greater than $1$. Set $\bar\alpha= \sqrt[r]{2u/\kappa}$ and for $s\in\{0,1,\ldots,r-1\}$, $\bar\alpha_s=e^{2is\pi/r} \bar\alpha$. Denote by ${| \bar\alpha_s \rangle}$ the coherent state of complex amplitude $\bar\alpha_s$. Computations exploiting properties of coherent states recalled in appendix \[ap:oscillator\] show that, for any $s$, ${| \bar\alpha_s \rangle}{\langle \bar\alpha_s |}$ is a steady state of . Moreover the set of steady states corresponds to the density operators $\bar\rho$ with support inside the vector space spanned by the ${| \bar\alpha_s \rangle}$ for $s\in\{0,1,\ldots,r-1\}$. We conjecture that, for initial conditions $\rho(0)$ with finite energy (${\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho {{\boldsymbol{N}}}\right)} <\infty$), the solutions of are well defined and converge in Frobenius norm to such steady states $\bar\rho$ possibly depending on $\rho(0)$. Having sharp estimations of the convergence rates is also an open question. We cannot apply here the existing general convergence results towards “full rank steady-states” (see, e.g., [@AttalBook3_2006]\[chapter 4\]): here the rank of such steady states $\bar\rho$ is at most $r$. Another formulation of such dynamics can be given via the Wigner function $W^\rho$ of $\rho$ (see appendix \[ap:oscillator\]). With the correspondence , yields a partial differential equation describing the time evolution of $W^\rho$: this equation is of order one in time but of order $2r$ versus the phase plane variables $(x,p)$. It corresponds to an unusual Fokker-Planck equation of high order.
Concluding remarks
==================
The above exposure deals with specific and limited aspects of modelling and control of open quantum systems. It does not consider many other interesting developments such as
- controllability and motion planing in finite dimension [@alessandro:book; @grigoriu:hal-00696546] and in infinite dimension (see, e.g., [@beauchard-coron:06; @beauchard-et-al:JMP2010; @BeaucPR2013A; @chambrion-et-al:IHP09; @ervedoza-puel:ihp2009]);
- quantum Langevin equations and input/output approach [@gardiner-zollerBook], quantum signal amplification [@ClerkDGMS2010RMP] and linear quantum systems [@JamesNP2008ACITo];
- $(S,L,H)$ formalism for quantum networks [@GoughJ2009ACITo];
- master equations and quantum Fokker Planck equations [@CarmichaelBook99; @CarmichaelBook07];
- optimal control methods [@NielsKGK2010; @baudoin-salomon:scl2010; @baudoinJDE2005; @BonnaCGLSZ2012ACITo; @GaronGS2013PRA].
More topics can also be found in the review articles [@RNC:RNC1016; @James2011; @AltafT2012ACITo].
Quantum harmonic oscillator {#ap:oscillator}
===========================
We just recall here some useful formulae (see, e.g., [@barnett-radmoreBook]). The Hamiltonian formulation of the classical harmonic oscillator of pulsation $\omega >0$, ${\frac{d^2}{dt^2}}x = - \omega^2 x $, is as follows: $${\frac{d}{dt}}x =\omega p= {{\frac{\partial H}{\partial p}}}, \quad {\frac{d}{dt}}p = -\omega x = -
{{\frac{\partial H}{\partial x}}} \quad$$ with the classical Hamiltonian $H(x,p) =\frac{\omega}{2} (p^2 + x^2)$. The correspondence principle yields the following quantization: $H$ becomes an operator ${\boldsymbol{H}}$ on the function of $x\in{{\mathbb R}}$ with complex values. The classical state $(x(t),p(t))$ is replaced by the quantum state ${| \psi \rangle}_t$ associated to the function $\psi(x,t)\in{{\mathbb C}}$. At each $t$, ${{\mathbb R}}\ni x \mapsto \psi(x,t)$ is measurable and $\int_{{{\mathbb R}}} |\psi(x,t)|^2 dx =1$: for each $t$, ${| \psi \rangle}_t \in L^2({{\mathbb R}},{{\mathbb C}})$.
The Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}}$ is derived from the classical one $H$ by replacing $x$ by the Hermitian operator ${\boldsymbol{X}}\equiv \tfrac{x}{\sqrt{2}}$ and $p$ by the Hermitian operator ${\boldsymbol{P}}\equiv-\tfrac{ i }{\sqrt{2}} {{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}}$: $$\frac{{\boldsymbol{H}}}{\hbar}=\omega ({\boldsymbol{P}}^2 + {\boldsymbol{X}}^2) \equiv -\frac{\omega}{2}{{\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial {x}^2}}} +
\frac{\omega}{2} x^2
.$$ The Hamilton ordinary differential equations are replaced by the Schrödinger equation, ${\frac{d}{dt}}{| {\psi} \rangle} = - \imath\tfrac{{\boldsymbol{H}}}{\hbar} {| {\psi} \rangle}$, a partial differential equation defining $\psi(x,t)$ from its initial condition $(\psi(x,0))_{x\in{{\mathbb R}}}$: $
\imath {{\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}}}(x,t) = - \frac{\omega}{2} {{\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial {x}^2}}}(x,t) +
\frac{\omega}{2} x^2 \psi(x,t),\quad x\in{{\mathbb R}}.
$ The average position reads $
{\langle {\boldsymbol{X}}\rangle}_t = {\langle \psi|{\boldsymbol{X}}|\psi \rangle} = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} x|\psi|^2 dx.
$ The average impulsion reads $
{\langle {\boldsymbol{P}}\rangle}_t = {\langle \psi|{\boldsymbol{P}}|\psi \rangle}= -\tfrac{ \imath }{\sqrt{2}} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \psi^\ast
{{\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}}} dx,
$ (real quantity via an integration by part).
It is very convenient to introduced the annihilation operator ${\boldsymbol{a}}$ and creation operator ${\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag$: $$\label{eq:aa}
{\boldsymbol{a}}={\boldsymbol{X}}+ \imath {\boldsymbol{P}}\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(x+{{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}}\right)
,\quad
{\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag={\boldsymbol{X}}- \imath {\boldsymbol{P}}\equiv \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(x-{{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}}\right)
.$$ We have $$[{\boldsymbol{X}},{\boldsymbol{P}}] = \tfrac{ \imath }{2}{\boldsymbol{I}}, \quad [{\boldsymbol{a}},{\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag]= {\boldsymbol{I}}, \quad
{\boldsymbol{H}}= \omega ({\boldsymbol{P}}^2 + {\boldsymbol{X}}^2) =\omega \left({\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{a}}+ \tfrac{1}{2} {\boldsymbol{I}}\right)$$ where ${\boldsymbol{I}}$ stands for the identity operator.
Since $[{{\boldsymbol{a}}},{{\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag}]= {\boldsymbol{I}}$, the spectral decomposition of ${{\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag} {{\boldsymbol{a}}} $ is simple. The Hermitian operator ${{\boldsymbol{N}}}={\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag{\boldsymbol{a}}$, the photon-number operator, admits ${{\mathbb N}}$ as non degenerate spectrum. The normalized eigenstate ${| n \rangle}$ associated to $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$, is denoted by ${| {n} \rangle}$. Thus the underlying Hilbert space reads $${\mathcal{H}}=\left\{\sum_{n\ge 0} \psi_n {| n \rangle},\; (\psi_n)_{n\ge 0}\in l^2({{\mathbb C}})\right\}$$ where $({| n \rangle})_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}$ is the Hilbert basis of photon-number states (also called Fock states). For $n>0$, we have $${{\boldsymbol{a}}}{{| {n} \rangle}} = \sqrt{n} ~{{| {n-1} \rangle}}
, \quad
{{\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag} {{| {n} \rangle}} = \sqrt{n+1}~{{| {n+1} \rangle}}
.$$ The ground state ${{| {0} \rangle}}$ is characterized by ${{\boldsymbol{a}}}{{| {0} \rangle}}= 0$. It corresponds to the Gaussian function ${\psi_0(x)}=\frac{1}{\pi^{1/4}}\exp(-x^2/2)$.
For any function $f$ we have the following commutations $${\boldsymbol{a}}f({{\boldsymbol{N}}})= f({{\boldsymbol{N}}}+{\boldsymbol{I}}) {\boldsymbol{a}}, \quad {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag f({{\boldsymbol{N}}})= f({{\boldsymbol{N}}}-{\boldsymbol{I}}) {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag.$$ In particular for any angle $\theta$, $e^{i\theta {{\boldsymbol{N}}}} {\boldsymbol{a}}e^{-i\theta {{\boldsymbol{N}}}} = e^{-i\theta} {\boldsymbol{a}}$.
For any amplitude $\alpha\in{{\mathbb C}}$, the Glauber displacement unitary operator ${\boldsymbol{D}}_\alpha$ is defined by $$\label{eq:Dalpha}
{\boldsymbol{D}}_\alpha = e^{\alpha~ {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag - \alpha^*{\boldsymbol{a}}}$$ We have ${\boldsymbol{D}}_\alpha^{-1}= {\boldsymbol{D}}_\alpha^\dag = {\boldsymbol{D}}_{-\alpha}$. The following Glauber formula is useful: if two operators ${\boldsymbol{A}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{B}}$ commute with their commutator, i.e., if $[{\boldsymbol{A}},[{\boldsymbol{A}},{\boldsymbol{B}}]]=[{\boldsymbol{B}},[{\boldsymbol{A}},{\boldsymbol{B}}]]=0$, then we have $e^{{\boldsymbol{A}}+{\boldsymbol{B}}} =e^{{\boldsymbol{A}}} ~e^{{\boldsymbol{B}}}~ e^{-\tfrac{1}{2}[{\boldsymbol{A}},{\boldsymbol{B}}]}$. Since ${\boldsymbol{A}}=\alpha {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag$ and ${\boldsymbol{B}}=-\alpha^* {\boldsymbol{a}}$ are in this case, we have another expression for ${\boldsymbol{D}}_\alpha$ $$\label{eq:DalphaBis}
{\boldsymbol{D}}_\alpha = e^{-\tfrac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}~e^{\alpha {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag} e^{ - \alpha^* {\boldsymbol{a}}}= e^{+\tfrac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}~e^{-\alpha^* {\boldsymbol{a}}} e^{ \alpha {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag}
.$$ The terminology displacement has its origin in the following property derived from Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula: $$\label{eq:DalphaA}
\forall \alpha\in{{\mathbb C}}, \quad {\boldsymbol{D}}_{-\alpha} {\boldsymbol{a}}{\boldsymbol{D}}_\alpha = {\boldsymbol{a}}+ \alpha \quad \text{and} \quad {\boldsymbol{D}}_{-\alpha} {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{D}}_\alpha = {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag + \alpha^*
.$$ To the classical state $(x,p)$ is associated a quantum state usually called coherent state of complex amplitude $\alpha= (x+\imath p)/\sqrt{2}$ and denoted by ${| \alpha \rangle}$: $$\label{eq:coherent}
{| \alpha \rangle} = {\boldsymbol{D}}_\alpha {| 0 \rangle} = e^{-\tfrac{|\alpha|^2}{2}} \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \tfrac{\alpha^n}{\sqrt{n!}} {| n \rangle}
.$$ ${| \alpha \rangle}$ corresponds to the translation of the Gaussian profile corresponding to vacuum state ${| 0 \rangle}$: $${| \alpha \rangle} \equiv \left( {{\mathbb R}}\ni x \mapsto \tfrac{1 }{\pi^{1/4}}
e^{\imath\sqrt{2}x \Im\alpha } e^{-\frac{(x-\sqrt{2}\Re\alpha )^2}{2}}\right).$$ This usual notation is potentially ambiguous: the coherent state ${| \alpha \rangle}$ is very different from the photon-number state ${| n \rangle}$ where $n$ is a non negative integer: The probability $p_n$ to obtain $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ during the measurement of ${{\boldsymbol{N}}}$ with ${| \alpha \rangle}$ obeys to a Poisson law $p_n=e^{-|\alpha|^2} |\alpha|^{2n}/n!$. The resulting average energy is thus given by ${\langle \alpha|{{\boldsymbol{N}}}|\alpha \rangle}= |\alpha|^2$. Only for $\alpha=0$ and $n=0$, these quantum states coincide.
The coherent state $\alpha\in{{\mathbb C}}$ is the unitary eigenstate of ${\boldsymbol{a}}$ associated to the eigenvalue $\alpha\in{{\mathbb C}}$: ${\boldsymbol{a}}{| \alpha \rangle} =\alpha {| \alpha \rangle}$. Since ${\boldsymbol{H}}/\hbar =\omega ({{\boldsymbol{N}}}+\tfrac{1}{2})$, the solution of the Schrödinger equation ${\frac{d}{dt}}{| \psi \rangle} = - \imath \frac{{\boldsymbol{H}}}{\hbar } {| \psi \rangle},$ with initial value a coherent state ${| \psi \rangle}_{t=0}={| \alpha_0 \rangle}$ ($\alpha_0\in{{\mathbb C}}$) remains a coherent state with time varying amplitude $\alpha_t= e^{-\imath \omega t}\alpha_0$: $${| \psi \rangle}_t= e^{-\imath \omega t/2} {| \alpha_t \rangle}
.$$ These coherent solutions are the quantum counterpart of the classical solutions: $x_t=\sqrt{2}\Re(\alpha_t)$ and $p_t=\sqrt{2}\Im(\alpha_t)$ are solutions of the classical Hamilton equations ${\frac{d}{dt}}x = \omega p$ and ${\frac{d}{dt}}p = -\omega x$ since ${\frac{d}{dt}}\alpha_t = - \imath \omega \alpha_t $. The addition of a control input, a classical drive of amplitude $u\in{{\mathbb R}}$, yields to the following control Schrödinger equation $${\frac{d}{dt}}{| \psi \rangle} = -\imath \Big(\omega \left({\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{a}}+ \tfrac{1}{2}\right) + u ({\boldsymbol{a}}+{\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag) \Big) {| \psi \rangle}$$ It is the quantum version of the control classical harmonic oscillator $${\frac{d}{dt}}x = \omega p, \quad {\frac{d}{dt}}p = -\omega x - u \sqrt{2}
.$$
![Wigner function of typical quantum states of an harmonic oscillator. []{data-label="fig:Wigner_intro"}](Wigners_intro){width="80.00000%"}
A possible definition of the Wigner function $W^\rho$ attached to any density operator $\rho$ is as follows: $$W^\rho:{{\mathbb C}}\ni\alpha\rightarrow \tfrac{2}{\pi}{\operatorname{Tr}\left(e^{i\pi{{\boldsymbol{N}}}} e^{-\alpha {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag + \alpha^* {\boldsymbol{a}}} \rho e^{\alpha {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag - \alpha^* {\boldsymbol{a}}} \right)} \in[-2/\pi,2/\pi]$$ where $\alpha=x+i p$ is a position in the phase-plane $(x,p)$ of the classical oscillator. With the correspondences $$\begin{split}\label{eq:correspondence}
& {{\frac{\partial }{\partial \alpha}}}= \tfrac{1}{2} \left({{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}}-i {{\frac{\partial }{\partial p}}} \right), \quad {{\frac{\partial }{\partial \alpha^*}}}= \tfrac{1}{2} \left({{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}}+i {{\frac{\partial }{\partial p}}} \right)
\\
&W^{\rho {\boldsymbol{a}}} = \left(\alpha - \tfrac{1}{2} {{\frac{\partial }{\partial \alpha^*}}}\right) W^\rho, \quad W^{{\boldsymbol{a}}\rho } = \left(\alpha + \tfrac{1}{2} {{\frac{\partial }{\partial \alpha^*}}}\right) W^\rho
\\
&W^{\rho {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag } = \left(\alpha^* + \tfrac{1}{2} {{\frac{\partial }{\partial \alpha}}}\right) W^\rho, \quad W^{{\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag \rho } = \left(\alpha^* - \tfrac{1}{2} {{\frac{\partial }{\partial \alpha}}}\right) W^\rho
\end{split}$$ the Lindblad-Kossakovki governing the evolution of the density operator $\rho$ of a quantum oscillator, with damping time constant $1/\kappa >0$ and resonant drive of real amplitude $u$, $${\frac{d}{dt}}\rho = u[{\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag - {\boldsymbol{a}},\rho] + \kappa\left({\boldsymbol{a}}\rho {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag - ({{\boldsymbol{N}}}\rho + \rho {{\boldsymbol{N}}})/2\right)
,$$ becomes a convection-diffusion equation for the Wigner function $W^\rho$ $${{\frac{\partial W^\rho}{\partial t}}} =
\tfrac{\kappa}{2} \left( {{\frac{\partial ~}{\partial x}}} \Big( (x-\bar\alpha) W^\rho\Big) + {{\frac{\partial ~}{\partial p}}} \Big( p W^\rho\Big)
+ \tfrac{1}{4} \Delta W^\rho \right)$$ where $\Delta$ denotes the Laplacian operator $\tfrac{\partial ^2}{\partial x^2}+ \tfrac{\partial ^2}{\partial p^2}$. The solutions converge toward the Gaussian steady-state $W^{{\overline{\rho}}}(x,p) = \tfrac{2}{\pi} e^{-2 (x-\bar\alpha)^2-2p^2}$, where ${\overline{\rho}}={| \bar\alpha \rangle}{\langle \bar\alpha |}$ is the coherent state of amplitude $\bar\alpha= 2u/\kappa$.
Qubit {#ap:qubit}
=====
The underlying Hilbert space $
{\mathcal{H}}={{\mathbb C}}^2=\left\{c_g{| {g} \rangle}+c_e{| {e} \rangle},\; c_g,c_e\in {{\mathbb C}}\right\}$ where $({| g \rangle},{| e \rangle})$ is the ortho-normal frame formed by the ground state ${| g \rangle}$ and the excited state ${| e \rangle}$. It is usual to consider the following operators on $\mathcal H$: $$\label{eq:Smpxyz}
\begin{split}
&{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf -}}}}={| {g} \rangle}{\langle {e} |}, \quad {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf +}}}}={\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf -}}}}^\dag={| {e} \rangle}{\langle {g} |}, \quad {{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}}={\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf -}}}}+{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf +}}}}={| {g} \rangle}{\langle {e} |}+ {| {e} \rangle}{\langle {g} |},
\\
& {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}=i {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf -}}}}-i {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf +}}}}= i{| {g} \rangle}{\langle {e} |}-i{| {e} \rangle}{\langle {g} |}
,\quad {{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}}={\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf +}}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf -}}}}- {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf -}}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf +}}}}= {\verte\rangle\langlee\vert}-{\vertg\rangle\langleg\vert}.
\end{split}$$ ${\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}$, ${\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}$ are the Pauli operators. They are square root of ${\boldsymbol{I}}$: $
{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}^2={\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}^2= {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}^2={\boldsymbol{I}}.
$ They anti-commute $${\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}= - {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}= i {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}, \quad
{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}= - {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}= i {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}, \quad
{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}= - {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}= i {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}$$ and thus $ [{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}},{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}] = 2 i {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}$, $[{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}},{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}] = 2 i {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}$, $[{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}},{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}] = 2 i {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}$. The uncontrolled evolution is governed by the Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}}/\hbar={\omega {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}}/2$ where $\omega >0$ is the qubit pulsation. Thus the solution of ${\frac{d}{dt}}{| \psi \rangle} = -i\frac{{\boldsymbol{H}}}{\hbar}{| \psi \rangle}$ is given by $${| \psi \rangle}_t = e^{-i\left(\tfrac{\omega t}{2}\right){\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}} {| \psi \rangle}_0= \cos\left(\tfrac{\omega t}{2}\right) {| \psi \rangle}_0- i\sin\left(\tfrac{\omega t}{2}\right) {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}{| \psi \rangle}_0$$ since for any angle $\theta$ we have $$e^{i\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}}= \cos\theta + i \sin\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}, \quad
e^{i\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}}= \cos\theta + i \sin\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}},\quad
e^{i\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}}= \cos\theta + i \sin\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}.$$ Since the Pauli operators anti-commute, we have the useful relationships: $$e^{i\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}= {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}e^{-i\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}}, \quad
e^{i\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}= {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}e^{-i\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}}, \quad
e^{i\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}}{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}= {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}e^{-i\theta{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}}.$$
The orthogonal projector $\rho ={| \psi \rangle} {\langle \psi |}$, the density operator associated to the pure state ${| \psi \rangle}$, obeys to the Liouville equation ${\frac{d}{dt}}\rho = -\tfrac{i}{\hbar} [{\boldsymbol{H}},\rho].$ Mixed quantum states are described by $\rho$ that are Hermitian, non-negative and of trace one. For a qubit, the Bloch sphere representation is a useful tool exploiting the smooth correspondence between such $\rho$ and the unit ball of ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ considered as Euclidian space: $$\rho = \frac{{\boldsymbol{I}}+ x{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}+ y{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}+ z {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}}{2}, \quad (x,y,z) \in{{\mathbb R}}^3, \quad x^2+y^2+z^2\leq 1
.$$ $(x,y,z)\in{{\mathbb R}}^3$ are the coordinates in the orthonormal frame $(\vec\imath,\vec\jmath,\vec k)$ of the Bloch vector $\vec M\in{{\mathbb R}}^3$. This vector lives on or inside the unit sphere, called Bloch sphere: $$\vec M = x \vec\imath + y \vec\jmath + z \vec k.$$ Since ${\operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho^2\right)}=x^2+y^2+z^2$, $\vec M$ is on the Bloch sphere when $\rho$ is of rank one and thus is a pure state. The translation of Liouville equation on $\vec M$ yields with ${\boldsymbol{H}}/\hbar = \omega {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}/2$: $
{\frac{d}{dt}}\vec M = \omega \vec k \times \vec M.
$ For the two-level system with the coherent drive described by the complex-value control $u$, ${\boldsymbol{H}}/\hbar = \tfrac{\omega}{2} {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}+ \tfrac{\Re(u)}{2} {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! x}}}+ \tfrac{\Im(u)}{2} {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! y}}}$ and the Liouville equation reads, with the Bloch vector $\vec M$ representation, $${\frac{d}{dt}}\vec M = (\Re(u)\vec\imath +\Im(u) \vec\jmath+\omega \vec k ) \times \vec M
.$$
Jaynes-Cumming Hamiltonians and propagators {#ap:JC}
===========================================
The Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian [@jaynes-cummings-ieee64] is the simplest Hamiltonian describing the interaction between an harmonic oscillator and a qubit. Such an interaction admits two regimes, the resonant one where the oscillator and the qubit exchange energy, the dispersive one where the oscillator pulsation depends on the qubit state and where the qubit pulsation, slightly different from the oscillator pulsation, depends on the number of vibration quanta. We recall below the simplest forms of these Hamiltonians in the interaction frame. A deeper and complete presentation can be found in [@haroche-raimondBook06].
The resonant Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}}_{res}$ is given by $$\label{eq:Hres}
{\boldsymbol{H}}_{res} /\hbar = i f(t) ~\big( {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag\otimes{\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf -}}}}- {\boldsymbol{a}}\otimes {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\!\text{\bf +}}}}\big)= i f(t) ~\big( {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag\otimes{| g \rangle}{\langle e |} - {\boldsymbol{a}}\otimes {| e \rangle}{\langle g |} \big)$$ whereas the dispersive one ${\boldsymbol{H}}_{disp}$ is a simple tensor product: $$\label{eq:Hdisp}
{\boldsymbol{H}}_{disp} /\hbar =f(t)~{{\boldsymbol{N}}}\otimes {\boldsymbol{\sigma_{\! z}}}= f(t) ~{{\boldsymbol{N}}}\otimes \big( {\verte\rangle\langlee\vert}-{\vertg\rangle\langleg\vert}\big)$$ where $f(t)$ is a known real parameter depending possibly on the time $t$.
Simple computations show that the resonant propagator ${\boldsymbol{U}}_{res}$ between $t_0$ and $t_1$ associated to ${\boldsymbol{H}}_{res}$, i.e., the solution of Cauchy problem $${\frac{d}{dt}}{\boldsymbol{U}}= - i \frac{{\boldsymbol{H}}_{res}}{\hbar} {\boldsymbol{U}}, \quad U(t_0)={\boldsymbol{I}},$$ is explicit and given by the following compact formulae: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Ures}
{\boldsymbol{U}}_{res}(t_0,t_1) = \cos\left( \tfrac{\int_{t_0}^{t_1}f}{2} \sqrt{{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}\right) \otimes{| g \rangle}{\langle g |} + \cos\left( \tfrac{\int_{t_0}^{t_1}f}{2}\sqrt{{{{{\boldsymbol{N}}}+{\boldsymbol{I}}}}}\right)\otimes {| e \rangle}{\langle e |} \\
- {\boldsymbol{a}}\frac{\sin\left( \tfrac{\int_{t_0}^{t_1}f}{2} \sqrt{{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}\right)}{\sqrt{{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}} \otimes {| e \rangle}{\langle g |} \, + \frac{\sin \left( \tfrac{\int_{t_0}^{t_1}f}{2} \sqrt{{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}\right)}{\sqrt{{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}} \, {\boldsymbol{a}}^\dag \otimes{| g \rangle}{\langle e |}
.\end{gathered}$$ It is instructive to check that $ {\boldsymbol{U}}^\dag_{res}{\boldsymbol{U}}_{res}={\boldsymbol{I}}$. Similarly, the dispersive propagator ${\boldsymbol{U}}_{disp}$ between $t_1$ and $t_2$ associated to ${\boldsymbol{H}}_{disp}$ is given by $$\label{eq:Udisp}
{\boldsymbol{U}}_{disp}(t_0,t_1) = \exp\left(i {{\boldsymbol{N}}}\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\hspace{-0.7em}f \right)\otimes {| g \rangle}{\langle g |} +\exp\left(-i {{\boldsymbol{N}}}\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\hspace{-0.7em}f \right) \otimes {| e \rangle}{\langle e |}.$$
A positiveness-preserving numerical scheme {#ap:num}
==========================================
This appendix describes a positiveness-preserving formulation of the Euler-Milstein scheme for the numerical integration of stochastic master equations driven by a single Wiener process. They admit the following form $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:lindblad}
d\rho_t = \left(-\imath[{\boldsymbol{H}},\rho_t] + \sum_{\mu} {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu \rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2} ({\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu \rho_t + \rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu) \right) dt
\\
+ \bigg(
{\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2} ({\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_t + \rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}})\bigg) dt +
\sqrt{\eta} \bigg( {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_t + \rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - {\operatorname{Tr}\left( {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_t + \rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag\right)}\rho_t \bigg) dW_t\end{gathered}$$ where $\rho$ is a square non-negative Hermitian matrix of trace $1$, ${\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu$ and ${\boldsymbol{L}}$ are square matrices, $ W_t$ is a Wiener process and $\eta\in[0,1]$ is the detection efficiency. The measured continuous signal $y_t$ is given by $dy_t = \sqrt{\eta} {\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_t + \rho_t {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag\right)} dt + dW_t $.
For $dx =f(x)dt + g(x) dW_t$ ($x\in{{\mathbb R}}^d$ for some integer $d$, $f$ and $g$ smooth functions), the Euler-Milstein scheme (order $1$ in the discretization step denoted $dt$) reads [@MilsteinBook] $$x_{n+1}= x_n + f(x_n) dt + g(x_n) dW_n + \tfrac{1}{2} \frac{\partial g}{\partial x}(x_n) \cdot g(x_n) (dW_n^2-dt)$$ where $x_{n}$, for $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, is an approximation of $x_{n dt}$ and $dW_n$ is a Gaussian variable with zero average and variance $dt$. For , we get $$\begin{gathered}
\rho_{n+1} = \rho_n +
\left(-\imath[{\boldsymbol{H}},\rho_n] + \sum_{\mu} {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu \rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2} ({\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu \rho_n + \rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu) \right) dt
\\+\bigg( {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - \tfrac{1}{2} ({\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n + \rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}})\bigg) dt + \sqrt{\eta} \bigg( {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n + \rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag
- {\operatorname{Tr}\left( {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n + \rho_n{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag\right)}\rho_n \bigg) dW_n \\
+
\tfrac{\eta}{2} \bigg(
{\boldsymbol{L}}^2 \rho_n + \rho_n ({\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag)^2 + 2 {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag - 2 {\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n+\rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag\right)} ({\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n+\rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag) \ldots
\\
- \big( {\operatorname{Tr}\left( {\boldsymbol{L}}^2 \rho_n + \rho_n ({\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag)^2\right)} + 2 {\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag\right)} - 2 {\operatorname{Tr}^2\left({\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n + \rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag\right)} \big)\rho_n
\bigg) (dW_n^2-dt)
.\end{gathered}$$ Let us consider the following matrix $${\boldsymbol{M}}_n = {\boldsymbol{I}}- dt \left( i {\boldsymbol{H}}+\tfrac{1 }{2}\sum_{\mu} {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu + \tfrac{1 }{2}{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag {\boldsymbol{L}}\right) + \sqrt{\eta} \bigg(\sqrt{\eta} {\operatorname{Tr}\left({\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n +\rho_n{\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag\right)} dt + dW_n \bigg) {\boldsymbol{L}}+ \tfrac{\eta}{2} (dW_n^2-dt) {\boldsymbol{L}}^2.$$ Here $dW_n$ is of order $\sqrt{dt}$ and $dW_n^2-dt$ is of order $dt$. Then simple but slightly tedious computations up to $dt^{3/2} $ show that $\rho_{n+1}$ given by the above Euler-Milstein scheme reads also $$\label{eq:Milstein}
\rho_{n+1} = \frac{{\boldsymbol{M}}_n \rho_n {\boldsymbol{M}}_n^\dag + \sum_\mu {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu \rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu^\dag dt + (1-\eta) {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag dt }{{\operatorname{Tr}\left(
{\boldsymbol{M}}_n \rho_n {\boldsymbol{M}}_n^\dag +\sum_\mu {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu \rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}_\mu^\dag dt + (1-\eta) {\boldsymbol{L}}\rho_n {\boldsymbol{L}}^\dag dt\right)} } + O(dt^{3/2}).$$ When $\eta=0$, this expression provides, for any deterministic Lindblad differential equation, a positiveness-preserving formulation of the explicit Euler scheme.
[10]{}
C. Altafini and F. Ticozzi. Modeling and control of quantum systems: An introduction. , 57(8):1898–1917, 2012.
H Amini, C. Pellegrini, and P. Rouchon. Stability of continuous-time quantum filters with measurement imperfections. , 2013.
H. Amini, R.A. Somaraju, I. Dotsenko, C. Sayrin, M. Mirrahimi, and P. Rouchon. Feedback stabilization of discrete-time quantum systems subject to non-demolition measurements with imperfections and delays. , 49(9):2683–2692, September 2013.
S. Attal, A. Joye, and C.-A. Pillet, editors. . Springer, Lecture notes in Mathematics 1880, 2006.
A. Barchielli and M. Gregoratti. . Springer Verlag, 2009.
S. M. Barnett and P. M. Radmore. . Oxford University Press, 2003.
L. Baudoin and J. Salomon. Constructive solution of a bilinear optimal control problem for a [S]{}chrödinger equation. , 57:453––464, 2008.
L. Baudouin, O. Kavian, and J.P. Puel. Regularity for a [S]{}chrödinger equation with singular potentials and application to bilinear optimal control. , 216:188–222, 2005.
M; Bauer, T. Benoist, and D. Bernard:. Repeated quantum non-demolition measurements: Convergence and continuous time limit. , 14:639––679, 2013.
K. Beauchard and J.-M. Coron. Controllability of a quantum particle in a moving potential well. , 232:328–389, 2006.
K. Beauchard, J.-M. Coron, and P. Rouchon. Controllability issues for continuous spectrum systems and ensemble controllability of [B]{}loch equations. , 296:525–557, 2010.
K. Beauchard, P.S. Pereira da Silva, and P. Rouchon. Stabilization of an arbitrary profile for an ensemble of half-spin systems. , 49(7):2133–2137, July 2013.
V.P. Belavkin. Quantum stochastic calculus and quantum nonlinear filtering. , 42(2):171–201, 1992.
G. Birkhoff. Extensions of [J]{}entzch’s theorem. , 85:219–227, 1957.
B. Bonnard, O. Cots, S.J. Glaser, M. Lapert, D. Sugny, and Yun Zhang. Geometric optimal control of the contrast imaging problem in nuclear magnetic resonance. , 57(8):1957–1969, 2012.
L. Bouten and R. van Handel. , chapter On the separation principle of quantum control. World Scientific, 2008.
P. Campagne-Ibarcq, E. Flurin, N. Roch, D. Darson, P. Morfin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, F. Mallet, and B. Huard. Persistent control of a superconducting qubit by stroboscopic measurement feedback. , 3(2):021008–, May 2013.
H. . Carmichael. . , 1993.
H. Carmichael. Springer, 1999.
H. Carmichael. . Spinger, 2007.
T. Chambrion, P. Mason, M. Sigalotti, and M. Boscain. Controllability of the discrete-spectrum [S]{}chrödinger equation driven by an external field. , 26(1):329–349, 2009.
A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, Florian Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf. Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification. , 82(2):1155–1208, April 2010.
D. D’Alessandro. . Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2008.
J. Dalibard, Y. Castion, and K. M[ø]{}lmer. Wave-function approach to dissipative processes in quantum optics. , 68(5):580–583, 1992.
E.B. Davies. . Academic Press, 1976.
I. Dotsenko, M. Mirrahimi, M. Brune, S. Haroche, J.-M. Raimond, and P. Rouchon. Quantum feedback by discrete quantum non-demolition measurements: towards on-demand generation of photon-number states. , 80: 013805-013813, 2009.
S. Ervedoza and J.-P. Puel. Approximate controllability for a system of [S]{}chrödinger equations modeling a single trapped ion. , 26(6):2111 – 2136, 2009.
C.W. Gardiner and P. Zoller. . Springer, third edition, 2010.
A. Garon, S. J. Glaser, and D. Sugny. Time-optimal control of [SU(2)]{} quantum operations. , 88(4):043422–, October 2013.
J. Gough and M.R. James. The series product and its application to quantum feedforward and feedback networks. , 54(11):2530–2544, 2009.
A. Grigoriu, H. Rabitz, and G. Turinici. Controllability analysis of quantum systems immersed within an engineered environment. , 51(6):1548–1560, 2013.
R. Hamerly and H. Mabuchi. Advantages of coherent feedback for cooling quantum oscillators. , 109(17):173602–, October 2012.
S. Haroche and J.M. Raimond. Oxford University Press, 2006.
M.R. James. Quantum feedback control. In [*Control Conference (CCC), 2011 30th Chinese*]{}, pages 26–34, 2011.
M.R. James, H.I. Nurdin, and I.R. Petersen. H infinity control of linear quantum stochastic systems. , 53(8):1787–1803, 2008.
E.T. Jaynes and F.W. Cummings. Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser. , 51(1):89–109, 1963.
A. Kastler. Optical methods for studying [H]{}ertzian resonances. , 158(3798):214–221, October 1967.
A. Kossakowski. On quantum statistical mechanics of non-[H]{}amiltonian systems. , 3, 1972.
H.J. Kushner. . Holt, Rinehart and Wilson, INC., 1971.
Z. Leghtas. . PhD thesis, Mines ParisTech, 2012.
G. Lindblad. On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups. , 48, 1976.
S. Lloyd. Coherent quantum feedback. , 62(2):022108–, July 2000.
H. Mabuchi and N. Khaneja. Principles and applications of control in quantum systems. , 15(15):647–667, 2005.
J.C Maxwell. On governors. , 16, 1868.
G.N. Milstein. . Spinger, 1995.
M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas , V.V. Albert, S. Touzard, R.J.. Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M.H. Devoret. Dynamically protected cat-qubits: a new paradigm for universal quantum computation. , 2014.
M. Mirrahimi and R. Van Handel. Stabilizing feedback controls for quantum systems. , 46(2):445–467, 2007.
M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang. . Cambridge University Press, 2000.
N.C. Nielsen, C. Kehlet, S.J. Glaser, and N. Khaneja. Optimal control methods in nmr spectroscopy. In [*Encyclopedia of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance*]{}, pages –. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2010.
D. Petz. Monotone metrics on matrix spaces. , 244:81–96, 1996.
J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller. Quantum reservoir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions. , 77(23):4728–4731, December 1996.
D. [Reeb]{}, M. J. [Kastoryano]{}, and M. M. [Wolf]{}. . , 52(8):082201, August 2011.
P. Rouchon. Fidelity is a sub-martingale for discrete-time quantum filters. , 56(11):2743–2747, 2011.
S. Sarlette, M. Brune, J.M. Raimond, and P. Rouchon. Stabilization of nonclassical states of the radiation field in a cavity by reservoir engineering. , 107:010402, 2011.
S. Sarlette, Z. Leghtas, M. Brune, J.M. Raimond, and P. Rouchon. Stabilization of nonclassical states of one and two-mode radiation fields by reservoir engineering. , 86:012114, 2012.
C. Sayrin. . PhD thesis, Université Paris VI, 2011.
C. Sayrin, I. Dotsenko, X. Zhou, B. Peaudecerf, Th. Rybarczyk, S. Gleyzes, P. Rouchon, M. Mirrahimi, H. Amini, M. Brune, J.M. Raimond, and S. Haroche. Real-time quantum feedback prepares and stabilizes photon number states. , 477:73–77, 2011.
R. Sepulchre, A. Sarlette, and P. Rouchon. Consensus in non-commutative spaces. In [*Decision and Control (CDC), 2010 49th IEEE Conference on*]{}, pages 6596–6601, 2010.
A. Somaraju, I. Dotsenko, C. Sayrin, and P. Rouchon. Design and stability of discrete-time quantum filters with measurement imperfections. In [*American Control Conference*]{}, pages 5084–5089, 2012.
A. Somaraju, M. Mirrahimi, and P Rouchon. Approximate stabilization of an infinite dimensional quantum stochastic system. , 25(01):1350001–, January 2013.
R. van Handel. . PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, 2007.
R. van Handel. The stability of quantum [M]{}arkov filters. , 12:153–172, 2009.
R. Vijay, C. Macklin, D. H. Slichter, S. J. Weber, K. W. Murch, R. Naik, A. N. Korotkov, and I. Siddiqi. Stabilizing [R]{}abi oscillations in a superconducting qubit using quantum feedback. , 490(7418):77–80, 2012.
H.M. Wiseman and G.J. Milburn. . Cambridge University Press, 2009.
X. Zhou, I. Dotsenko, B. Peaudecerf, T. Rybarczyk, C. Sayrin, J.M. Raimond S. Gleyzes, M. Brune, and S. Haroche. Field locked to [F]{}ock state by quantum feedback with single photon corrections. , 108:243602, 2012.
[^1]: Centre Automatique et Systèmes, Mines ParisTech, PSL Research University, 60 boulevard Saint-Michel, 75006 Paris. E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: This article is an extended version of the paper attached to the conference given by the author at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Seoul, August 13 - 21, 2014.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We exploit the geometric approach to the virtual fundamental class, due to Fukaya-Ono and Li-Tian, to compare Gromov-Witten invariants of a symplectic manifold and a symplectic submanifold whenever all constrained stable maps to the former are contained in the latter to first order. Various special cases of the comparison theorem in this paper have long been used in the algebraic category; some of them have also appeared in the symplectic setting. Combined with the inherent flexibility of the symplectic category, the main theorem leads to a confirmation of Pandharipande’s Gopakumar-Vafa prediction for GW-invariants of Fano classes in 6-dimensional symplectic manifolds. The proof of the main theorem uses deformations of the Cauchy-Riemann equation that respect the submanifold and Carleman Similarity Principle for solutions of perturbed Cauchy-Riemann equations. In a forthcoming paper, we apply a similar approach to relative Gromov-Witten invariants and the absolute/relative correspondence in genus $0$.'
author:
- 'Aleksey Zinger[^1]'
title: |
A Comparison Theorem for Gromov-Witten Invariants\
in the Symplectic Category
---
Introduction {#intro_sec}
============
Gromov-Witten invariants are certain counts of pseudo-holomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds that play prominent roles in symplectic topology, algebraic geometry, and string theory. These are usually rational numbers, and their precise relations with some sort of integer enumerative counts of curves are rarely clear. However, it is well-known that genus $0$ GW-invariants of Fano manifolds are precisely counts of rational curves; this observation is key to enumerating rational curves in projective space in [@KoM Section 5] and [@RT Section 10]. String theory predicts an amazing integral structure for GW-invariants of Calabi-Yau threefolds. These predictions originate in [@AsMo], [@GV1], and [@GV2] and are extended to all threefolds in [@P1].\
GW-invariants of a symplectic manifold $X$ are obtained by evaluating natural coholomogy classes on the virtual fundamental class () of the space of stable $J$-holomorphic maps to $X$. The main statement of this paper, Theorem \[main\_thm\], compares GW-invariants counting stable maps meeting specified constraints in the ambient manifold with analogous counts of such maps to a submanifold containing the images of all such constrained maps to first order. It leads immediately to Corollary \[LeP\_crl\], which in a way is a succinct re-formulation of the main conclusion of [@LeP], and with a bit more work to Theorem \[FanoGV\_thm\], which confirms the “Fano case" of the Gopakumar-Vafa prediction of [@P1 Section 0.2]. Theorem \[main\_thm\] is obtained by deforming the Cauchy-Riemann equation in two stages so that the first stage respects the submanifold. Carleman Similarity Principle is used to take advantage of properties of solutions of Cauchy-Riemann equations that are preserved by a large class of perturbations of the equations. In a forthcoming paper [@divisorGWs], we will apply similar geometric principles to study relative GW-invariants and the absolute/relative correspondence in genus $0$ with applications to birational geometry in the spirit of Hu-Li-Ruan ([@HuLtR], [@HuR], [@LtR]) and McDuff ([@Mc]).\
The author would like to thank R. Pandharipande for bringing the “Fano case" of the Gopakumar-Vafa prediction to the author’s attention, D. McDuff for detailed comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper, and T. Graber, T.-J. Li, D. Maulik, and Y. Ruan for related discussions.
A comparison theorem for GW-invariants {#AbsGW_subs}
--------------------------------------
We will denote by $\bar\Z^+$ the set of non-negative integers. Let $(X,\om)$ be a compact symplectic manifold. If $g\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$, $S$ is a finite set, $\be\!\in\!H_2(X;\Z)$, and $J$ is an $\om$-tame[^2] almost complex structure on $X$, denote by $\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$ the moduli space of equivalence classes of stable $S$-marked genus $g$ degree $\be$ $J$-holomorphic maps to $X$. For each $j\!\in\!S$, there is a well-defined evaluation map \_j: \_[g,S]{}(X,;J)X.As standard in GW-theory, we will denote by $$\psi_j\in H^2\big(\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)\big)$$ the first chern class of the universal cotangent line bundle for the $j$-th marked point. The space $\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$ carries a natural VFC, which is independent of $J$ and will be denoted by $[\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be)]^{vir}$. If the (real) dimension of $X$ is $2n$, then \^[vir]{} =\_[g,S]{}(X,) 2(+(n-3)(1-g)+|S|).If $J$ is regular[^3], then $\ov\M_{0,S}(X,\be;J)$ is a topological manifold with a preferred choice of orientation and $$\big[\ov\M_{0,S}(X,\be)\big]^{vir}=\big[\ov\M_{0,S}(X,\be;J)\big].$$\
If $a_j\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$ and $\ka_j\!\in\!H_*(X;\Z)$ for each $j\!\in\!S$, let ((\_[a\_j]{}\_j)\_[jS]{})\_[g,]{}\^X \_[jS]{} (\_j\^[a\_j]{}\_j\^\*(\_X\_j)),\^[vir]{},where $\PD_X\ka_j\!\in\!H^*(X;\Z)$ is the Poincare dual of $\ka_j$ in $X$.[^4] In order to avoid any sign ambiguities, we define the number in \_ref[GWdfn\_e]{} to be $0$ if the dimension of $\ka_j$ is odd for some $j$. By \_ref[virdim\_e]{}, this number is zero unless \_[jS]{}(2a\_j+2n-\_j)=\_[g,S]{}(X,).The number \_ref[GWdfn\_e]{} can be expressed as an integral on a “smaller" moduli space as follows. Choose cobordism representatives $f_j\!:M_j\!\lra\!X$ for $\ka_j$, with $j\!\in\!S$.[^5] Let \_[g,]{}(X,;J)={(\[u\],(w\_j)\_[jS]{}) \_[g,S]{}(X,;J)\_[jS]{}M\_j: \_j(\[u\])=f\_j(w\_j) jS}.The space $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$ of constrained stable maps also carries a virtual fundamental class and $$\big((\tau_{a_j}\ka_j)_{j\in S}\big)_{g,\be}^X =
\bigg\lan\prod_{j\in S}\psi_j^{a_j},\big[\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)\big]^{vir}\bigg\ran.$$ The subject of this section is a reduction of this GW-invariant of $X$ to a combination of GW-invariants for its submanifolds.
\[propinter\_dfn\] Let $Y$ be a submanifold of $X$. A smooth map $f\!:M\!\lra\!X$ intersects $Y$ if $f^{-1}(Y)\!\subset\!M$ is a smooth orientable even-dimensional submanifold of $M$ and $$d_wf\big(T_w\big(f^{-1}(Y)\big)\big)= d_w(TM)\cap T_{f(w)}Y$$ for every $w\!\in\!f^{-1}(Y)$.
If $f\!:M\!\lra\!X$ intersects $Y\!\subset\!X$ transversally and $M$, $X$, and $Y$ are orientable of even total dimension, then $f$ intersects $Y$ properly. However, a proper intersection need not be transverse. For example, any two real lines in $\R^n$ intersect properly, but not transversally if $n\!\ge\!3$. Two curves that are tangent to each other do not intersect properly.\
If $f\!:M\!\lra\!X$ intersects $Y\!\subset\!X$ properly and $NY\!\lra\!Y$ is the normal bundle of $Y$ in $X$, the homomorphisms $$d_w^{NY}f\!: T_wM\lra N_{f(w)}Y, \quad v\lra d_wf(v)+T_{f(w)}Y,
\qquad w\!\in\!f^{-1}(Y),$$ have constant rank; the kernel of $d_w^{NY}f$ is $T_w(f^{-1}(Y))$. If $M$, $X$, and $Y$ are oriented, an orientation on $f^{-1}(Y)$ then induces an orientation on the vector bundle $$N^fY\equiv f^*NY\big/(\Im\, d^{NY}f)\lra f^{-1}(Y).$$ Note that N\^fY=(X-M)-(Y-f\^[-1]{}(Y)).\
Let $Y$ be a compact symplectic submanifold of $X$ and $$\io_{Y*}\!: H_*(Y;\Z)\lra H_*(X;\Z)$$ the homomorphism induced by the inclusion $\io_Y\!:Y\!\lra\!X$. If $\be_Y\!\in\!H_2(Y;\Z)$ and $J$ is an $\om$-tame almost complex structure on $X$ which preserves $TY\!\subset\!TX|_Y$, then $\io_Y$ induces an embedding $$\ov\M_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y;J)\hookrightarrow \ov\M_{g,S}(X,\io_{Y*}\be_Y;J).$$ If $f_j\!:M_j\!\lra\!X$, $j\!\in\!S$, are smooth maps as above, let $$\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)=\big\{\big([u],(w_j)_{j\in S}\big)
\in \ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\io_{Y*}\be_Y;J)\!:\, [u]\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y;J)\big\}.$$ If in addition $u\!:\Si_u\!\lra\!Y$ is a $J$-holomorphic map from a nodal Riemann surface (see Section \[NRS\_subs\]), let $\H_u$ denote the space of deformations of the complex structure on $\Si_u$. The linearization of the $\dbar_J$-operator for maps to $X$, $$D_{J;u}^X\!:\H_u\oplus
L^p_1(\Si_u;u^*TX)\lra L^p(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}u^*TX),
\quad p\!>\!2,$$ induces a generalized Cauchy-Riemann operator $$D_{J;u}^{NY}\!: L^p_1(\Si_u;u^*NY)\lra
L^p(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}u^*NY).$$ For each $j\!\in\!S$, define $$\ti\ev_j\!:\ker D_{J;u}^{NY}\lra N_{z_j(u)}Y
\qquad\hbox{by}\quad \xi\lra \xi(z_j(u))+T_{z_j(u)}Y,$$ where $z_j(u)\!\in\!\Si_u$ is the $j$-th marked point; this homomorphism is the composition of the differential of the evaluation map \_ref[evmap\_e]{} with the projection to the normal bundle.
\[main\_thm\] Suppose $(X,\om)$ is a compact symplectic $2n$-manifold, $g\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$, $S$ is a finite set, $\be\!\in\!H_2(X;\Z)$, $a_j\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$ for each $j\!\in\!S$, and $f_j\!:M_j\!\lra\!X$ is a cobordism representative for $\ka_j\!\in\!H_*(X;\Z)$ for each $j\!\in\!S$. If $J$ is an $\om$-tame almost complex structure on $X$, $Y$ is a compact almost complex submanifold of $(X,J)$, and $\be_Y\!\in\!H_2(Y;\Z)$ are such that
1. $\io_{Y*}(\be_Y)\!=\!\be$ and $f_j$ intersects $Y$ properly for each $j\!\in\!S$;
2. for every $([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$, the homomorphism (D\_[J;u]{}\^[NY]{})\_[jS]{}N\_[f\_j(w\_j)]{}\^[f\_j]{}Y, (\_j()+(d\_[w\_j]{}f\_j))\_[jS]{},is an isomorphism,
then
1. the space $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ carries a natural VFC (dependent on the orientations of $f_j^{-1}(Y)$) with
\^[vir]{} &=\_[g,S]{}(X,)-\_[jS]{}(2n-\_j)\
&+\_[jS]{}N\^[f\_j]{}Y-2(+\_NY(1-g));
2. the vector spaces $\cok(D_{J;u}^{NY})$ form a natural oriented vector orbi-bundle $$\cok\big(D_J^{NY}\big) \lra \ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$$ with \_ (D\_[J;u]{}\^[NY]{})= \_[jS]{}N\^[f\_j]{}Y-2(+\_NY(1-g));
3. $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ is a union of connected components of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$ and its contribution to the number \_ref[GWdfn\_e]{} is given by \_[g,]{}(Y,\_Y)= e((D\_J\^[NY]{}))\_[jS]{}\_j\^[a\_j]{}, \^[vir]{}.\
\[CY\_eg\] Suppose $(X,J)$ is a Calabi-Yau $3$-fold and $Y\!\subset\!X$ is a smooth isolated rational curve with $NY\!\approx\!\O(-1)\!\oplus\!\O(-1)$. We can then apply Theorem \[main\_thm\] with $S\!=\!\eset$, $g\!=\!0$, and $\be\!=\!d\io_{Y*}([Y])$ for any $d\!\in\!\Z^+$. The assumption on the normal bundle implies that $\ker(D_{J;u}^{NY})$ is trivial and thus Condition (b) is satisfied. The right-hand side of \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} is then the famous multiple-cover contribution of $1/d^3$ ([@AsMo], [@MirSym Section 27.5], [@Voisin]).
\[inY\_eg\] If the image of each map $f_j$ in Theorem 1.2 lies in $Y$, the second part of Condition (a) is automatically satisfied. Condition (b) is equivalent to the homomorphisms $$\bigoplus_{j\in S}\ti\ev_j\!:
\ker(D_{J;u}^{NY})\lra \bigoplus_{j\in S}N_{z_j(u)}Y,
\qquad ([u],w)\in \ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J),$$ being isomorphisms. For example, this is the case if $X\!=\!\P^n$, $Y\!=\!\P^1\!\subset\!X$, $S\!=\!\{1,2\}$, $g\!=\!0$, $\be\!=\!\io_{Y*}([Y])$ is the homology class of a line, $a_1,a_2\!=\!0$, and $f_1,f_2\!:pt\!\lra\!Y$ are maps to two distinct points. In this particular case, $$\ov\M_{0,\f}(X,\be;J)=\ov\M_{0,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J),$$ where $\be_Y\!=\![Y]$, and $\cok(D_J^{NY})$ is the zero vector bundle. Thus, $$\big(pt,pt\big)_{0,\be}^{\P^n}=
\big((\tau_{a_j}\ka_j)_{j\in S}\big)_{0,\be}^X
=\bC_{0,\f}(Y,\be_Y)
=\,^{\pm}\big|\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)\big|
=\big(pt,pt\big)_{0,\be_Y}^{\P^1}
=1,$$ as expected.[^6]
\[transversetoY\_eg\] If each map $f_j$ in Theorem 1.2 is transverse to $Y$, the second part of Condition (a) is again automatically satisfied. Condition (b) is equivalent to the injectivity of the operators $D_{J;u}^{NY}$ whenever $([u],w)\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$. For example, this is the case if $X$ is the blowup of $\P^n$, with $n\!\ge\!2$, at a point, $Y\!\approx\!\P^{n-1}$ is the exceptional divisor, $S\!=\!\{1,2\}$, $g\!=\!0$, $\be_Y\!\in\!H_2(Y;\Z)$ is the homology class of a line in the exceptional divisor, $\be\!=\!\io_{Y*}(\be_Y)$, $a_1,a_2\!=\!0$, and $f_1,f_2\!:\P^1\!\lra\!X$ are parametrizations of proper transforms of two distinct lines in $\P^n$ passing through the center of the blowup. In this particular case, $$\ov\M_{0,\f}(X,\be;J)=\ov\M_{0,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$$ and $\cok(D_J^{NY})$ is the zero vector bundle. Thus, if $\bar\ell$ denotes the homology class of $f_1$ and $f_2$, $$\big(\bar\ell,\bar\ell\big)_{0,\be}^X=
\big((\tau_{a_j}\ka_j)_{j\in S}\big)_{0,\be}^X
=\bC_{0,\f}(Y,\be_Y)
=\,^{\pm}\big|\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)\big|
=\big(\bar\ell\cap Y,\bar\ell\cap Y\big)_{0,\be_Y}^Y
=1;$$ see Footnote \[inY\_ft\].
Various special cases of Theorem \[main\_thm\], such as those in Examples \[CY\_eg\]-\[transversetoY\_eg\], are standard in the algebraic setting and are used in [@BP], [@KlP], and [@P1], for example. Some special cases of Theorem \[main\_thm\] have appeared in the symplectic setting as well, including in [@LiZ], [@McTo], and [@Taubes]. Examples \[inY\_eg\] and \[transversetoY\_eg\] generalize Example \[CY\_eg\] in two opposite directions. Corollary \[LeP\_crl\] below, which applies this theorem in the setting of [@LeP], is yet another special case of Example \[transversetoY\_eg\]. The full statement of Theorem \[main\_thm\] mixes the two extreme cases of Examples \[inY\_eg\] and \[transversetoY\_eg\].\
The striking conclusion of [@LeP] is that all GW-invariants of a Kahler surface $X$ of general type localize to a canonical divisor. The situation is particularly beautiful if $X$ admits a smooth canonical divisor $\K_X$. If $X$ is minimal, the GW-invariants of $X$ in degrees other than multiples of $\K_X$ vanish. The GW-invariants of $X$ in degrees $\K_X$ and $2\K_X$ are computed in [@KLi] via an algebraic reformulation of [@LeP] and shown to satisfy a conjecture of [@MaP]. In the next paragraph we review the relevant statements from [@LeP].\
Let $(X,J_0)$ be a minimal Kahler surface of general type and $\al$ the real part of a non-zero holomorphic $(2,0)$-form such that $Y\!\equiv\!\al^{-1}(0)$ is smooth (and reduced). Since $X$ is minimal, $Y$ is connected. With $\lr{\cdot,\cdot}$ denoting the Riemannian metric on $X$, define $$\begin{gathered}
K_{\al}\in \Ga\big(X;\Hom_{\R}(TX,TX)\big), \quad
R_{\al}\in \Ga\big(Y;\Hom_{\R}(TY\!\otimes\!_{\C}NY,NY)\big),
\qquad\hbox{by}\notag\\
\label{Rdfn_e}\begin{split}
\lr{v_1,K_{\al}v_2}&=\al(v_1,v_2)~~\forall\,v_1,v_2\!\in\!T_xX,\,x\!\in\!X;\\
R_{\al}(v_1,v_2)&= J_0\big\{\na_{v_2}K_{\al}\big\}(v_1)+T_xY
~~\forall\,v_1\!\in\!T_xY,\,v_2\!\in\!T_xX,\,x\!\in\!X.
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ By [@LeP Lemmas 2.1,8.2], $R_{\al}$ is well-defined. The almost complex structure $J_{\al}$ on $X$ described in [@LeP Section 2] agrees with $J_0$ along the smooth complex curve $Y$. By [@LeP Lemma 2.3], every non-constant $J_{\al}$-holomorphic map $u\!:\Si_u\!\lra\!X$ is in fact a $J_0$-holomorphic map to $Y$ and so lies in the homology class $dY$ for some $d\!\in\!\Z^+$. By [@LeP Section 8], the operator on the normal bundle $NY$ of $Y$ induced by the linearization of the $\dbar_{J_{\al}}$-operator for maps to $X$ at such a map $u$ is given by D\_[J\_;u]{}\^[NY]{}=\_[u\^\*NY]{}+R\_(du,): L\^p\_1(\_u;u\^\*NY) L\^p(\_u;T\^\*\_u\^[0,1]{}\_u\^\*NY),where $\dbar_{u^*NY}$ is the $\dbar$-operator in the holomorphic bundle $u^*(NY,J_0)\!\lra\!\Si_u$. By [@LeP Proposition 8.6], $D_{J_{\al};u}^{NY}$ is injective. In light of Theorem \[main\_thm\], Corollary \[LeP\_crl\] below is thus simply a re-formulation of the main conclusion of [@LeP].
\[LeP\_crl\] Suppose $(X,J_0)$ is a minimal Kahler surface of general type, $\al$ is the real part of a non-zero holomorphic $(2,0)$-form such that $Y\!\equiv\!\al^{-1}(0)$ is smooth, $g\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$, $d\!\in\!\Z^+$, $S$ is a finite set, $S_2\!\subset\!S$, $a_j\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$ for each $j\!\in\!S$, and $\ka_j\!\in\!H_2(X;\Z)$ for each $j\!\in\!S_2$. If $R_{\al}$ is defined by \_ref[Rdfn\_e]{}, then the cokernels of the operators \_ref[DSurf\_e]{} form a natural oriented vector orbi-bundle $$\cok\big(D_{\al}^{NY}\big) \lra \ov\M_{g,S}(Y,dY)$$ and $$\begin{split}
&\big((\tau_{a_j}\ka_j)_{j\in S_2},(\tau_{a_j}1)_{j\in S-S_2}\big)_{g,d\K_X}^X\\
&\qquad
=\bigg(\prod_{j\in S_2}\lr{c_1(T^*X),\ka_j}\bigg)
\bigg\lan e\big(\cok(D_{\al}^{NY})\big)\!\prod_{j\in S_2}\!\!\!\big(\ev_j^*PD_Y(pt)\big)
\prod_{j\in S}\!\psi_j^{a_j},
\big[\ov\M_{g,S}(Y,dY)\big]^{vir}\bigg\ran.
\end{split}$$
The Fano case of the Gopakumar-Vafa prediction {#FanoGV_subs}
----------------------------------------------
GW-invariants are generally not integers. On the other hand, at least in the case of projective $3$-folds (symplectic $6$-manifolds), certain combinations of them are believed to be integers. Ideally these combinations would be precisely counts of curves of fixed genus and degree and passing through appropriate constraints. A projective $3$-fold $X$ is never ideal in this sense, but one might hope that $X$ becomes ideal if its Kahler complex structure is replaced with a generic almost complex one. We show that this is indeed the case in the “Fano" case.\
If $(X,\om)$ is a compact symplectic manifold, $g\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$, $S$ is a finite set, $\be\!\in\!H_2(X;\Z)$, and $J$ is an $\om$-tame almost complex structure on $X$, let $$\M_{g,S}^*(X,\be;J)\subset\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$$ denote the subspace consisting of maps, i.e. $J$-holomorphic maps $u\!:\Si_u\!\lra\!X$ such that $\Si_u$ is a smooth (connected) Riemann surface and $u^{-1}(u(z))\!=\!\{z\}$ and $d_zu\!\neq\!0$ for some $z\!\in\!\Si_u$. These conditions imply that $u$ does not factor through a $d$-fold cover $\Si_u\!\lra\!\Si$, with $d\!>\!1$; see [@McS Section 2.5]. If $f_j\!: M_j\!\lra\!X$, $j\!\in\!S$, are smooth maps from compact oriented manifolds of even dimensions, let $$\M_{g,\f}^*(X,\be;J)= \ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)\cap
\bigg(\M_{g,S}^*(X,\be;J)\times \prod_{j\in S}M_j\bigg),$$ with $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$ defined by \_ref[Mfdfn\_e]{}. If $\M_{g,\f}^*(X,\be;J)$ is a finite set consisting of regular pairs $([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})$, we will denote its signed cardinality by $E_{g,\be}^X(J,\f)$.\
If the (real) dimension of $X$ is $6$, the expected dimension of the moduli space $\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$ is independent of the genus $g$; see \_ref[virdim\_e]{}. Thus, one can mix curve counts of different genera passing through the same constraints. Furthermore, if $\be\!\in\!H_2(X;\Z)$ and $\lr{c_1(TX),\be}\!<\!0$, all degree $\be$ GW-invariants are zero, since the moduli space of unmarked maps has negative expected dimension. This leaves the “Calabi-Yau" case, $\lr{c_1(TX),\be}\!=\!0$, and the “Fano" case, $\lr{c_1(TX),\be}\!>\!0$. If $g,h\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$, define $C_{h,\be}^X(g)\!\in\!\Q$ by \_[g=0]{}\^[i]{}C\_[h,]{}\^X(g)t\^[2g]{} =()\^[2h-2+]{}.
\[FanoGV\_thm\] Suppose $(X,\om)$ is a compact symplectic $6$-fold, $\be\!\in\!H_2(X;\Z)$, $g\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$, $S$ is a finite set, and $\ka_j\!\in\!H_*(X;\Z)$ for $j\!\in\!S$ are such that \_ref[dimcond\_e]{} is satisfied with $a_j\!=\!0$. If $\lr{c_1(TX),\be}\!>\!0$,
1. there exists a dense open subset $\cJ_{\reg}(g,\be)$ of the space of smooth $\om$-tame almost complex structures on $X$ such that for all $h\!\le\!g$:
- the moduli space $\M_{h,S}^*(X,\be;J)$ consists of regular maps;
- for a generic choice of pseudocycle representatives $f_j\!:M_j\!\lra\!X$ for $\ka_j$, $\M_{h,\f}^*(X,\be;J)$ is a finite set of regular pairs $([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})$ such that $u$ is an embedding;
2. the numbers $E_{h,\be}^X(\f,J)$, with $h\!\le\!g$, are independent of the choice of $J\!\in\!\cJ_{\reg}(g,\be)$ and $f_j$ and can thus be denoted $E_{h,\be}^X((\ka_j)_{j\in S})$;
3. if $C_{g,\be}^X(h)$ is defined by \_ref[Cdfn\_e]{}, ((\_j)\_[jS]{})\_[g,]{}\^X= \_[h=0]{}\^[h=g]{} C\_[h,]{}\^X(g-h) E\_[h,]{}\^X((\_j)\_[jS]{}).\
For $g\!=\!0,1$, \_ref[FanoGV\_e]{} gives
((\_j)\_[jS]{})\_[0,]{}\^X&=E\_[0,]{}\^X((\_j)\_[jS]{}),\
((\_j)\_[jS]{})\_[1,]{}\^X&=E\_[1,]{}\^X((\_j)\_[jS]{}) +E\_[0,]{}\^X((\_j)\_[jS]{}).
The first identity expresses the well-known fact that the genus $0$ GW-invariants of a Fano manifold are enumerative. The second identity in \_ref[lowgenusGV\_e]{} is the $n\!=\!3$ case of the relation between the standard genus $1$ GW-invariants and the reduced genus $1$ GW-invariants constructed in [@g1comp2] for all symplectic manifolds.\
By the proof of [@McS Theorem 3.1.5], for a generic almost complex structure $J$ on $X$ all moduli spaces $\M_{h,\eset}^*(X,\be';J)$ are smooth and of the expected dimension, $2\lr{c_1(TX),\be'}$. In particular, <0 \_[h,S]{}\^\*(X,’;J),\_[h,S]{}(X,’;J)=.By a similar argument, for a generic $J$ on $X$ the evaluation maps $$\ev_1,\ev_2\!: \M_{g,\{1,2\}}^*(X,\be;J)\lra X$$ are transverse, while the bundle section $$\M_{g,\{1\}}^*(X,\be;J)\lra L_1^*\!\otimes\!\ev_1^*TX, \qquad
[u]\lra d_{z_1(u)}u\,,$$ where $L_1\!\lra\!\M_{g,\{1\}}^*(X,\be;J)$ is the universal tangent line bundle at the marked point and $z_1(u)\!\in\!\Si_u$ is the marked point of $u$, is transverse to the zero set. Thus, $$\M_{g,S}^{sing}(X,\be;J)\equiv
\big\{[u]\!\in\!\M_{g,S}^*(X,\be;J)\!:~
u~\textnormal{is not an embedding}\big\}$$ is the image of a smooth map from a smooth manifold of (real) dimension two less than the dimension of $\M_{g,S}^*(X,\be;J)$. It follows that for a generic choice of pseudocycle representatives $f_j\!:M_j\!\lra\!X$ for $\ka_j$, $\M_{g,\f}^*(X,\be;J)$ is a $0$-dimensional oriented sub-manifold of $$\big(\M_{g,S}^*(X,\be;J)-\M_{g,S}^{sing}(X,\be;J)\big)
\times\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j.$$\
We next show that $\M_{g,\f}^*(X,\be;J)$ is a finite set. If not, there is a sequence $([u_r],(w_{r,j})_{j\in S})$ in $\M_{g,\f}^*(X,\be;J)$ converging to some $$\big([u],(w_j)_{j\in S}\big)\in
\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)- \M_{g,\f}^*(X,\be;J).$$ The image of $u$ is a connected $J$-holomorphic curve in $X$ of genus $h\!\le\!g$ with $k\!\ge\!1$ irreducible components of degrees $\be_1,\ldots,\be_k\!\in\!H_2(X;\Z)$ such that $$d_1\be_1+\ldots+d_k\be_k=\be \qquad\hbox{for some}\quad
d_1,\ldots,d_k\in\Z^+.$$ By \_ref[emptyspace\_e]{}, $\lr{c_1(TX),\be_i}\!\ge\!0$ for all $i\!=\!1,\ldots,k$. Thus, $$\sum_{i=1}^{i=k}\lr{c_1(TX),\be_i}\le \lr{c_1(TX),\be}.$$ The dimension-counting argument of [@McS Section 6.6] then shows that $k\!=\!1$ and $d_1\!=\!1$. It then follows that the image of $u$ is an irreducible $J$-holomorphic curve of degree $\be$ and genus $h\!<\!g$ that meets each of the maps $f_j$ with $j\!\in\!S$.\
While degree $\be$ genus $h\!<\!g$ $J$-holomorphic curves meeting the maps $f_j$ can certainly exist for a generic $J$, they cannot be limits of other degree $\be$ curves meeting the maps $f_j$ by the $\nu_r\!=\!0$ case of Proposition \[horreg\_prp\] for the following reason. If $$\big([u],(w_j)_{j\in S}\big)\in\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)
-\M_{g,\f}^*(X,\be;J),$$ the domain of $u$ consists of two or more irreducible components. Furthermore, by the previous paragraph, the restriction of $u$ to all components, except for one, is constant; let $u_{\eff}$ denote the of $u$, i.e. the non-constant restriction. The domain $\Si_{u_{\eff}}$ of $u_{\eff}$ is a smooth curve of genus $h\!<\!g$ with distinct points $(z_j(u_{\eff}))_{j\in S}$ that are mapped to $(\ev_j(u))_{j\in S}$ by $u_{\eff}$. Thus, $$\big([u_{\eff}],(w_j)_{j\in S}\big)\in\M_{h,\f}^*(X,\be;J);$$ by the previous paragraph, $u_{\eff}$ is an embedding onto a smooth $J$-holomorphic curve $Y$ of genus $h$ degree $\be$ meeting the maps $f_j$. This implies that removing a node from $\Si_{u_{\eff}}$ disconnects $\Si_u$.[^7] Since the total evaluation map $$\Bev\!\equiv\!\prod_{j\in S}\ev_j: \M_{h,S}^*(X,\be;J)\lra X^S$$ is transverse to $\f$, (D\_[J;u\_]{}\^[NY]{})\_[jS]{}N\_[f\_j(w\_j)]{}\^[f\_j]{}Y, ((z\_j(u\_))+T\_[f\_j(w\_j)]{}Y+(d\_[w\_j]{}f\_j))\_[jS]{},is surjective; see Section \[AbsGW\_subs\] for the notation. Since $u_{\eff}$ is a regular map, $$\begin{split}
\dim \ker(D_{J;u_{\eff}}^{NY})
=\ind\big(D_{J;u_{\eff}}^{NY}\big)
&=2\big(\lr{c_1(NY),Y}+2(1\!-\!h)\big)=2\lr{c_1(TX),\be}\\
&=\sum_{j\in S}(4\!-\!\dim\,M_j)
\le\sum_{j\in S}\dim\,N^{f_j}_{f_j(w)}Y;\end{split}$$ the second-to-last equality holds by \_ref[dimcond\_e]{}. Thus, the homomorphism in \_ref[Ycount\_e]{} is an isomorphism. On the other hand, $D_{J;u}^{NY}$ is the restriction of the operator $\bigoplus_i D_{J;u_i}^{NY}$ to $$L^p_1(\Si_u;u^*NY)\subset\bigoplus_i L^p_1\big(\Si_{u;i};u_i^*NY\big),$$ where $\{\Si_{u;i}\}$ are the irreducible components of $\Si$ and $u_i\!=\!u|_{\Si_{u;i}}$. If $u_i$ is a constant map, then $D_{J;u_i}^{NY}$ is the usual $\dbar$-operator on the space of functions on $\Si_{u_i}$ with values in $N_{u_i(\Si_{u;i})}Y\!\approx\!\C^2$. Since $\Si_u$ is a connected nodal Riemann containing $\Si_{u_{\eff}}$ as a component, $u|_{\Si_{\eff}}\!=\!u_{\eff}$, and $u$ is constant on each of the irreducible components of $\Si_u\!-\!\Si_{u_{\eff}}$, it follows that the projection homomorphism D\_[J;u]{}\^[NY]{}D\_[J;u\_]{}\^[NY]{}, |\_[\_[u\_]{}]{},is an isomorphism. Thus, the homomorphism $$\ker(D_{J;u}^{NY})\lra \bigoplus_{j\in S}N_{f_j(w_j)}^{f_j}Y, \qquad
\xi\lra \big(\xi(z_j(u))+T_{f_j(w_j)}Y+(\Im\,d_{w_j}f_j)\big)_{j\in S}\,,$$ is an isomorphism, since the homomorphism \_ref[Ycount\_e]{} is. Therefore, by Proposition \[horreg\_prp\] there is no sequence in $$\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)-\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,[Y];J)\supset \M_{g,\f}^*(X,\be;J)$$ converging to $([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})$.\
We have thus shown that $\M_{g,\f}^*(X,\be;J)$ is a compact oriented $0$-dimensional manifold and its signed cardinality $E_{g,\be}^X(\f,J)$ is well-defined. The independence of $E_{g,\be}^X(\f,J)$ of the choices of $J$ and $f_j$ follows from \_ref[FanoGV\_e]{}, with $E_{h,\be}^X((\ka_j)_{j\in S})$ replaced by $E_{h,\be}^X(\f,J)$. In turn, this identity follows from Theorem \[main\_thm\] and the proof of [@P1 Theorem 3]. Let $Y$ be a degree $\be$ $J$-holomorphic curve of genus $h\!\le\!g$ meeting each $f_j$. By the above, the assumptions of Theorem \[main\_thm\] are satisfied. By definition (see Section \[CR\_subs2\]), the orbi-bundle $\cok(D_J^{NY})$ is dual to the bundle $\ker((D_J^{NY})^*)$ of kernels of the dual operators $(D_J^{NY})^*$. For each $$\big([u],(w_j)_{j\in S}\big)\in\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,[Y];J)
\subset\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J),$$ the operator $(D_{J;u}^{NY})^*$ is the natural extension of the operator $\bigoplus_i (D_{J;u_i}^{NY})^*$ to $(1,0)$-forms on $\Si_u$ with poles at the nodes such that the residues at each node sum up to $0$. Since $(D_{J;u_{\eff}}^{NY})^*$ is injective by the regularity of $u_{\eff}$, the projection $$\eta\lra \bigoplus_{\Si_{u;i}\neq\Si_{u_{\eff}}}\eta|_{\Si_{u;i}}$$ to the contracted components is injective. Since $(D_{J;u_i}^{NY})^*\!=\!\dbar^*$ if $u_i$ is constant, the image of this homomorphism is determined by $\Si_u$ and is independent of $D_{J;u_{\eff}}^{NY}$ (as long as $D_{J;u_{\eff}}^{NY}$ is surjective). Thus, $\cok(D_J^{NY})$ is isomorphic to the restriction to $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,[Y];J)$ of the obstruction bundle in [@P1 Section 3], i.e. the bundle of cokernels of the operators $D_{J;u}^{NY}$ as above, but for a holomorphic vector bundle $NY$. Thus,
\_[g,]{}(Y,\_Y) &=e((D\_J\^[NY]{})), \^[vir]{}\
&=C\_[h,]{}\^X(g-h)(\[u\_\],(w\_j)\_[jS]{})
by \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} and [@P1 Theorem 3]. Since $$\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)
=\bigsqcup_{h=0}^{h=g}\bigsqcup_{([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})\in\M_{h,\f}^*(X,\be;J)}
\!\!\!\!\!\! \ov\M_{g,\f}(\Im\,u,[\Im\, u];J),$$ the identity \_ref[FanoGV\_e]{} follows from \_ref[P2\_e]{}.\
Theorem \[FanoGV\_thm\] confirms (a stronger version of) the Fano case of [@P2 Conjecture 2(i)], i.e. that the numbers $E_{h,\be}^X((\ka_j)_{j\in S})$ [*defined from GW-invariants by \_ref[FanoGV\_e]{}*]{} are integers. The Calabi-Yau case is fundamentally more difficult as it involves multiple covers of curves.[^8] On the other hand, it might be possible to approach [@P2 Conjecture 2(ii)], i.e. that $E_{h,\be}^X((\ka_j)_{j\in S})\!=\!0$ for a fixed $\be$ and all sufficiently large $g$ if $X$ is projective, by studying possible limits of $J_t$-holomorphic curves with $J_t\!\in\!\cJ_{\reg}(g,\be)$ as $J_t$ approaches the standard complex structure on $X\!\subset\!\P^n$ and using the Castelnuovo bound [@ACGH p116].\
An algebro-geometric approach to Theorem \[FanoGV\_thm\] has recently been proposed in [@KKO], at least in the usual, more narrow, meaning of [*Fano*]{} in algebraic geometry. The stable-map style invariants of smooth projective varieties defined in [@KKO] are a priori integers in the case of Fano varieties, just like the numbers $E_{h,\be}^X((\ka_j)_{j\in S})$. In addition, in this Fano case, they are non-negative integers and satisfy the vanishing prediction of [@P2 Conjecture 2(ii)]. However, it remains to be shown that they are related to the GW-invariants in the required way, i.e. as in \_ref[FanoGV\_e]{}.
Analytic Preliminaries {#analysis_sec}
======================
In this section, we collect a number of background statements concerning solutions of perturbed Cauchy-Riemann equations. For the rest of the paper, fix a real number $p\!>\!2$. If $\Si$ is a $2$-dimensional manifold, this condition implies that any $L^p_1$-map $\Si\!\lra\!\R$ is continuous and in particular has a well-defined value at each point.
Nodal Riemann surfaces {#NRS_subs}
----------------------
Let $(E,\fI)\!\lra\!\Si$ be an $L^p_1$-complex vector bundle over a smooth Riemann surface, i.e. a one-dimensional complex manifold. If $z\!\in\!\Si$ and $$A_z\in\Hom_{\R}(E_z,T_z^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E_z),$$ we define $$\begin{gathered}
A_z^*\in\Hom_{\R}(T_z^*\Si^{1,0}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E_z^*,T_z^*\Si^{1,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E_z^*)
\qquad\hbox{by}\\
\Re\big(v\wedge (A_z^*w)\big)= \Re\big((A_zv)\wedge w\big)
\in \La_{\R}^2(T_z^*\Si)
\qquad\forall\, v\!\in\!E_z,\,w\!\in\!T_z^*\Si^{1,0}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E_z^*\,.\end{gathered}$$ Since $\La_{\R}^2(T_z^*\Si)$ is one-dimensional, $A_z^*$ is well-defined. If $$A\in L^p\big(\Si;\Hom_{\R}(E,T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E)\big),$$ this construction gives rise to an element $$\begin{gathered}
A^*\in L^p\big(\Si;\Hom_{\R}(T^*\Si^{1,0}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E^*,
T^*\Si^{1,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E^*)\big) \qquad\hbox{s.t.} \notag\\
\label{Aadj_e}
\bllrr{\xi,A^*\eta}\equiv
\Re\Big(\int_{\Si}\xi\wedge (A^*\eta)\Big)
=\Re\Big(\int_{\Si}(A\xi)\wedge\eta\Big)
\equiv \bllrr{A\xi,\eta}\end{gathered}$$ for all $\xi\!\in\!L^p_1(\Si;E)$ and $\eta\!\in\!L^p_1(\Si;T^*\Si^{1,0}\!\otimes\!E^*)$.\
Let $E\!\lra\!\Si$ be as above. If $S$ is a finite subset of $\Si$, denote by $$L_k^p\big(\Si;E(S)\big)\subset L^p_{k,loc}(\Si\!-\!S;E)$$ the subspace of sections $\eta$ of $E$ such that for every $z_0\!\in\!S$ there exist a neighborhood $U$ of $z_0$ in $\Si$ and a coordinate $w\!:U\!\lra\!\C$ such that $$w(z_0)=0 \qquad\hbox{and}\qquad
w\cdot\eta|_U\in L_k^p(U;E).$$ If $k\!\ge\!1$, an element $\eta$ of $L_k^p(\Si;T^*\Si^{1,0}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E(S))$ has a well-defined residue at $z_0\!\in\!S$ given by $$\Res_{z=z_0}\eta=\xi(z_0)\in E_{z_0} \qquad\hbox{if}\qquad
\eta(z)=\frac{dw}{w(z)}\otimes\xi(z)~~\forall~z\!\in\!U,~
\xi\in L_1^p(U;E).\footnotemark$$ If $\vr$ is a function assigning to each element $z_0\!\in\!S$ a real subspace $E_{z_0}'\!\subset\!E_{z_0}$, let $$L_1^p\big(\Si;T^*\Si^{1,0}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E(\vr)\big)=\big\{
\eta\!\in\!L_1^p\big(\Si;E(S)\big)\!: \,
\Res_{z=z_0}\eta\!\in\!E_{z_0}'~\forall\,z_0\!\in\!S\big\}.$$\
By a $\Si$ we will mean a compact complex one-dimensional manifold with pairs of distinct points identified. In other words, =/\~, x\_i\^[(1)]{}\~x\_i\^[(2)]{} i=1,…,m,for some smooth compact Riemann surface $\ti\Si$ and distinct points $x_i^{(1)},x_i^{(2)}\!\in\!\ti\Si$. The quotient map $$\si\!: \ti\Si\lra\Si$$ is determined by $\Si$ up to an isomorphism. We will denote by $$\Si_{\sing}\equiv\big\{\si(x_i^{(1)})\!:\,i\!=\!1,\ldots,m\big\}
\subset\Si
\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad
\ti\Si_{\sing}\equiv\big\{x_i^{(1)},x_i^{(2)}\!:\,i\!=\!1,\ldots,m\big\}
\subset\ti\Si$$ the subset of of $\Si$ and its preimage under $\si$, respectively. Let $\Si^*\!\subset\!\Si$ be the subspace of , i.e. the complement of $\Si_{\sing}$.\
If $Y$ is a smooth manifold and $\Si$ is a Riemann surface as above, an is an $L^p_1$-map $$\ti{u}\!:\ti\Si\lra Y \qquad\hbox{s.t.}\quad
\ti{u}\big(x_i^{(1)}\big)=\ti{u}\big(x_i^{(2)}\big)~~\forall\,i=1,\ldots,m.$$ By a $E\!\lra\!\Si$, we will mean a topological complex vector bundle such that $\si^*E\!\lra\!\ti\Si$ is an $L^p_1$-complex vector bundle. Let $$\begin{split}
L_1^p(\Si;E)
&=\big\{\xi\!\in\!L_1^p(\ti\Si;\si^*E\big)\!:\,
\xi(x_i^{(1)})\!=\!\xi(x_i^{(2)})~\forall\,i\!=\!1,\ldots,m\big\};\\
L^p\big(\Si;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}E\big)
&=L^p\big(\ti\Si;T^*\ti\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}\si^*E\big).
\end{split}$$ If $S$ is a finite subset of $\Si^*$, let $\ti{S}\!=\!\si^{-1}(S)$ and define $$\label{dualsheafdfn_e}\begin{split}
L_1^p\big(\Si;\K_{\Si}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E(S)\big)
&=\Big\{\eta\!\in\!
L_1^p\big(\ti\Si;T^*\ti\Si^{1,0}\!\otimes_{\C}\!
\si^*E(\ti{S}\!\cup\!\ti\Si_{\sing})\big)\!:
\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad
\sum_{\ti{z}_0\in\si^{-1}(z_0)}\!\!\!\!\!\!\Res_{z=\ti{z}_0}\eta(\ti{z}_0)\!=\!0~~\forall\,
z_0\!\in\!\Si_{\sing}\Big\},\\
L^p\big(\Si;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!\K_{\Si}\!\otimes\!_{\C}E(S)\big)
&=L^p\big(\ti\Si;T^*\ti\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!T^*\ti\Si^{1,0}\!\otimes_{\C}\!
\si^*E(\ti{S}\!\cup\!\ti\Si_{\sing})\big).
\end{split}$$ If $\vr$ is a function assigning to each element $z_0\!\in\!S$ a real subspace $E_{z_0}'\!\subset\!E_{z_0}$, let L\_1\^p(;\_\_E())={ L\_1\^p(;\_\_E(S)): \_[z=\^[-1]{}(z\_0)]{}E\_[z\_0]{}’ z\_0S}.Similarly, we define $$\begin{split}
L_1^p\big(\Si;E(-S)\big)
&=\big\{\xi\!\in\!L_1^p\big(\Si;E)\!:\,\xi(z_0)\!=\!0~\forall\,z_0\!\in\!S\big\},\\
L_1^p\big(\Si;E^*(-\vr)\big)
&=\big\{\xi\!\in\!L_1^p\big(\Si;E^*)\!:\,\xi(z_0)\!\in\!\Ann(E_{z_0}')
~\forall\,z_0\!\in\!S\big\},
\end{split}$$ where $\Ann(E_{z_0}')\!\subset\!\Hom_{\R}(E_{z_0},\R)$ is the annihilator of $E_{z_0}'\!\subset\!E_{z_0}$. The real pairings in \_ref[Aadj\_e]{} extend to pairings $$\begin{split}
L_1^p\big(\Si;E\big)\!\otimes\!
L^p\big(\Si;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!\K_{\Si}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E^*(S)\big)
&\lra\R,\\
L^p\big(\Si;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E\big)\!\otimes\!
L_1^p\big(\Si;\K_{\Si}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E^*(S)\big)
&\lra\R.
\end{split}$$ Furthermore, the equality in \_ref[Aadj\_e]{} holds for all $\eta\in L_1^p\big(\Si;\K_{\Si}\!\otimes_{\C}\!E^*(S)\big)$.
Generalized Cauchy-Riemann operators {#CR_subs}
------------------------------------
\[CR\_dfn\] Let $(Y,J)$ be an almost complex manifold and $(N,\fI)\!\lra\!(Y,J)$ a smooth vector bundle.
1. A is a $\C$-linear map $$\dbar\!: \Ga(Y;N)\lra \Ga^{0,1}(Y;N)\equiv
\Ga\big(Y;T^*Y^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}N\big)$$ such that $$\dbar\big(f\xi)=(\dbar{f})\!\otimes\!\xi+f(\dbar\xi)
\qquad\forall~f\!\in\!C^{\i}(Y),~\xi\!\in\!\Ga(Y;N).$$
2. A (or ) on $(N,\fI)$ is a differential operator of the form D=+A: (Y;N)\^[0,1]{}(Y;N),where $\dbar$ is a $\dbar$-operator on $(N,\fI)$ and $$A\in \Ga\big(Y;\Hom_{\R}(N,T^*Y^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!N)\big).$$\
If $\na$ is an affine connection in $(N,\fI)$, the operator (Y;N)\^[0,1]{}(Y;N), (+J),is a $\dbar$-operator on $(N,\fI)$. Furthermore, any $\C$-linear CR-operator on $(N,\fI)$ is a $\dbar$-operator, and any $\dbar$-operator on $(N,\fI)$ is of the form \_ref[ClinCR\_e0]{} for some (not unique) connection $\na$ in $(N,\fI)$. In particular, $A$ in the decomposition \_ref[CRsplit\_e0]{} can be assumed to be $\C$-anti-linear.\
Let $\na^J$ be the $J$-linear connection in $TY$ obtained from a Levi-Civita connection $\na$ on $Y$ and $A_Y(\cdot,\cdot)$ the of $J$: $$\begin{split}
\na^J_{\xi_1}\xi_2&=\frac{1}{2}\Big(\na_{\xi_1}\xi_2-J\na_{\xi_1}(J\xi_2)\Big)\\
A_Y(\xi_1,\xi_2)&=\frac{1}{4}\Big([\xi_1,\xi_2]+J[\xi_1,J\xi_2]+J[J\xi_1,\xi_2]
-[J\xi_1,J\xi_2]\Big)
\end{split}
\qquad\forall\,\xi_1,\xi_2\!\in\!\Ga(Y;TY).$$ We identify $A_Y$ with the element $$A_Y\in \Ga\big(Y;\Hom_{\R}(TY,T^*Y^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!TY)\big),
\qquad v\lra A_Y(\cdot,v).$$ Then, $$\dbar_Y\!\equiv \frac{1}{2}\Big(\na^J\xi+J\na^J\circ J\Big), \,
D_Y\!\equiv\! \dbar_Y\!+\!A_Y\!:
\Ga(Y;TY)\lra \Ga^{0,1}(Y;TY)$$ are a $\dbar$-operator on $TY$ and a smooth CR-operator on $TY$, respectively.
\[CR\_dfn2\] Let $(E,\fI)$ be an $L^p_1$ complex vector bundle over a Riemann surface $(\Si,\fJ)$.
1. A is a $\C$-linear map $$\dbar\!: L^p_1(\Si;E)\lra L^p\big(\Si;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}E\big)$$ such that $$\dbar\big(f\xi)=(\dbar{f})\!\otimes\!\xi+f(\dbar\xi)
\qquad\forall~f\!\in\!C^{\i}(\Si),~\xi\!\in\!\Ga(\Si;E).$$
2. A (or ) on $(E,\fI)$ is a differential operator of the form D=+A: L\^p\_1(;E)L\^p(;T\^\*\^[0,1]{}\_E), where $\dbar$ is a $\dbar$-operator on $(E,\fI)$ and AL\^p(;\_(E,T\^\*\^[0,1]{}\_E)).\
If $\na$ is an affine connection in $(E,\fI)$, the operator L\^p\_1(;E)L\^p(;T\^\*\^[0,1]{}\_E), (+),is the usual $\dbar$-operator for a unique holomorphic structure in $(E,\fI)$. Furthermore, any $\C$-linear CR-operator is of the form \_ref[ClinCR\_e]{}.\
If $\Si$ and $N\!\lra\!Y$ are as above, an $L^p_1$-map $u\!:\Si\!\lra\!Y$ pulls back a smooth CR-operator $D$ on $N$ to a CR-operator $D_u$ on $u^*N\!\lra\!\Si$ as follows. Suppose $D$ is presented as in \_ref[CRsplit\_e0]{} with $\C$-anti-linear $A$ and $\na$ is a connection in $(N,\fI)$ inducing the corresponding $\dbar$-operator. Let $\ti{u}\!:\ti\Si\!\lra\!Y$ be the map corresponding to $u$ as in Section \[NRS\_subs\] and $$\ti\na\!: L^p_1(\ti\Si;\ti{u}^*N)\lra
L^p(\ti\Si;T^*\ti\Si\!\otimes\!_{\R}\ti{u}^*N)$$ the connection induced by $\na$. Then, $$D_{\ti{u}}=\frac{1}{2}\Big(\ti\na+\fI\ti\na\circ\fJ\Big)
+A\circ\partial_J \ti{u},
\qquad\hbox{where}\quad
\partial_J \ti{u}=\frac{1}{2}\Big(du-J d\ti{u}\circ \fJ\Big),$$ is a generalized CR-operator on $\ti{u}^*(N,\fI)$; $D_{\ti{u}}$ is independent of the choice of $\na$ if $u$ is $(J,\fJ)$-holomorphic.\
Suppose $(Y,J)$ is an almost complex manifold and $D_Y$ is as above. If $(\Si,\fJ)$ is a Riemann surface and $u\!:\Si\!\lra\!Y$ is a $(J,\fJ)$-holomorphic $L^p_1$-map, then $D_{J;u}\!\equiv\!u^*D_Y$ is the linearization of the $\dbar_J$-operator on the space of $L^p_1$-maps from $\Si$, with complex structure fixed, to $Y$; see [@McS Section 3.1]. If in addition, $(Y,J)$ is an almost complex submanifold of an almost complex manifold $(X,J)$, then $$D_{J;u}\!\equiv\!D_{J;u}^Y\!\equiv\!u^*D_Y\!:
L^p_1(\Si;u^*TY)\lra L^p\big(\Si;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}u^*TY\big)$$ is the restriction of $$D_{J;u}^X\!\equiv\!u^*D_X\!:
L^p_1(\Si;u^*TX)\lra L^p\big(\Si;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}u^*TX\big).$$ Thus, $D_{J;u}^X$ induces a CR-operator $$D_{J;u}^{NY}\!:
L^p_1(\Si;u^*NY)\lra L^p\big(\Si;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}u^*NY\big),$$ where $NY\!\equiv\!TX|_Y/TY$ is the complex normal bundle of $Y$ in $X$.\
The next lemma extends Serre duality from $\dbar$-operators to CR-operators. If $D$ is as in \_ref[CRdfn\_e]{}, let $$D^*=\dbar-A^*\!: L^p_1(\Si;\K_{\Si}\!\otimes\!_{\C}E^*)\lra
L^p(\Si;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\K_{\Si}\!\otimes\!_{\C}E^*);$$ see \_ref[Aadj\_e]{} and \_ref[dualsheafdfn\_e]{} for notation. If $S\!\subset\!\Si$ is a finite subset of smooth points of $\Si$ and $\vr$ is a function assigning to $z_0\!\in\!S$ a complex subspace of $E_{z_0}^*$, $D^*$ extends to an operator $$D_{\vr}^*\!: L^p_1\big(\Si;\K_{\Si}\!\otimes\!_{\C}E^*(\vr)\big)\lra
L^p\big(\Si;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\K_{\Si}\!\otimes\!_{\C}E^*(S)\big);$$ see \_ref[dualsheafdfn\_e2]{}. Let $D_{\vr}$ be the restriction of $D$ to the closed subspace $L^p_1(\Si;E(-\vr))$ of $L^p_1(\Si;E)$.
\[serre\_lmm\] Let $D$ be a CR-operator on a complex vector bundle $(E,\fI)$ over a Riemann surface $(\Si,\fJ)$. If $S$ is a finite subset of smooth points of $\Si$ and $\vr$ is a function assigning to $z_0\!\in\!S$ a real subspace of $E_{z_0}^*$, the homomorphism D\_\_(D\_\^\*,), ,is an isomorphism.
[*Proof:*]{} If $\Si$ is smooth and $S\!=\!\eset$, this is [@IvSh Lemma 2.3.2]. Furthermore, by the twisting construction of [@Sh Lemma 2.4.1][^9], the elements $z_0$ of $S$ for which $\vr(z_0)\!=\!E_{z_0}^*$ can be omitted from $S$. In the general case, the proof of [@IvSh Lemma 2.3.2] shows that the homomorphisms D\_\^\*\_( D\_,), D\_\_( D\_\^\*,),induced by the pairings \_ref[Aadj\_e]{} are well-defined and injective. It follows that $$\ind\,D_{\vr}+ \ind\,D_{\vr}^*\le0$$ and equality holds if and only if the homomorphisms \_ref[serre\_e1]{} are isomorphisms. On the other hand, if $\ti{D}_{\vr}$ and $\ti{D}_{\vr}^*$ are the operators corresponding to $D_{\vr}$ and $D_{\vr}^*$ over the normalization $\si\!:\ti\Si\!\lra\!\Si$, dropping any matching conditions at the nodes and the other restricting conditions at the points of $S$, then $$\begin{split}
\ind\, D_{\vr}&=\ind\,\ti{D}_{\vr}-2k m-\|\vr\|, \\
\ind\, D_{\vr}^*&=\ind\,\ti{D}_{\vr}^*-2k m-2k|S|+\|\vr\|,
\end{split}$$ where $k$ is the complex rank of $E$, $m$ is the number of nodes in $\Si$, and $$\|\vr\|=\sum_{z_0\in S}\dim_{\R}\vr(z_0).$$ Since the kernel and cokernel of $\ti{D}_{\vr}^*$ are isomorphic to the kernel and cokernel of a CR-operator on $T^*\ti\Si\!\otimes\!\si^*E^*$ twisted by the preimages of the nodes and the elements of $S$, $$\ind\,\ti{D}_{\vr}^*=-\ind\,\ti{D}_{\vr}+4km+2k|S|.$$ It follows that $\ind\,D_{\vr}^*=-\ind\,D_{\vr}$ and thus the injective homomorphisms in \_ref[serre\_e1]{} are in fact isomorphisms.
Families of nodal Riemann surfaces {#RSF_subs}
----------------------------------
By a (), we will mean a topological space $\ov\M$ together with a partition $$\ov\M=\bigsqcup_{l=0}^{l=k}\M^{(l)}$$ such that $\M^{(l)}$ is a smooth manifold of (real) dimension $k\!-\!l$ and $$\ov\M^{(l)}-\M^{(l)}\subset\bigsqcup_{l'=l+1}^{l=k}\!\!\!\M^{(l')}\,.$$ If $U$ is an open subspace of a stratified space $\ov\M$ as above, then $$U=\bigsqcup_{l=0}^{l=k}(\M^{(l)}\!\cap\!U)$$ is also a stratified space. If $\ov\M_1$ and $\ov\M_2$ are stratified spaces, $\ov\M_1\!\times\!\ov\M_2$ is a stratified space with the strata given by unions of the products of the strata of $\ov\M_1$ and $\ov\M_2$. A continuous map $\pi\!:\ov\M_1\!\lra\!\ov\M_2$ between stratified spaces will be called a if the restriction of $\pi$ to each stratum of $\ov\M_1$ is a smooth map to a stratum of $\ov\M_2$. A stratified map $\pi_V\!:V\!\lra\!\ov\M$ will be called a if $\pi_V$ is a topological vector bundle with fiber $\C^k$ and the transition maps from open subsets of $\ov\M$ to $\GL_k\C$ are stratified.\
For the purposes of Definition \[flatfam\_dfn\] below, we set $$\pi_{\std}\!\equiv\!\pi_1:
\fU_{\std}\equiv\big\{(t,u,v)\!\in\!\C^3\!:~ uv\!=\!t\big\}\lra\C$$ to be the projection to the first component. This is a stratified map with respect to the stratifications $$\C=\C^*\sqcup\{0\}, \qquad
\fU_{\std}=\pi_{\std}^{-1}(\C^*)\sqcup \big(\pi_{\std}^{-1}(0)\!-\!0\big)
\sqcup\{0\}.$$ For each $t\!\in\!\C^*$, define $$\rho_t\!:\Si_t\!\equiv\!\pi_{\std}^{-1}(t)\lra\R^+ \qquad\hbox{by}\quad
\rho_t(t,u,v)=u^2+v^2\,.$$ If in addition $\ep\!\in\!\R^+$, let $$\Si_{t,\ep}=\big\{(t,u,v)\!\in\!\Si_t\!:\, |u|^2\!+\!|v|^2<\ep\big\}.$$ If $E\!\lra\!\Si_t$ is a normed vector bundle and $\eta\!\in\!L^p(\Si_t;E)$, let $$\|\eta\|_{t,\ep}=\bigg(\int_{\Si_{t,\ep}}|\eta|^p\bigg)^{1/p}
+\bigg(\int_{\Si_{t,\ep}}\rho_t^{-\frac{p-2}{p}}|\eta|^2\bigg)^{1/2}\,.$$
\[flatfam\_dfn\] A stratified map $\pi\!:\fU\!\lra\!\ov\M$ is a if
- each fiber $\Si_u\!\equiv\!\pi^{-1}(u)$ is a (possibly nodal) Riemann surface;
- if $z_0\!\in\!\Si_{u_0}$ is a smooth point, there are neighborhoods $U_{z_0}$ of $u_0$ in $\ov\M$ and $\ti{U}_{z_0}$ of $z_0$ in $\fU$ and a stratified isomorphism of fiber bundles $$\ti\phi_{z_0}\!:\ti{U}_{z_0}\lra U_{z_0}\!\times\!(\Si_{u_0}\!\cap\!\ti{U}_{z_0})$$ over $U_{z_0}$ such that the restriction of $\ti\phi_{z_0}$ to each fiber of $\pi$ is holomorphic and the restriction of $\ti\phi_{z_0}$ to $\Si_{u_0}\!\cap\!\ti{U}_{z_0}$ is the identity;
- if $z_0\!\in\!\Si_{u_0}$ is a node, there are neighborhoods $U_{z_0}$ of $u_0$ in $\ov\M$ and $\ti{U}_{z_0}$ of $z_0$ in $\fU$, a stratified space $U_{z_0}'$, and stratified embeddings $$\phi_{z_0}\!: U_{z_0}\lra U_{z_0}'\times\C \qquad\hbox{and}\qquad
\ti\phi_{z_0}\!:\ti{U}_{z_0}\lra U_{z_0}'\times\!\fU_{\std}$$ such that the diagram $$\xymatrix{ \ti{U}_{z_0} \ar[d]^{\pi} \ar[r]^-{\ti\phi_{z_0}}&
U_{z_0}'\!\times\!\fU_{\std} \ar[d]^{\id\times\pi_{\std}}\\
U_{z_0} \ar[r]^-{\phi_{z_0}}& U_{z_0}'\!\times\!\C }$$ commutes and the restriction of $\ti\phi_{z_0}$ to each fiber of $\pi$ is holomorphic.
\[flatfam\_df2\] If $S$ is a finite set, a stratified map $\pi\!:\fU\!\lra\!\ov\M$ with stratified sections $z_j\!:\ov\M\!\lra\!\fU$, $j\!\in\!S$, is a if
- $\pi\!:\fU\!\lra\!\ov\M$ is a flat stratified family of Riemann surfaces;
- $z_j(u)\!\in\!\Si_u$ is a smooth point for every $u\!\in\!\ov\M$ and $j\!\in\!S$;
- $z_{j_1}(u)\!\neq\!z_{j_2}(z)$ for every $u\!\in\!\ov\M$, $j_1,j_2\!\in\!S$ with $j_1\!\neq\!j_2$.
\[flatfam\_df3\] If $\pi\!:\fU\!\lra\!\ov\M$ is a flat stratified family of $S$-marked Riemann surfaces and $Y$ is a smooth manifold, a continuous map $F\!:\fU\!\lra\!Y$ is a if
- for every $u\!\in\!\ov\M$, the restriction of $F$ to $\Si_u\!\equiv\!\pi^{-1}(u)$ is an $L^p_1$-map;
- if $z_0\!\in\!\Si_{u_0}$ is a smooth point and $U_{z_0}$, $\ti{U}_{z_0}$, and $\ti\phi_{z_0}$ are as in Definition \[flatfam\_dfn\], there exists a compact neighborhood $K_{z_0}(F)$ of $z_0$ in $\Si_{u_0}\!\cap\!\ti{U}_{z_0}$ such that $F\circ\ti\phi_{z_0}^{-1}|_{u\times K_{z_0}(F)}$ converges to $F|_{K_{z_0}(F)}$ in the $L^p_1$-norm as $u\!\in\!U_{z_0}$ approaches $u_0$;
- if $z_0\!\in\!\Si_{u_0}$ is a node and $U_{z_0}$, $\ti{U}_{z_0}$, $\phi_{z_0}$, and $\ti\phi_{z_0}$ are as in Definition \[flatfam\_dfn\], $$\lim_{\ep\lra0}\lim_{\underset{(u',t)\in\phi_{z_0}(U_{z_0})}{(u',t)\lra\phi_{z_0}(u)}}
\big\|d(F\circ\ti\phi_{z_0}^{-1}|_{u'\times\Si_t})\big\|_{t,\ep}=0\,.$$
In the case of interest to us, $\ov\M$ will be a family of $S$-marked stable maps to a smooth manifold $Y$. The fiber of $\fU\!\lra\!\ov\M$ over a point $u\!:\Si_u\!\lra\!Y$ will be the Riemann surface $\Si_u$.
Families of generalized CR-operators {#CR_subs2}
------------------------------------
Let $D$ be a smooth CR-operator on a vector bundle $(N,\fI)$ over an almost complex manifold $(Y,J)$. Suppose $\fU\!\lra\!\ov\M$ is a flat stratified family of $S$-marked Riemann surfaces, $F\!: \fU\!\lra\!Y$ is a flat family of maps, $S_0\!\subset\!S$, and $\vr$ is a function assigning to each $z_0\!\in\!S_0$ a real subbundle of $\ev_j^*N^*$. For each $u\!\in\!\ov\M$ and $z_0\!\in\!S$, let $\vr_u(z_0)$ be the fiber of $\vr(z_0)$ over $u$. Denote by $\ker_{\vr;u}^F(D)$ and $\ker_{\vr;u}^F(D^*)$ the kernels of the operators $$\begin{split}
\big\{\big(F|_{\Si_u}\big)^*D\big\}_{\vr_u}\!:\,
& L^p_1\big(\Si_u;\{F|_{\Si_u}^*N\}(-\vr_u)\big)
\lra L^p\big(\Si_u;T^*\Si^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}F|_{\Si_u}^*N\big),\\
\big\{\big(F|_{\Si_u}\big)^*D\big\}_{\vr_u}^*\!:\,
& L^p_1\big(\Si_u;\K_{\Si_u}\!\otimes\!_{\C}\{F|_{\Si_u}^*N\}(\vr_u)\big)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad
\lra L^p\big(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\K_{\Si_u}\!\otimes\!_{\C}
\{F|_{\Si_u}^*N\}(\{z_j(u)\}_{j\in S_0})\big),
\end{split}$$ respectively.\
We topologize the sets $$\ker_{\vr}^F(D)\equiv\bigsqcup_{u\in\ov\M}\ker_{\vr;u}^F(D)
\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad
\ker_{\vr}^F(D^*)\equiv\bigsqcup_{u\in\ov\M}\ker_{\vr;u}^F(D^*)$$ by point-wise convergence on compact subsets of the complement of the special (nodal and marked) points of the fiber. In other words, suppose $u_r\!\in\!\ov\M$, $r\!\in\!\Z^+$, is a sequence converging to $u_0\!\in\!\ov\M$ and $\xi_r\!\in\!\ker_{\vr;u_r}^F(D')$ for $r\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$, where $D'\!=\!D,D^*$ and $\bar\Z^+\!=\!\{0\}\!\sqcup\!\Z$. The sequence $\{u_r\}$ if for every smooth point $z_0\!\in\!\Si_{u_0}$, with $z_0\!\neq\!z_j(u)$ for $j\!\in\!S$, there exists a compact neighborhood $K_{z_0}(F)$ as in Definition \[flatfam\_df3\] such that $\xi_r\circ\ti\phi_{z_0}^{-1}|_{u_r \times K_{z_0}(F)}$ converges pointwise to $\xi_0|_{K_{z_0}(F)}$.\
By Carleman Similarity Principle [@FHoS Theorem 2.2], if the restriction of an element $\xi$ of $\ker_{\vr;u}^F(D')$ to an open subset of a component $\Si_{u;i}$ of $\Si_u$ vanishes, then the restriction of $\xi$ to $\Si_{u;i}$ is zero as well. This implies that the above convergence topology on $\ker_{\vr}^F(D)$ is the topology inherited from the convergence topology on the bundle over $\ov\M$ with fibers $L^p_1(\Si_u;u^*N)$ described in [@LiT Section 3].[^10] Furthermore, if the dimension of $\ker_{\vr;u}^F(D)$ is independent of $u$, then $\ker_{\vr}^F(D)\!\lra\!\ov\M$ is a vector bundle. By [@RT Section 6], the analogous statement holds for $\ker_{\vr;u}^F(D^*)$.[^11] Lemma \[serre\_lmm\] then implies that $\ker_{\vr}^F(D^*)\!\lra\!\ov\M$ is a vector bundle if the dimension of $\ker_{\vr;u}^F(D)$ is independent of $u\!\in\!\ov\M$. If in addition, the vector bundles $\ker_{\vr}^F(D)\!\lra\!\ov\M$ and $\vr(z_0)$, $z_0\!\in\!S$, are oriented (and $S$ is ordered if any of the bundles $\vr(z_0)$ is of odd rank), then the vector bundle \_\^F(D\^\*)has a canonical induced orientation, since $\ker_{\vr;u}^F(D)$ and $(\ker_{\vr;u}^F(D^*))^*$ are the kernel and cokernel of an operator obtained by a zeroth-order deformation from a first-order complex-linear Fredholm operator; the determinant line of such an operator has a canonical orientation defined via a homotopy of Fredholm operators (see the proof of [@McS Theorem 3.1.5]).
Proof of Theorem \[main\_thm\] {#GW_sec}
==============================
The first claim of Theorem \[main\_thm\] is immediate from the assumption that $f_j^{-1}(Y)$ is a smooth oriented manifold. Thus, $$\big[\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)\big]^{vir} =\bigg(
\prod_{j\in S}\big\{\ev_j\!\times\!(f_j\!\circ\!\pi_j)\!\big\}^*\big(\PD_{Y^2}(\De_Y)\big)
\bigg) \cap
\bigg[\ov\M_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y;J)\times\prod_{j\in S}f_j^{-1}(Y)\bigg]^{vir}\,,$$ where $\De_Y\!\subset\!Y^2$ is the diagonal and $\pi_j\!:\prod_{j\in S}f_j^{-1}(Y)\lra f_j^{-1}(Y)$ is the projection onto the $j$-th component; the identity \_ref[Ydim\_e]{} now follows from \_ref[rkNf\_e]{}. Sections \[CR\_subs\] and \[CR\_subs2\] imply the second claim of Theorem \[main\_thm\]. Since the vector spaces ((D\_[J;u]{}\^[NY]{})\^\*)(D\_[J;u]{}\^[NY]{})\^\* have constant rank and are oriented via the isomorphism \_ref[mainthm\_e]{}, they form natural oriented bundles over the uniformizing charts for $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ described in [@LiT Section 3]. These bundles glue together to form an oriented vector orbi-bundle over $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$.[^12] In the notation of Sections \[CR\_subs\] and \[CR\_subs2\], this is also the bundle of the cokernels of the injective operators $D_{J,\vr;\u}^{NY}\!\equiv\!(D_{J;u}^{NY})_{\vr}$, where \[u\](\[u\],(w\_j)\_[jS]{})\_[g,]{}(Y,\_Y;J)and $\vr$ is the function assigning to each element $j\!\in\!S$ the subbundle $\Ann(\ev_j^*(\Im\, d^{NY}f_j),\R)$ of $\ev_j^*NY^*$. The identity \_ref[cokrk\_e]{} is immediate from \_ref[mainthm\_e]{} and the Index Theorem. The first part of the third claim follows immediately from Proposition \[horreg\_prp\] below in light of assumption (b) in Theorem \[main\_thm\].\
We note that the second part of the third claim of Theorem \[main\_thm\] is consistent with the divisor relation for GW-invariants [@RT2 (3.4)] in the following sense. Let $$\pi_0\!: \ov\M_{g,\{0\}\sqcup S}(Y,\be_Y;J)\lra \ov\M_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y;J)$$ be the forgetful map dropping the 0-th marked point and $f_0\!:M_0\!\lra\!X$ a cobordism representative for some $\ka_0\!\in\!H_{2n-2}(X;\Z)$ so that $f_0$ is transverse to $Y$; the last assumption implies that $N_{f_0(w_0)}^{f_0}Y\!=\!\{0\}$ for all $w_0\!\in\!f_0^{-1}(Y)$. With $$\begin{split}
\ov\M_{g,f_0\sqcup\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)
\equiv\big\{\big([u],w_0,(w_j)_{j\in S}\big)\in
\ov\M_{g,\{0\}\sqcup S}(Y,\be_Y;J)\!\times\!M_0\!\times\!\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j\!:
\qquad\qquad\qquad&\\
\ev_j([u])\!=\!f_j(w_j)~\forall\,j\!\in\!\{0\}\!\sqcup\!S\big\}\,,&
\end{split}$$ let $$\ti\pi_0\!:\ov\M_{g,f_0\sqcup\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)\lra \ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$$ be the map induced by $\pi_0$. If $[u]\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,\{0\}\sqcup S}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ and $\pi_0$ contracts component $\Si_{u;i_0}$ of $\Si_u$, then $\Si_{u;i_0}$ is $\P^1$, contains precisely two nodes, say $0$ and $\i$, along with the $0$-th marked point and no other marked points, and $u|_{\Si_{u;i_0}}$ is constant. Therefore, if $[u']\!=\!\pi_0(u)$ and $\chi_u$ is the set of components of $\Si_u$, then the homomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\label{kerisom_e}
&\ker(D_{J;u}^{NY})\lra \ker(D_{J;u'}^{NY}), &\qquad
&(\xi_i)_{i\in\chi_u}\lra (\xi_i)_{i\in\chi_u-i_0}\,,\\
\label{cokisom_e}
&\ker\big((D_{J;u}^{NY})^*\big)\lra \ker\big((D_{J;u'}^{NY})^*\big), &\qquad
&(\eta_i)_{i\in\chi_u}\lra (\eta_i)_{i\in\chi_u-i_0}\,,\end{aligned}$$ are well-defined and are in fact isomorphisms. Since \_ref[kerisom\_e]{} is an isomorphism, $f_0\!\sqcup\!\f$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem \[main\_thm\] if and only if $\f$ does. Since the total spaces of the cokernel bundles are topologized using convergence of elements of $\ker(D_{J;u}^{NY})^*$ on compact subsets of smooth points, \_ref[cokisom\_e]{} induces an isomorphism of orbi-bundles (D\_J\^[NY]{})\_0\^\*(D\_J\^[NY]{}) over $\ov\M_{g,f_0\sqcup\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$; it extends over a neighborhood of $\ov\M_{g,f_0\sqcup\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ in the space of $L^p_1$-maps via the construction described at the end of Section \[config\_subs\]. Thus, by the standard divisor relation, $$\begin{split}
&\bigg\lan e\big(\cok(D_J^{NY})\big)\prod_{j\in S}\psi_j^{a_j},
\big[\ov\M_{g,f_0\sqcup\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)\big]^{vir}\bigg\ran\\
&\hspace{1in}
=\blr{\PD_Y\ka_0,\be}\cdot
\bigg\lan e\big(\cok(D_J^{NY})\big)\prod_{j\in S}\psi_j^{a_j},
\big[\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)\big]^{vir}\bigg\ran.
\end{split}$$ In particular, it is sufficient to verify \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} under the assumption that $2g\!+\!|S|\!\ge\!3$; this slightly simplifies the presentation.\
For the remainder of the paper, we assume that $2g\!+\!|S|\!\ge\!3$. Section \[config\_subs\] sets up notation for the configuration spaces that play a central role in [@FuO] and [@LiT]. The main geometric observation used in the proof of Theorem \[main\_thm\] is Proposition \[horreg\_prp\], stated and proved in Section \[subman\_subs\]. Our approach to \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} is illustrated in Section \[semipos\_subs\], where \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} is verified in some cases, including the case of Theorem \[FanoGV\_thm\]. The general case is the subject of Section \[mainpf\_subs\].
Configuration spaces {#config_subs}
--------------------
Let $X$ be a compact manifold, $\be\!\in\!H_2(X;\Z)$, $g$ a non-negative integer, and $S$ a finite set. We denote by $\X_{g,S}(X,\be)$ the space of equivalence classes of stable $L^p_1$-maps $u\!:\Si_u\!\lra\!X$ from genus $g$ Riemann surfaces with $S$-marked points, which may have simple nodes, to $X$ of degree $\be$, i.e. $$u_*[\Si_u]=\be\in H_2(X;\Z).$$ Let $\X_{g,S}^0(X,\be)$ be the subset of $\X_{g,S}(X,\be)$ consisting of the stable maps with smooth domains. The space $\X_{g,S}(X,\be)$ is topologized in [@LiT Section 3] using $L^p_1$-convergence on compact subsets of smooth points of the domain and certain convergence requirements near the nodes. The space $\X_{g,S}(X,\be)$ is stratified by subspaces $\X_{\T}(X)$ of stable maps from domains of the same geometric type and with the same degree distribution between the components of the domain. Each stratum is the quotient of a smooth Banach manifold $\ti\X_{\T}(X)$ by a finite-dimensional Lie group $G_{\T}$; the restriction of the $G_{\T}$-action to any finite-dimensional submanifold of $\ti\X_{\T}(X)$ consisting of smooth maps and preserved by $G_{\T}$ is smooth. The closure of the main stratum, $\X_{g,S}^0(X,\be)$, is $\X_{g,S}(X,\be)$. If $f_j\!:M_j\!\lra\!X$ for $j\!\in\!S$ are smooth maps, let $$\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)=\big\{\big([u],(w_j)_{j\in S}\big)
\in \X_{g,S}(X,\be)\times\prod_{j\in S}M_j\!:~
u(z_j(u))\!=\!f_j(w_j)~\forall\,j\!\in\!S\big\}.$$\
If $J$ is an almost complex structure on $X$, let $$\Ga_{g,S}^{0,1}(X,\be;J)\!\lra\!\X_{g,S}(X,\be)$$ be the family of $(TX,J)$-valued $(0,1)$ $L^p$-forms. In other words, the fiber of $\Ga_{g,S}^{0,1}(X,\be;J)$ over a point $[u]$ in $\X_{g,S}(X,\be)$ is the space $$\Ga_{g,S}^{0,1}(X,\be;J)\big|_{[u]}=\Ga^{0,1}(X,u;J)\big/\hbox{Aut}(u),
\quad\hbox{where}\quad
\Ga^{0,1}(X,u;J)=L^p\big(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}u^*TX\big).$$ The total space of this family is topologized in [@LiT Section 3] using $L^p$-convergence on compact subsets of smooth points of the domain and certain convergence requirements near the nodes. The restriction of $\Ga_{g,S}^{0,1}(X,\be;J)$ to each stratum $\X_{\T}(X)$ is the quotient of a smooth Banach vector bundle $\ti\Ga_{\T}^{0,1}(X;J)$ over $\ti\X_{\T}(X)$ by $G_{\T}$. The smooth sections of the bundles $\ti\Ga_{\T}^{0,1}(X;J)\lra \ti\X_{\T}(X)$ given by $$\dbar_J\big([\Si_u,\fJ_u;u]\big) = \dbar_{J,\fJ_u}u
= \frac{1}{2}\big(du+J\!\circ\!du\!\circ\!\fJ_u\big)$$ induce sections of $\Ga_{g,S}^{0,1}(X,\be;J)$ over $\X_{\T}(X)$, which define a continuous section $\bar\partial_J$ of the family $$\Ga_{g,S}^{0,1}(X,\be;J) \lra \X_{g,S}(X,\be).$$ The zero set of this section is the moduli space $\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$ of equivalence classes of stable $J$-holomorphic degree $\be$ maps from genus-$g$ curves with $S$-marked points into $X$. The section $\dbar_J$ over $\ti\X_{\T}(X)$ is Fredholm, i.e. its linearization has finite-dimensional kernel and cokernel at every point of the zero set. The index of the linearization $D_{J;u}$ of $\dbar_J$ at $u\!\in\!\ti\X_{\T}(X)$ such that $$[u]\in\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)\equiv \ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)\cap \X_{g,S}^0(X,\be)$$ is the expected dimension $\dim_{g,S}(X,\be)$ of the moduli space $\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$.\
If $f_j\!:M_j\!\lra\!X$ for $j\!\in\!S$ are smooth maps, $Y\!\subset\!X$ is a submanifold, $\be_Y\!\in\!H_2(X;\Z)$ is such that $\io_{Y*}\be_Y\!=\!\be$, and $\T$ is any combinatorial type of maps to $X$ or $Y$ of degree $\be$ or $\be_Y$, respectively, let $$\begin{split}
\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)&=\big\{\big([u],(w_j)_{j\in S}\big)\in
\X_{g,S}(X,\be)\!\times\!\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j\!:\,
\ev_j([u])\!=\!f_j(w_j)\,\forall\,j\!\in\!S\big\},\\
\X_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y)&=\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)
\cap \bigg(\X_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y)\!\times\!\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j\bigg),\\
\X_{\T,\f}(X)&=\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)
\cap \bigg(\X_{\T}(X)\!\times\!\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j\bigg),\\
\X_{\T,\f}(Y)&=\X_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y)\cap
\bigg(\X_{\T}(Y)\!\times\!\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j\bigg).
\end{split}$$ With $\pi\!:\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)\!\lra\!\X_{g,S}(X,\be)$ denoting the projection map, let $$\begin{split}
\Ga^{0,1}_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)&=\pi^*\Ga^{0,1}_{g,S}(X,\be;J)\lra \X_{g,\f}(X,\be);\\
\Ga^{0,1}_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)&=\pi^*\Ga^{0,1}_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y;J)\lra \X_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y).
\end{split}$$ With $a_j$, $j\!\in\!S$, as in Theorem \[main\_thm\], let $$\bL_{\a,\f}\equiv\bigoplus_{j\in S}a_j\pi^*L_j^*\lra\X_{g,\f}(X,\be),$$ where $L_j\!\lra\!\X_{g,S}(X,\be)$ is the tautological line bundle for the $j$-th marked point.\
If $J$ is an almost complex structure on $X$ preserving $Y$, let $g_J$ be a $J$-invariant metric on $X$, $\na^J$ the $J$-linear connection of $g_J$ induced by the Levi-Civita connection of $g_J$, $TY^{\v}\!\subset\!TX|_Y$ the $g_J$-orthogonal complement of $TY$, and $\pi^{\h}\!:TX|_Y\!\lra\!TY$ the orthogonal projection map. Define $$\begin{gathered}
\ti\na^J\!: \Ga(Y;TX)\lra \Ga(Y;T^*Y\!\otimes_{\R}\!TX) \qquad\hbox{by}\\
\ti\na^J_v(\xi^{\h}+\xi^{\v})=
\pi^{\h}\big(\na_v^J\xi^{\h}\big)+\na_v^J\xi^{\v}
\qquad\forall~v\!\in\!TY,~\xi^{\h}\!\in\!\Ga(Y;TY),~\xi^{\v}\!\in\!\Ga(Y;TY^{\v}).\end{gathered}$$ This connection in $TX|_Y$ gives rise to a $\C$-linear connection $\na^{\perp}$ on $NY$ and thus to a $\dbar$-operator $\dbar^{\perp}$ on $NY$. Define $$D^{NY}\!:\Ga(Y;NY)\lra \Ga(Y;T^*Y^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!NY)
\qquad\hbox{by}\qquad
D^{NY}\xi=\dbar^{\perp}\xi+A_X^{\perp}(\cdot,\xi),$$ where $A_X^{\perp}$ is the composition of the Nijenhuis tensor of $J$ on $X$ with the projection to $NY$. If $[u]\!\in\!\X_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y)$, let $$D^{NY}_{J;u}\!: L^p_1(\Si_u;u^*NY)\lra
L^p\big(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!u^*NY\big)$$ be the pull-back of $D^{NY}$ by $u$ with respect to the connection $\na^{\perp}$ as in Section \[CR\_subs\]. If $[u]$ is an element of $\ov\M_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y;J)$, this definition agrees with the one in Section \[AbsGW\_subs\]. Thus, under the assumptions of Theorem \[main\_thm\], the dimension of $\cok(D^{NY}_{J;u})$ is fixed on a neighborhood of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ in $\X_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y)$. By Section \[CR\_subs2\], the vector spaces $\cok(D^{NY}_{J;u})$ form a vector orbi-bundle over such a neighborhood.
Symplectic submanifolds and pseudo-holomorphic maps {#subman_subs}
---------------------------------------------------
\[Jtub\_dfn\] If $(X,J)$ is an almost complex manifold and $Y\!\subset\!X$ is an almost complex submanifold, a tuple $(\pi_Y\!:U_Y\!\lra\!Y,TU_Y^h)$ is a if
- $U_Y$ is a tubular neighborhood of $Y$ in $X$;
- $\pi_Y\!:U_Y\!\lra\!Y$ is a vector bundle such that $\pi_Y|_Y\!=\!\id_Y$ and $\ker d_y\pi_Y$ is a complex subspace of $(T_yX,J)$ for every $y\!\in\!Y$;
- $TU_Y^h\!\lra\!U_Y$ is a complex subbundle of $(TU_Y,J)$ such that $d_x\pi_Y\!:TU_Y^h\!\lra\!T_{\pi_Y(x)}Y$ is an isomorphism of real vector spaces for every $x\!\in\!U_Y$ and is the identity for every $x\!\in\!Y$.\
Every embedded almost complex submanifold $Y$ of an almost complex manifold $(X,J)$ admits a $J$-regularized tubular neighborhood. Let $g$ be a $J$-invariant Riemannian metric on $X$ and $\exp^g\!:TX\!\lra\!X$ the exponential map with respect to the Levi-Civita connection of the metric $g$. Identifying $NY$ with the $g$-orthogonal complement of $TY$ in $TX|_Y$, we obtain a smooth map $$\exp^Y\!: NY\lra X$$ by restricting $\exp^g$. Since $Y$ is an embedded submanifold of $X$, there exist tubular neighborhoods $U_Y'$ and $U_Y$ of $Y$ in $NY$ and in $Y$, respectively, such that the map $$\exp\!\equiv\!\exp^Y\big|_{U_Y'}\!: U_Y'\lra U_Y$$ is a diffeomorphism. Furthermore, $\exp|_Y\!=\!\id_Y$ and $d_y\exp\!:T_yNY\lra T_yX$ is $\C$-linear for every $y\!\in\!Y$. Thus, $$\pi_Y=\pi_{NY}\!\circ\!\exp|_{U_Y'}^{\,-1}\!: U_Y\lra Y,$$ where $\pi_{NY}\!: NY\!\lra\!Y$ is the bundle projection map, satisfies the middle condition in Definition \[Jtub\_dfn\]. Furthermore, if $(\ker d\pi_Y)^{\perp}$ is the $g$-orthogonal complement of $\ker d\pi_Y$ in $TU_Y$, $$d_x\pi_Y\!:(\ker d_x\pi_Y)^{\perp}\lra T_{\pi_Y(x)}Y$$ is an isomorphism and induces a complex structure $J_Y$ in the vector bundle $(\ker d\pi_Y)^{\perp}\!\lra\!U_Y$ (which may differ from $J$). Let $$T_xU_Y^h=\big\{v\!-\!JJ_Yv\!: v\!\in\!(\ker d_x\pi_Y)^{\perp}\big\}.$$ Note that $T_xU_Y^h$ is a complex linear subspace of $(T_xU_Y,J_x)$ for each $x\!\in\!U_Y$. Since $(\ker d_y\pi_Y)^{\perp}\!=\!T_yY$ and $J_Y|_y\!=\!J|_{T_yY}$ for every $y\!\in\!Y$, $$d_y\pi_Y=\id\!: T_yU_Y^h\lra T_{\pi_Y(y)}Y$$ for every $y\!\in\!Y$. Thus, $$d_x\pi_Y\!: T_xU_Y^h\lra T_{\pi_Y(x)}Y$$ is an isomorphism for every $x\!\in\!U_Y$ if $U_Y$ is sufficiently small. We conclude that $TU_Y^h$ satisfies the final condition in Definition \[Jtub\_dfn\].
\[horreg\_prp\] Suppose $(X,\om)$ is a compact symplectic manifold, $g\!\in\!\bar\Z^+$, $S$ is a finite set, $\be\!\in\!H_2(X;\Z)$, and $f_j\!:M_j\!\lra\!X$ is a smooth map for each $j\!\in\!S$. Let $J$ be an $\om$-tame almost complex structure on $X$, $Y$ a compact almost complex submanifold of $(X,J)$, and $(\pi_Y\!:U_Y\!\lra\!Y,TU_Y^h)$ a $J$-regularized tubular neighborhood of $Y$ in $X$. If $([u_r],(w_{r,j})_{j\in S})\in\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$ is a sequence such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dbarhor_e}
u_r(\Si_{u_r})\not\subset Y, \qquad
\dbar_Ju_r\big|_{u_r^{-1}(U_Y)}\in
L^p\big(u_r^{-1}(U_Y);T^*(u_r^{-1}(U_Y))^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!u_r^*TU_Y^h\big),\\
\lim_{r\lra\i}\big([u_r],(w_{r,j})_{j\in S})=\big([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})
\in\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)\subset\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)
\notag\end{gathered}$$ for some $\be_Y\!\in\!H_2(Y;\Z)$, then $$\exists~~ \xi\!\in\!\ker\,D_{J;u}^{NY}, ~~ v_j\!\in\!T_{w_j}M_j~
\forall\,j\!\in\!S
\qquad\hbox{s.t.}\qquad
\xi\neq0, \qquad \xi\big(z_j(u)\big)=d_{w_j}f_j(v_j) \quad\forall\,j\!\in\!S.$$\
The rest of this subsection is dedicated to the proof of this proposition by adopting a now-standard rescaling argument. It is sufficient to consider the case $X\!=\!NY$ as smooth manifolds and $\pi_Y\!:NY\!\lra\!Y$ is the bundle projection map. After passing to a subsequence, it can be assumed that the topological types of the domains $\Si_{u_r}$ of $u_r$ are the same (but not necessarily the same as the topological type of $\Si_u$). The desired vector field $\xi$ and tangent vectors $v_j$ will be constructed by re-scaling $u_r$ in the normal direction to $Y$ and then taking the limit.\
For each $j\!\in\!S$, let $N_jY\!\subset\!T_{w_j}M$ be a complement of $T_{w_j}(f_j^{-1}(Y))$ and $$\exp_j\!: T_{w_j}M_j\lra M_j$$ a diffeomorphism onto a neighborhood of $w_j$ in $M_j$ such that $$\exp_j(0)=w_j, \qquad d_0\exp_j=\Id, \qquad
\exp_j(v)\in f_j^{-1}(Y)~~\forall\,v\!\in\!T_{w_j}(f_j^{-1}(Y)).$$ For each $r\!\in\!\Z^+$, define $$v_{r,j}^h\oplus v_{r,j}^{\perp}\in
T_{w_j}(f_j^{-1}(Y))\oplus N_jY=T_{w_j}M_j
\qquad\hbox{by}\quad \exp_j\big(v_{r,j}^h\!+\!v_{r,j}^{\perp}\big)=w_{r,j}\,.$$ Choose metrics on $NY$ and $N_jY$, $j\!\in\!S$. By our assumptions, $$\ep_r\equiv\sup_{z\in\Si_{u_r}}\!\!\!\big|u_r(z)\big|\in\R^+,
\quad \lim_{r\lra\i}\!\!\ep_r=0, \quad
\lim_{r\lra\i}\!v_{r,j}^h=0~~\forall\,j\!\in\!S, \quad
\big|v_{r,j}^{\perp}\big|\le C\ep_r~~\forall\,r\!\in\!\Z^+,\,j\!\in\!S,$$ for some $C\!\in\!\R^+$ independent of $r$ and $j$. By the last condition, for each $j\!\in\!S$ (a subsequence of) the sequence $$\ti{v}_{r,j}^{\perp}=\ep_r^{-1}v_{r,j}^{\perp}, \quad r\!\in\!\Z^+,$$ converges to some $v_j\!\in\!N_jY\!\subset\!T_{w_j}M_j$.\
For each $r\!\in\!\Z^+$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
&m_r\!: NY\lra NY &\qquad &\hbox{by}\quad
m_r(x)=\ep_r\cdot x;\\
&J_r\in\Ga\big(NY;\Hom(T(NY),T(NY))\big)&\qquad &\hbox{by}\quad
J_r|_x= \big\{d_x m_r\big\}^{-1}\circ J_{\ep_rx}\circ d_x m_r;\\
&\ti{u}_r\!: \Si_{u_r}\lra NY&\qquad &\hbox{by}\quad
\ti{u}_r(z)=\ep_r^{-1}\cdot u_r(z);\\
&\eta_r\in L^p(\Si_{u_r};T^*\Si_{u_r}^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}\ti{u}_r^*T(NY))&\qquad
&\hbox{by}\quad
\eta_r= \big\{d_{u_r(\cdot)}m_r\big\}^{-1}\circ\dbar_Ju_r.\end{aligned}$$ If in addition $j\!\in\!S$, define $\ti{f}_{r,j}\!:T_{w_j}M_j\!\lra\!NY$ by $$\ti{f}_{r,j}\big(v^h+v^{\perp}\big)=
\ep_r^{-1}\cdot f_j\big(\exp_j(v^h+\ep_rv^{\perp})\big)
\quad\forall\,v^h\!\in\!T_{w_j}(f_j^{-1}(Y)),\,v^{\perp}\!\in\!N_jY.$$ Then, for all $r\!\in\!\Z^+$, \_[J\_r]{}\_r=\_r, \_[z\_[\_r]{}]{}|\_r(z)|=1, \_r(z\_j(u\_r))=\_[r,j]{}(v\_[r,j]{}\^h+\_[r,j]{}\^) jS.By the following paragraph, the sequence of almost complex structures $J_r$ $C^{\infty}$-converges on compact subsets of $NY$ to an almost complex structure $\ti{J}$ such that $\ti{J}|_{TY}\!=\!J|_{TY}$ and $$\dbar_{\ti{J}}\xi=0 ~~\Llra~~
D_{J;u}^{NY}\xi=0 \qquad\forall~\xi\in\Ga\big(\Si_u;u^*NY).$$ Furthermore, the sequence $\eta_r$ converges to $0$. Thus, by \_ref[rescalecond\_e]{}, $\ti{u}_r$ converges to some $$\begin{gathered}
[\ti{u}]\in \ov\M_{g,S}(NY,\be;\ti{J})\subset \X_{g,S}(NY,\be)
\qquad\hbox{s.t.}\\
\ti{u}(\Si_{\ti{u}})\not\subset Y, ~~~
\ti{u}(x_j(\ti{u}))=d_{w_j}f_j(v_j)\in N_{f_j(w_j)}Y~~\forall\,j\!\in\!S.\end{gathered}$$ Since we must have $\pi_Y\!\circ\!\ti{u}=\!u$, $\ti{u}$ corresponds to a section $\xi$ of $u^*NY\!\lra\!\Si_u$ as needed.\
It remains to prove the two local claims made above. It is sufficient to assume that $$\pi_Y\!=\!\pi_1\!: NY=Y\!\times\!\C^k\lra Y$$ as vector bundles over $Y$, and there exists $$\begin{gathered}
\al\in\Ga(Y\!\times\!\C^k;\Hom_{\R}(\pi_1^*TY,\pi_2^*T\C^k)\big)
\qquad\st \notag\\
\al|_{Y\times0}=0, \qquad
\label{Jregulr_e2}
T_{(y,w)}U_Y^h=\big\{\big(y',\al_{(y,w)}(y')\big)\!: y'\!\in\!T_yY\big\}
\qquad \forall~(y,w)\in Y\!\times\!\C^k.\end{gathered}$$ Thus, by assumption on $u_r$, $$\dbar_Ju_r=(\nu^{\h},\al_u\nu^h)
\qquad\hbox{for some}\quad \nu^h\in
L^p(\Si_{u_r};T^*\Si_{u_r}\!\otimes_{\R}\!u_r^{\h*}TY\big),$$ where $u_r^{\h}=\pi_1\circ u_r$. Let $$J=\left(\begin{array}{cc} J^{\h\h}& J^{\h\v}\\ J^{\v\h}& J^{\v\v}\end{array}\right)\!:
TU_Y\!=\!\pi_1^*TY\!\oplus\!\pi_2^*T\C^k\lra \pi_1^*TY\!\oplus\!\pi_2^*T\C^k$$ be the almost complex structure. By Definition \[Jtub\_dfn\], $J^{\h\v}|_{Y\times0}\!=\!0$ and $J^{\v\h}|_{Y\times0}\!=\!0$; we can also assume that $J^{\v\v}|_{Y\times0}\!=\!\fI$ is the standard complex structure on $\C^k$. If $\vec\na$ is the gradient with respect to the standard coordinates on $\C^k$, it follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\al_{(y,w)}=\ti\al_{(y,w)}w, \qquad J^{\v\h}_{(y,w)}=\ti{J}^{\v\h}_{(y,w)}w, \qquad
J^{\v\v}_{(y,w)}=\fI+\ti{J}^{\v\v}_{(y,w)}w, \qquad\hbox{where}\\
\ti\al_{(y,w)}=\int_0^1\vec\na \al_{(y,tw)}\,dt, \qquad
\ti{J}^{\v\h}_{(y,w)}=\int_0^1\vec\na J^{\v\h}_{(y,tw)}\,dt, \qquad
\ti{J}^{\v\v}_{(y,w)}=\int_0^1\vec\na J^{\v\v}_{(y,tw)}\,dt.\notag\end{gathered}$$ This gives $$\begin{split}
\eta_r&=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu^{\h}\\ \ep_r^{-1}\{\ti\al_{u_r}u_r\}\nu_r^{\h}
\end{array}\right)\lra0\,,\\
J_r|_{(y,w)}&=
\left(\begin{array}{cc} J_{(y,\ep_rw)}^{\h\h}& \ep_r J_{(y,\ep_rw)}^{\h\v}\\
\ep_r^{-1} J_{(y,\ep_rw)}^{\v\h}& J_{(y,\ep_rw)}^{\v\v}\end{array}\right)
\lra \left(\begin{array}{cc} J_{T_yY}& 0\\
\ti{J}_{(y,0)}^{\v\h}w& \fI\end{array}\right)\equiv\ti{J}_{(y,w)}\,,\\
D_{J;u}\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi^{\h}\\ \xi^{\v}\end{array}\right)
&=\left(\begin{array}{c}\dbar\xi^{\h}\\
\dbar\xi^{\v}+\frac{1}{2}\{\ti{J}_{(y,0)}^{\v\h}\xi^{\v}\}du\circ\fJ\end{array}\right);
\end{split}$$ the last identity is a special case of [@McS (3.1.4)]. This concludes the proof of Proposition \[horreg\_prp\].
Geometric motivation for \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} {#semipos_subs}
---------------------------------------------
In this section we give a rough argument for \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} before translating it into the virtual setting of [@FuO] and [@LiT] in Section \[mainpf\_subs\]. As explained at the end of this section, this argument suffices in some cases. We continue with the notation of Theorem \[main\_thm\] and Section \[config\_subs\]. For the remainder of the paper, we assume that \_ref[dimcond\_e]{} holds; otherwise, the left-hand side of \_ref[mainthm\_e]{} vanishes by definition, while the right-hand side vanishes by \_ref[Ydim\_e]{} and \_ref[cokrk\_e]{}. Our assumption implies that \_[g,]{}(Y,\_Y)\^[vir]{} =2\_ja\_j+\_(D\_J\^[NY]{}).We also assume that $a_j\!\ge\!0$ for every $j\!\in\!S$.\
If $\nu$ is a sufficiently small multi-section of $\Ga^{0,1}_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$ over $\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$, the space $$\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J,\nu)
=\{\dbar_J\!+\!\nu\}^{-1}(0)\subset \X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$$ is compact, because $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$ is. If in addition $\nu$ is smooth and generic in the appropriate sense, $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J,\nu)$ is stratified by smooth branched orbifolds of even dimensions. If $\vph$ is a multi-section of the orbi-bundle $\bL_{\a,\f}\lra\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$, let \_[g,]{}\^(X,;J,)=\_[g,]{}(X,;J,)\^[-1]{}(0).If $\nu$ is sufficiently small and generic and $\vph$ is generic, the left-hand side of \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} is the number of elements of $\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(X,\be;J,\nu)$ counted with appropriate multiplicities that lie in a small neighborhood of $$\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J)\equiv
\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)\cap\vph^{-1}(0)$$ in $\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$.\
In order to verify \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{}, fix a $J$-regularized tubular neighborhood $(\pi_Y\!:U_Y\!\lra\!Y,TU_Y^h)$. We will take $\nu\!=\!\nu_Y\!+\!\nu_X$ so that
- for every $\u\!=\!([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})\!\in\!\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$ with $[u]\!\in\!\X_{g,S}(U_Y,\be_Y)$, $$\nu_Y(\u)\in L^p(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!TU_Y^h);$$
- $\nu_Y|_{\X_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y)}$ is generic, so that $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ is stratified by smooth branched manifolds of the expected dimensions and the dimension of the main stratum $$\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y) \equiv \ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)
\cap \bigg(\X_{g,S}^0(Y,\be_Y)\times\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j\bigg)$$ is $\dim_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y)$;
- $\nu_X$ is generic and small relative to $\nu_Y$.
Using $\pi_Y$, $d\pi_Y|_{TU_Y^h}^{\,-1}$, and a bump function around $Y$ with support in $U_Y$, any section of $$\pi^*\Ga^{0,1}_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y;J)\lra
\X_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y)\times\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j$$ can be extended to a section of $\Ga^{0,1}_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$ over $\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$ satisfying the middle condition above. In light of Proposition \[horreg\_prp\], the first condition implies that there exists an open neighborhood $\U(\nu_Y)$ of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ in $\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$ such that $$\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J,\nu_Y)\cap \U(\nu_Y) =
\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y).$$ In addition, choose a multi-section $\vph$ of the bundle $\bL_{\f,\a}\lra\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$ so that $\vph$ is transverse to the zero set on every stratum of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ and every stratum of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J,\nu)$. This implies that the dimension of every stratum of $\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ is at most the rank \_ref[cokrk\_e]{} of the bundle $\cok(D_J^{NY})$ over $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ and the equality holds only for the main stratum.\
By the middle assumption on $\nu_Y$ above, for every element $[u]$ of $\ov\M_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ the linearization $$D_{J,\nu_Y;u}^X\!:
\H_u\oplus L^p_1(\Si_u;u^*TX)\lra L^p(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}u^*TX)$$ of the section $\dbar_J\!+\!\nu_Y$ for maps to $X$ restricts to the linearization $$D_{J,\nu_Y;u}^Y\!:
\H_u\oplus L^p_1(\Si_u;u^*TY)\lra L^p(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}u^*TY)$$ of the section $\dbar_J\!+\!\nu_Y$ for maps to $Y$. Thus, $D_{J,\nu_Y;u}^X$ descends to a Fredholm operator $$D_{J,\nu_Y;u}^{NY}\!: L^p_1(\Si_u;u^*NY)\lra L^p(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}u^*NY).$$ If $\nu_Y$ is sufficiently small, by the last assumption in Theorem \[main\_thm\] the operator $$\begin{split}
D_{J,\nu_Y,\vr;\u}^{NY}\!\equiv\!\big(D_{J,\nu_Y;u}^{NY}\big)_{\vr}\!:
\big\{\xi\!\in\!L^p_1(\Si_u;u^*NY)\!:\,\xi(z_j(u))\!\in\!\Im\,d_{w_j}^{NY}f_j
~\forall\,j\!\in\!S\big\} \qquad\qquad&\\
\lra L^p(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes\!_{\C}u^*NY)&
\end{split}$$ is injective for every $[\u]\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ as in \_ref[udfn\_e]{}. Thus, the cokernels of these operators still form an oriented vector orbi-bundle over $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ of rank \_ref[cokrk\_e]{}, which will be denoted by $\cok(D_{J,\nu_Y,\vr}^{NY})$. Furthermore, $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ is compact (because $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ is) and is a union of connected components of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J,\nu_Y)$ by Proposition \[horreg\_prp\].\
The left-hand side of \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} is the number of elements of $$\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(X,\be;J,\nu_Y\!+\!\nu_X)
\subset \X_{g,S}(X,\be)\times\prod_{j\in S}M_j$$ that lie in a small neighborhood of $\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ for any sufficiently small and generic $\nu_X$. The map component of any such element must be of the form $\exp_{u_{\ups}}\!\xi$, where
- $([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ is an element of a fixed stratum, i.e. the topological structure of $\Si_u$ is fixed;
- $\ups$ is a small gluing parameter for $\Si_u$ consisting of the smoothings of the nodes of $\Si_u$;
- $u_{\ups}\!:\Si_{u_{\ups}}\!\lra\!Y$ is the approximately $(J,\nu_Y)$-map corresponding to $\ups$ as in [@gluing Section 3];
- $\xi\!\in\!L^p_1(\Si_{\ups};u_{\ups}^*TX)$ is small with respect to the $\|\cdot\|_{\ups,p,1}$-norm of [@LiT Section 3] and satisfies
& {\_J+\_Y}u\_ + D\_[J,\_Y;u\_]{}+\_X(u\_)+N\_()=0,\
&(z\_j(u\_))(d\_[w\_j]{}\^[NY]{}f\_j)+T\_[f\_j(w\_j)]{}Y jS,
where $N_{\ups}$ is a combination of a term quadratic in $\xi$ and a term which is linear in $\xi$ and $\nu_X$.\
Projecting \_ref[XvsY\_e0]{} to $NY$, we obtain
& D\_[J,\_Y;u\_]{}\^[NY]{}+\_X\^(u\_)+N\_\^()=0,\
& L\^p\_1(\_[u\_]{};u\_\^\*NY),(z\_j(u\_))(d\_[w\_j]{}\^[NY]{}f\_j) jS.
This equation has no small solutions in $\vph^{-1}(0)$ away from the subset of elements $$\u\!\equiv\!([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})\in\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$$ for which $\nu_X^{\perp}(\u)$ lies in the image of $D_{J,\nu_Y,\vr;\u}^{NY}$, i.e. the projection $\bar\nu_X(\u)$ of $\nu_X(\u)$ to $\cok(D_{J,\nu_Y,\vr;\u}^{NY})$ is zero. For dimensional reasons, all zeros of $\bar\nu_X$ lie in the main stratum $$\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)\equiv
\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)\cap \M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y).$$ Thus, only $\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ contributes to the left-hand side in \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{}. In this case equation \_ref[XvsY\_e1]{} no longer involves $\ups$ and thus $u_{\ups}\!=\!u$. Since $\vph$ vanishes transversally on $\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ and $\bar\nu_X$ on $\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$, the contribution of the main stratum to the left-hand side is the signed cardinality of the oriented zero-dimensional orbifold $$\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)\cap\bar\nu_X^{-1}(0).$$ As $\bar\nu_X$ extends to a continuous multi-section of the orbi-bundle (D\_[J,\_Y,]{}\^[NY]{})\_[g,]{}\^(Y,\_Y;J,\_Y),which is transverse to the zero set over every stratum, the left-hand side of \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} is the euler class of the bundle \_ref[cokeuler\_e0]{} evaluated on $\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$. While the operators $D_{J,\nu_Y;\u}^{NY}$ and $D_{J;u}^{NY}$ are not the same, they are homotopic through operators keeping the dimension of the cokernels fixed and thus define orbi-bundles with the same euler class, as needed.\
The above argument requires some notion of smoothness for the strata of $\X_{\T,\f}(X)$ or at least $\X_{\T,\f}(Y)$. If the domain curve $\Si_u$ of $[u]$ with its marked points is stable for every element $([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})$ of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$, then every stratum $\X_{\T,\f}(X)$ meeting $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ is a smooth Banach orbifold. The topological aspects of the resulting setting are sorted out in [@Mc0], and the above argument suffices in such cases. These include the cases of Theorem \[FanoGV\_thm\] (with $2g\!+\!|S|\!\ge\!3$, which can be assumed) and Corollary \[LeP\_crl\] (since the genus of $Y_{\al}$ is positive), but not of Example \[CY\_eg\] or the specific cases of Examples \[inY\_eg\] or \[transversetoY\_eg\].\
In general, $\X_{\T}(X)$ is a subspace of a product of main strata $\X_{g_i,S_i}^0(X,\be_i)$ for some $g_i$, $S_i$, and $\be_i$ and the restriction of $\Ga^{0,1}_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$ is the direct sum of the pull-backs of the corresponding bundles over the components of the product. If for every $([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ and every unstable component $\Si_{u;i}$ of $\Si_u$ the restriction of $u$ to $\Si_{u;i}$ is regular in the appropriate sense, then $\nu$ can be taken to be a smooth section of the components of $\Ga^{0,1}_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$ coming from the “stable parts" of $\T$; as in the previous paragraph there is a well-defined notion of smoothness over these components. This is done explicitly in [@RT2 Section 2]. The resulting extension of the previous paragraph then covers the specific cases of Examples \[inY\_eg\] and \[transversetoY\_eg\].\
Finally, for an arbitrary symplectic manifold $(X,\om)$, the “notion" of smoothness is described by introducing smooth finite-dimensional approximations to $\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$. This is done in the next section.
Virtual setting {#mainpf_subs}
---------------
Continuing with the notation of Section \[config\_subs\], we now recall the virtual fundamental class setup of [@FuO] and [@LiT] and then reformulate the argument of Section \[semipos\_subs\] for \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} in the general case.\
An is a collection $\{(\U_{\al},E_{\al})\}_{\al\in\A}$, where
- $\{\U_{\al}\}_{\al\in\A}$ is an open cover of $\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$ in $\X_{g,S}(X,\be)$ and $E_{\al}\!\subset\!\Ga_{g,S}^{0,1}(X,\be;J)|_{\U_{\al}}$ is a topological (finite-rank) vector orbi-bundle over $\U_{\al}$;
- $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al})$ is a smooth orbifold and $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al})\cap\X_{T}(X)$ is a smooth sub-orbifold of $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al})$ of the codimension corresponding to $\T$ (twice the number of nodes) for every stratum $\X_{T}(X)$;
- the restriction of $E_{\al}$ to $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al})$ is a smooth vector orbi-bundle and the restriction of $\dbar_J$ to $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al})$ is a smooth section of $E_{\al}|_{\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al})}$;
- for every $[u]\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)\!\cap\!\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al})\!\cap\!
\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al'})$, there exists $\ga\!\in\!\A$ such that $$[u]\in\U_{\ga}\subset\U_{\al}\cap\U_{\al'}\,,
\qquad E_{\al},E_{\al'}\big|_{U_{\ga}}\subset E_{\ga}\,,$$ the restrictions of $E_{\al}$ and $E_{\al'}$ to $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\ga})\cap\X_{T}(X)$ are smooth orbifold subbundles of the restriction of $E_{\ga}$, and the restriction of $\dbar_J$ to $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\ga})\cap\X_{T}(X)$ is transverse to $E_{\al}$ and $E_{\al'}$;
- for every $[u]\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$, \^[0,1]{}(X,u;J)= {D\_[J;u]{}:L\^p\_1(\_u;u\^\*TX)}+\_|\_u, where $\ti{E}_{\al}|_u\!\subset\!\ti\Ga^{0,1}_{\T}(X;J)|_u$ is the preimage of $E_{\al}|_u$ under the quotient map $$\ti\Ga^{0,1}_{\T}(X;J)|_u\!\lra\!\Ga^{0,1}_{g,S}(X,\be;J)|_{[u]}\,.$$
Such collections $\{(\U_{\al},E_{\al})\}_{\al\in\A}$ are described in [@FuO Section 12] and [@LiT Section 3]. An atlas for $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$ is defined similarly, with the domain of $D_{J;u}$ in \_ref[chartcond\_e]{} replaced by $$\big\{\xi\!\in\!L^p_1(\Si_u;u^*TX)\!:\,
\xi(z_j(u))\in\Im\,d_{w_j}f_j~\forall\,j\!\in\!S\big\}$$ for an element $([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})$ of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$. Such an atlas induces a compatible atlas for the total space of the restriction of the bundle $\bL_{\a,\f}$ to $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$.\
A is a continuous multi-section such that the restriction of $\nu$ to $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al})$ is a smooth section of $E_{\al}$. Similarly, a [multi-section $\vph$ of $\bL_{\a,\f}$ for $\{(\U_{\al},E_{\al})\}_{\al\in\A}$]{} is a continuous multi-section such that the restriction of $\vph$ to $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al})$ is smooth. A multi-section $\nu$ as above is if the restriction of $\nu$ to $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{\al})\!\cap\!\X_{\T,\f}(X)$ is transverse to the zero set in $E_{\al}$ for every $\al$ and $\T$. If $(\{(\U_{\al},E_{\al})\}_{\al\in A},\nu)$ is regular, $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J,\nu)$ is stratified by smooth branched orbifolds of even dimensions. The existence of regular multi-sections for a refinement of a subatlas is the subject of [@FuO Chapter 1] and [@Mc1 Section 4].[^13] If $\nu$ is sufficiently small and regular and $\vph$ is generic, the left-hand side of \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} is again the weighted number of elements of $$\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(X,\be;J,\nu)\equiv \ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J,\nu)\cap\vph^{-1}(0)$$ that lie in a small neighborhood of $$\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J)\equiv \ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)\cap\vph^{-1}(0)$$ in $\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$.\
By [@FuO Chapter 3] and [@LiT Section 3], pairs $(\U_{Y;\al},E_{Y;\al})$ for an atlas for $$\ov\M_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y;J)\times\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j$$ that restrict to an atlas for $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ can be obtained in the following way. Given $\u\!=\!([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})$, choose
- a neighborhood $V_{Y;u}$ of $u(\Si_u)$ in $Y$;
- a representative $u\!:\Si_u\!\lra\!Y$ for $[u]$;
- universal family of deformations $\W_u\!\lra\!\De_u$ of $\Si_u$ with its marked points (thus $\Si_u\!\subset\!\W_u$);
- a finite-dimensional subspace $$\cE_{Y;\u}\subset \Ga_c\big(\W_u^*\!\times\!V_{Y;u};
\pi_1^*(T^*\W_u^v)^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!\pi_2^*TY\big),$$ where $\W_u^*\!\subset\!\W_u$ is the subspace of smooth points of the fibers, $T\W_u^v\!\subset\!T\W_u$ is the vertical tangent space, and $\Ga_c$ denotes the space of smooth compactly supported bundle sections, such that $$\Ga(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!u^*TY)=
\big\{D_u\xi\!: \xi\!\in\!\Ga(\Si_u;u^*TY),\,\xi(z_i(u))\!\in\!\Im\,d_{w_j}f_j\,
\forall\,j\!\in\!S\big\}
+\{\id\!\times\!u\}^*\cE_{Y;\u}\,$$ if $\u\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$; if $\u\!\not\in\!\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$, the point-wise condition on $\xi$ is omitted.
If $\u'\!=\!([u'],(w_j')_{j\in S})$ with $[u']\!\in\!\X_{g,S}(V_{Y;u},\be_Y)$ and $\Si_{u'}\!\in\!\De_u$, let $$\ti{E}_{Y;\u}|_{\u'}=\{\id\!\times\!u'\}^*\cE_{Y;\u}\,.$$ By [@FuO Chapter 3] and [@LiT Section 3], $\U_{Y;\al}$ can be taken to be the image of a sufficiently small neighborhood $\ti\U_{Y;\al}$ of $\u$ in the space of $L^p_1$-maps from the fibers of $\W_u\!\lra\!\De_u$ to $X$ under the equivalence relation and $E_{Y;\al}$ the image of the bundle formed by the spaces $\ti{E}_{Y;\u}|_{\u'}$ over $\ti\U_{Y;\al}$. With these choices, $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{Y;\al})$ consists of equivalence classes of smooth maps to $Y$.\
Fix a $J$-regularized tubular neighborhood $(\pi_Y\!:U_Y\!\lra\!Y,TU_Y^h)$ of $Y$ in $X$. Using $\pi_Y$ and $d\pi_Y|_{TU_Y^h}^{-1}$, each $\cE_{Y;\u}$ can be extended to a finite-dimensional subspace $$\cE_{X|Y;\u}\subset \Ga_c\big(\W_u^*\!\times\!V_{X;u};
\pi_1^*(T^*\W_u^v)^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!\pi_2^*TU_Y^h\big)
\subset \Ga_c\big(\W_u^*\!\times\!V_{X;u};
\pi_1^*(T^*\W_u^v)^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!\pi_2^*TX\big)$$ for a neighborhood $V_{X;u}$ of $V_{Y;u}$ in $U_Y\!\subset\!Y$. A larger subspace $$\cE_{X;\u}
\subset \Ga_c\big(\W_u^*\!\times\!V_{X;u};
\pi_1^*(T^*\W_u^v)^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!\pi_2^*TX\big)$$ can then be chosen so that $$\Ga(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!u^*TX)=
\big\{D_u\xi\!: \xi\!\in\!\Ga(\Si_u;u^*TX),\,\xi(z_i(u))\!\in\!\Im\,d_{w_j}f_j\,
\forall\,j\!\in\!S\big\}
+\{\id\!\times\!u\}^*\cE_{X;\u}\,,$$ whenever $[u]\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$. This gives rise to a pair $(\U_{X;\al},E_{X;\al})$ for an atlas for $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$; the union of such pairs covers $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$. Since $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ is a union of components of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$, this sub-collection of an atlas is sufficient for determining the left-hand side of \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{}. Similarly, using $\pi_Y$, $d\pi_Y|_{TU_Y^h}^{-1}$, and a bump function around $Y$ with support in $U_Y$, any multi-section of $$\pi_1^*\Ga_{g,S}^{0,1}(Y,\be_Y;J)\lra \X_{g,S}(Y,\be_Y)
\times\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j$$ for the atlas $(\{(\U_{Y;\al},E_{Y;\al})\}_{\al\in\A})$ gives rise to a multi-section $\nu$ of $$\Ga_{g,\f}^{0,1}(X,\be;J)\lra \X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$$ for the atlas $(\{(\U_{X;\al},E_{X;\al})\}_{\al\in\A})$ such that for every element $[\u]\!\in\!\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$ $$\nu([\u])\in
L^p\big(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes\!u^*TU_Y^h\big)$$ for every $[\u]\!=\!([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})\!\in\!\X_{g,\f}(U_Y,\be_Y)$.\
Let $\nu\!=\!\nu_Y\!+\!\nu_X$ be a regular multi-section of $\Ga^{0,1}_{g,\f}(X,\be)$ for atlas for $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$ as above so that
- for every $\u\!=\!([u],(w_j)_{j\in S})\!\in\!\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$ with $[u]\!\in\!\X_{g,S}(U_Y,\be_Y)$, $$\nu_Y(\u)\in L^p(\Si_u;T^*\Si_u^{0,1}\!\otimes_{\C}\!u^*TU_Y^h);$$
- $\nu_Y|_{\X_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y)}$ is a regular multi-section of $\Ga^{0,1}_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y)$ so that $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ is stratified by smooth branched orbifolds of the expected dimensions and the dimension of the main stratum $$\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y) \equiv \ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)
\cap \bigg(\X_{g,S}^0(Y,\be_Y)\times\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j\bigg)$$ is $\dim_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y)$;
- $\nu_X$ is small relative to $\nu_Y$.
The previous paragraph implies that such multi-sections $\nu_Y$ exist. By Proposition \[horreg\_prp\], the first condition implies that there exists an open neighborhood $\U(\nu_Y)$ of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J)$ in $\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$ such that $$\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J,\nu_Y)\cap \U(\nu_Y) =
\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y).$$ In addition, choose a multi-section $\vph$ of the bundle $\bL_{\f,\a}\lra\X_{g,\f}(X,\be)$ for the above atlas so that $\vph$ is transverse to the zero set on every stratum of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ and every stratum of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(X,\be;J,\nu)$.\
For each $\al\!\in\!\A$ and $\u\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)\!\cap\!\U_{Y;\al}$, let $$\cD_{\nu_Y,\al;\u}\!: T_{\u}\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{X;\al}) \lra E_{X;\al}$$ be the linearization of the section $\dbar_J\!+\!\nu_Y$ over $\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{X;\al})$ along the zero set. The kernel of $\cD_{\nu_Y,\al;\u}$ is the tangent space of $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ at $\u$. If $\al$ and $\ga$ are as in the overlap condition in the definition of an atlas above, then $$\begin{gathered}
E_{X;\al}\cap \Im\,\cD_{\nu_Y,\ga;\u}=\Im\,\cD_{\nu_Y,\al;\u}
\quad\forall\,\u\in\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)\cap\U_{Y;\ga}\,,\\
\dim\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{X;\ga})-\dim\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{X;\al})
=\rk\, E_{X;\ga}-\rk\, E_{X;\al}.\end{gathered}$$ Thus, the inclusion $T\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{X;\al})\lra T\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{X;\ga})$ over $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)\!\cap\!\U_{Y;\ga}$ induces isomorphisms $$\cok(\cD_{\nu_Y,\al;\u})\lra \cok(\cD_{\nu_Y,\ga;\u}).$$ It follows that these vector spaces form an orbi-bundle $\cok(\cD_{\nu_Y})$ over $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$. By the last requirement in the definition of an atlas and condition (b) in Theorem \[main\_thm\], the homomorphism $$\cok(\cD_{\nu_Y,\al;\u})\lra\cok(D_{J;\u}^{NY})$$ induced by the inclusion $E_{X;\al}\lra\Ga^{0,1}_{g,\f}(X,\be;J)$ followed by the projections to $NY$ and the cokernel is surjective for all $\u\!\in\!\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)\!\cap\!\U_{Y;\al}$, if $\nu_Y$ is sufficiently small. A dimension count then shows that this homomorphism is an isomorphism (the injectivity also follows from Proposition \[horreg\_prp\]). Thus, the orbi-bundles $$\cok(\cD_{\nu_Y}),\cok(D_J^{NY})\lra\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$$ are isomorphic.\
The left-hand side of \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} is the number of elements of $$\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(X,\be;J,\nu_Y\!+\!\nu_X)
\subset \X_{g,S}(X,\be)\times\prod_{j\in S}\!M_j$$ that lie in a small neighborhood of $\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ for a small generic multi-section $\nu_X$. The number of such elements near $\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)\!\cap\!\U_{Y;\al}$ is the number of solutions of $$\cD_{\nu_Y,\al;\u}\xi+\nu_X(\u)+N_{\al}(\xi)=0,
\qquad \xi\in T_{\u}\dbar_J^{-1}(E_{X;\al}),$$ with small $\xi$, where $N_{\al}$ is a combination of a term quadratic in $\xi$ and a term which is linear in $\xi$ and $\nu_X$. This equation has no solutions in $\vph^{-1}(0)$ away from the subset of elements $$\u\in\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$$ for which $\nu_X(\u)$ lies in the image of $\cD_{\nu_Y,\al;\u}$, i.e. the projection $\bar\nu_X(\u)$ to $\cok(\cD_{\nu_Y,\al;\u})$ is zero. Since $\vph$ vanishes transversally on $\ov\M_{g,\f}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$ and $\bar\nu_X$ on $\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$, the left-hand side of \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{} is the signed cardinality of oriented zero-dimensional orbifold $$\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)\cap\vph^{-1}(0).$$ By the definition, this is also the euler class of $\cok(\cD_{\nu_Y})$ evaluated on $\ov\M_{g,\f}^{\vph}(Y,\be_Y;J,\nu_Y)$, which by the above isomorphism of cokernel bundles equals to the right-hand side of \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{}.\
[*Department of Mathematics, SUNY Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11790-3651\
[email protected]*]{}\
[99]{}
E. Arbarello, M. Cornalba, P Griffiths, J. Harris, Geometry of Algebraic Curves, Vol. I, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.
P. Aspinwall and D. Morrison, [*Topological field theory and rational curves*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 151 (1993), 245–262.
J. Bryan and R. Pandharipande, [*BPS states of curves in Calabi-Yau $3$-folds*]{}, Geom. Top. 5 (2001), 287-318.
A. Floer, H. Hofer, and D. Salamon, [*Transversality in elliptic Morse theory for the symplectic action*]{}, Duke Math. J. 80 (1996), no. 1, 251-292.
K. Fukaya and K. Ono, [*Arnold Conjecture and Gromov-Witten invariant*]{}, Topology 38 (1999), no. 5, 933–1048.
R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, [*M-theory and topological Strings I*]{}, hep-th/9809187.
R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, [*M-theory and topological strings II*]{}, hep-th/9812127.
J. Hu, T.-J. Li, and Y. Ruan, [*Birational cobordism invariance of uniruled symplectic manifolds*]{}, Invent. Math. 172 (2008), no. 2, 231–275.
J. Hu and Y. Ruan, [*Positive divisors in symplectic geometry*]{}, math/0802.0590.
S. Ivashkovich and V. Shevchishin, [*Pseudo-holomorphic curves and envelopes of meromorphy of two-spheres in $\C P^2$*]{}, math.CV/9804014.
B. Kim, A. Kresch, and Y.-G. Oh, [*A compactification of the space of maps from curves*]{}, preprint.
Y.-H. Kiem and J. Li, [*Gromov-Witten invariants of varieties with holomorphic 2-forms*]{}, math/0707.2986.
A. Klemm and R. Pandharipande, [*Enumerative geometry of Calabi-Yau 4-folds*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 261 (2006), no. 2, 451–516.
M. Kontsevich and Yu. Manin, [*Gromov-Witten classes, quantum cohomology, and enumerative geometry*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 164 (1994), no. 3, 525–562.
J. Li and G. Tian, [*Virtual moduli cycles and Gromov-Witten invariants of general symplectic manifolds*]{}, Topics in Symplectic , Internat. Press, 1998.
J. Li and A. Zinger, [*On Gromov-Witten invariants of a quintic threefold and a rigidity conjecture*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 233 (2007), no. 2, 417-480.
J. Lee and T. Parker, [*A structure theorem for the Gromov-Witten invariants of Kahler surfaces*]{}, JDG 77 (2007), no. 3, 483–513.
T.-J. Li and Y. Ruan, [*Uniruled symplectic divisors*]{}, math/0711.4254.
D. Maulik and R. Pandharipande, [*New calculations in Gromov–Witten theory*]{}, math.AG/0601395.
D. McDuff, [*The virtual moduli cycle*]{}, Northern California Symplectic Geometry Seminar, pp 73–102, AMS Transl. Ser. 2, 196, 1999.
D. McDuff, [*Groupoids, branched manifolds, and multisections*]{}, J. Symplectic Geom. 4 (2006), no. 259–315.
D. McDuff, [*Hamiltonian $S^1$-manifolds are uniruled*]{}, Duke Math. J. 146 (2009), no. 3, 449–507.
D. McDuff and D. Salamon, [*$J$-holomorphic Curves and Symplectic Topology*]{}, AMS 2004.
D. McDuff and S. Tolman, [*Topological properties of Hamiltonian circle actions*]{}, IMRP Int. Math. Res. Pap (2006), 1–77.
K. Hori, S. Katz, A. Klemm, R. Pandharipande, R. Thomas, C. Vafa, R. Vakil, and E. Zaslow, [*Mirror Symmetry*]{}, Clay Math. Inst., Amer. Math. Soc., 2003.
R. Pandharipande, [*Hodge integrals and degenerate contributions*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 208 (1999), no. 2, 489–506.
R. Pandharipande, [*Three questions in Gromov-Witten theory*]{}, Proceedings of ICM, Beijing (2002), 503–512.
Y. Ruan and G. Tian, [*A mathematical theory of quantum cohomology*]{}, JDG 42 (1995), no. 2, 259–367.
Y. Ruan and G. Tian, [*Higher genus symplectic invariants and sigma models coupled with gravity*]{}, Invent. Math. 130 (1997), no. 3, 455–516.
R. Seeley and I. Singer, [*Extending $\dbar$ to singular Riemann surfaces*]{}, J. Geom. Phys. 4 (1988), no 1, 121–136.
B. Siebert, [*Gromov-Witten invariants for general symplectic manifolds*]{}, dga-ga/9608005.
V. Shevchishin, [*Pseudoholomorphic curves and the symplectic isotopy problem*]{}, math/0010262.
C. Taubes, [*Counting pseudo-holomorphic submanifolds in dimension 4*]{}, Seiberg-Witten and Gromov invariants for symplectic 4-manifolds, 99–161, First Int. Press Lect. Ser 2.
C. Voisin, [*A mathematical proof of a formula of Aspinwall and Morrison*]{}, Comp. Math. 104 (1996), no. 2, 135–151.
, J. Symplectic Geom. 2 (2004), no. 4, 445–543.
, math.SG/0507103.
, in preparation.
[^1]: Partially supported by a Sloan fellowship and DMS Grant 0604874
[^2]: an almost complex structure on $(X,\om)$ is if $\om(v,Jv)>0$ for all $v\!\in\!TX$ with $v\!\neq\!0$
[^3]: an almost complex structure $J$ is if for every $J$-holomorphic map $u\!:\Si\!\lra\!X$, where $\Si$ is a tree of Riemann spheres, the linearization $D_{J;u}$ of the $\dbar_J$-operator at $u$ is surjective
[^4]: In the descriptions of Sections \[semipos\_subs\] and \[mainpf\_subs\], $\big[\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be)\big]^{vir}$ is a homology class in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of $\ov\M_{g,S}(X,\be;J)$ in the space of equivalence classes of $L^p_1$-maps to $X$; there are well-defined evaluation maps $\ev_j$ and cohomology classes $\psi_j$ on this space as well.
[^5]: We can assume that this is possible, since each $\ka_j$ can be replaced by a multiple for our purposes.
[^6]: \[inY\_ft\]This is the number of lines through $2$ points in $\P^n$. In this particular case, each operator $D_{J;u}^{NY}$ is $\C$-linear and its zero-dimensional kernel is positively oriented. In general, this need not be the case; see [@LeP Sections 9,10] for explicit sign computations.
[^7]: This observation implies that the homomorphism \_ref[kerrestr\_e]{} is surjective.
[^8]: Theorem \[FanoGV\_thm\] and its proof also apply to the cases when $\lr{c_1(TX),\be}\!=\!0$, but $\be$ is not a non-trivial integer multiple of another element of $H_2(X;\Z)$.
[^9]: This construction extends the usual procedure of twisting a holomorphic vector bundle by a divisor to generalized CR-operators; it can be seen as a manifestation of Carleman Similarity Principle [@FHoS Theorem 2.2].
[^10]: While [@LiT Section 3] concerns only the case $N\!=\!TY$, it applies to any vector bundle $N\!\lra\!Y$.
[^11]: While [@RT Section 6] concerns only the case $N\!=\!TY$ and $S_0\!=\!\eset$, the argument applies to any vector bundle $N\!\lra\!Y$. Furthermore, the twisting construction of [@Sh Lemma 2.4.1] reduces the situation to the case $S_0\!=\!\eset$. By [@Si Chapter 4], which builds on [@SeSi], there are Fredholm operators defining these vector spaces that form a continuous family over $\ov\M$ and thus define a K-theory class; however, this statement is stronger than needed here.
[^12]: Neither the topologies of the bundles over the uniformizing charts nor the isomorphisms \_ref[kercok\_e]{} depend on the Riemannian metrics over the uniformizing charts of [@LiT Section 3].
[^13]: It is also shown in [@FuO] and [@Mc1] that a regular multi-section $\nu$ determines a rational homology class; however, this notion of virtual fundamental class is not necessary for defining GW-invariants or comparing the two sides of \_ref[mainthm\_e2]{}.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
P. Grassl$^1$, U. Nyström$^2$, R. Rempling$^2$, K. Gylltoft$^2$\
$^1$School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G128LT, Scotland, UK\
$^2$Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, S-41296 Göteborg, Sweden\
email: [email protected],{ulrika.nystrom, rasmus.rempling, kent.gylltoft}@chalmers.se\
Preprint. Submitted to Eurodyn 2011, 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, Leuven, Belgium, 2011
bibliography:
- 'general.bib'
title: 'A damage-plasticity model for the dynamic failure of concrete'
---
Introduction
============
Concrete is a strongly heterogeneous material, which exhibits a complex nonlinear mechanical behaviour. Failure in tension and low confined compression is characterised by softening which is defined as decreasing stress with increasing deformations. This softening response is accompanied by a reduction of the unloading stiffness of concrete, and irreversible (permanent) deformations, which are localised in narrow zones often called cracks or shear bands. On the other hand, the behaviour of concrete subjected to high confined compression is characterised by a ductile hardening response; that is, increasing stress with increasing deformations. Furthermore, high loading rates are known to significantly increase the strength in tension and compression. These phenomena should be considered in a constitutive model for analysing the dynamic behaviour of concrete structures.
There are many constitutive models for the nonlinear response of concrete proposed in the literature. Commonly used frameworks are plasticity, damage mechanics and combinations of plasticity and damage mechanics. Stress-based plasticity models are useful for the modelling of concrete subjected to triaxial stress states, since the yield surface corresponds at a certain stage of hardening to the strength envelope of concrete. Furthermore, the strain split into elastic and plastic parts represents realistically the observed deformations in confined compression, so that unloading and path-dependency can be described well. However, plasticity models are not able to describe the reduction of the unloading stiffness that is observed in experiments. Conversely, strain based damage mechanics models are based on the concept of a gradual reduction of the elastic stiffness driven by strain measures. For isotropic damage mechanics models, the stress evaluation procedure is explicit, which allows for a direct determination of the stress state, without an iterative calculation procedure. Furthermore, the stiffness degradation in tensile and low confined compressive loading observed in experiments can be described. However, isotropic damage mechanics models are often unable to describe irreversible deformations observed in experiments and are mainly limited to tensile and low confined compression stress states [@Mazars84]. On the other hand, combinations of isotropic damage and plasticity are widely used and many different models have been proposed in the literature. One popular class of models relies on a combination of stress-based plasticity formulated in the effective stress space combined with a strain based damage model [@Ju89; @LeeFen98; @JasHuePijGha06; @GraJir06; @GraRem08; @Gra09b].
In the present work, the combined damage-plasticity model presented in [@GraJir06; @GraJir06a] (CDPM1) is revisited to develop an constitutive model for the rate dependent failure of concrete, which is characterised by its numerical stability, well defined input parameters and flexibility to be adapted to newly developed concrete based materials, such as fibre reinforced concrete. As this model can be seen as an augmentation of CDPM1 it is called here CDPM2. The stress-based plasticity part of the model is based on the effective stress. It includes hardening in the post-peak regime, which is used to model the strain rate dependence of strength by delaying the onset of damage. The plasticity part is combined with a damage model, which is based on elastic and plastic strain measures and distinguishes between tensile and compressive stress states using an approach similar to those proposed in [@Mazars84; @Ort87; @FicBorPij99]. The damage model is used to describe the complex strength envelope of concrete. With this combination of plasticity and damage mechanics, it is aimed to provide a computationally efficient model for the dynamic behaviour of concrete.
Model
=====
General framework {#sec:General}
-----------------
The damage plasticity constitutive model is based on the following stress-strain relationship: $$\label{eq:general}
\boldsymbol{\sigma} = \left(1-\omega_{\rm t}\right) \bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm t} + \left(1-\omega_{\rm c}\right) \bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm c}$$ where $\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm t}$ and $\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm c}$ are the positive and negative parts of the effective stress tensor $\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}$, respectively, and $\omega_{\rm t}$ and $\omega_{\rm c}$ are two scalar damage parameters, ranging form 0 (undamaged) to 1 (fully damaged). The effective stress $\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}$ is defined as $$\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}} = \mathbf{D}_{\rm e} : \left(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon} - \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm p}\right)$$ where $\mathbf{D}_{\rm e}$ is the elastic stiffness tensor based on the elastic Young’s modulus $E$ and Poisson’s ratio $\nu$, $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}$ is the strain tensor and $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm p}$ is the plastic strain tensor. The positive and negative parts of the effective stress $\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}$ in Eq. (\[eq:general\]) are determined from the principal effective stress as $\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm pt} = \left< \bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm p} \right>_+$ and $\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm pc} = \left< \bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm p} \right>_-$, where $\left< \right>_+$ and $\left< \right>_-$ are positive and negative part operators, respectively, defined as $\left< x\right>_+ = \max\left(0,x\right)$ and $\left< x\right>_- = \min\left(0,x\right)$. In addition, a scalar measure $\alpha_{\rm c}$ is defined which distinguishes between tensile and compressive stress states. It has the form $$\label{eq:alpha}
\alpha_{\rm c} = \sum_i \dfrac{\left<\bar{\sigma}_{{\rm p}i}\right>_-\left( \left<\bar{\sigma}_{{\rm p}i}\right>_+ + \left<\bar{\sigma}_{{\rm p}i}\right>_- \right)}{\| \bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm p} \|^2}$$ where $\left<\bar{\sigma}_{\rm pi}\right>_+$ and $\left<\bar{\sigma}_{\rm pi}\right>_-$ are the components of the compressive and tensile part of the principal stresses, respectively. The parameter $\alpha_{\rm c}$ varies in the range from 0 to 1. For instance, for a combined tensile and compressive stress state with principal stress components $\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm p} = \left( - \bar{\sigma}, 0.2 \bar{\sigma}, 0.1 \bar{\sigma} \right)^{\rm T}$, the positive and negative principal stresses are $\boldsymbol{\bar{\sigma}}_{\rm pt} = \left( 0, 0.2 \bar{\sigma}, 0.1 \bar{\sigma} \right)^{\rm T}$ and $\boldsymbol{\bar{\sigma}}_{\rm pc} = \left( -\bar{\sigma}, 0, 0 \right)^{\rm T}$, respectively. For this stress state, the variable is $\alpha_{c} = 0.95$. This measure is used later in the definition of the damage parameter.
The plasticity model is based on the effective stress and thus independent of damage. The model is described by the yield function, the flow rule, the evolution law for the hardening variable and the loading-unloading conditions. The form of the yield function is $$\label{eq:yield}
f_{\rm p} \left(\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}, \kappa_{\rm p} \right) = F \left(\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}, q_{\rm h}, q_{\rm s}\right)$$ where $q_{\rm h}$ and $q_{\rm s}$ are hardening functions, which depend on the plastic hardening parameter $\kappa_{\rm p}$. The flow rule is $$\label{eq:flowRule}
\dot{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}_{\rm p} = \dot{\lambda} \dfrac{\partial g_{\rm p}}{\partial \bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}$$ where $\dot{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}_{\rm p}$ is the rate of the plastic strain, $\dot{\lambda}$ is the rate of the plastic multiplier and $g_{\rm p}$ is the plastic potential. The rate of the hardening parameter $\kappa_{\rm p}$ is related to the rate of the plastic strain by an evolution law, which is presented in Section \[sec:plast\]. The loading-unloading conditions are $$\label{eq:UnloadPlast}
f_{\rm p}\leq 0, \hskip 5mm \dot{\lambda} \geq 0, \hskip 5mm \dot{\lambda} f_{\rm p} = 0$$ A detailed description of the individual components of the plasticity model are discussed in Section \[sec:plast\]
The damage part of the present damage-plasticity model is related to elastic and plastic strain measures. For a pure tensile stress state, $\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm t} = \bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}$, $\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\rm c}$ is zero and $\omega_{\rm t} = \omega$, so that Eq. (\[eq:general\]) becomes $$\boldsymbol{\sigma} = \left(1-\omega\right) \bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}} = \left(1-\omega\right) \mathbf{D}_{\rm e} : \left( \boldsymbol{\varepsilon} - \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm p} \right)$$
The equation is rearranged as $$\boldsymbol{\sigma} = \mathbf{D}_{\rm e} : \left(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon} - \left(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm p} + \omega \left(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}-\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm p}\right)\right)\right) = \mathbf{D}_{\rm e} : \left(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon} - \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm i}\right)$$ where $$\label{eq:inelastic}
\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm i} = \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm p} + \omega \left( \boldsymbol{\varepsilon} - \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm p} \right)$$ is the inelastic strain which is subtracted from the elastic strain. The geometrical interpretation of the inelastic strain and its split for uniaxial tension, hardening plasticity and linear damage evolution are shown in Fig. \[fig:compExplain\]. The part $\omega \left(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon} - \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm p}\right)$ is reversible and $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_{\rm p}$ is irreversible.
![Geometrical meaning of the inelastic strain $\varepsilon_{\rm i}$ for the combined damage-plasticity model. The inelastic strain is composed of reversible $\omega \left(\varepsilon - \varepsilon_{\rm p}\right)$ and irreversible $\varepsilon_{\rm p}$ parts. The dashed lines represent elastic unloading with the same stiffness as the initial elastic loading.[]{data-label="fig:compExplain"}](./figCompExplain){width="0.7\linewidth"}
These two parts of the inelastic strain are used to define the damage history variables, see Section \[sec:dam\].
Plasticity part {#sec:plast}
---------------
The plasticity model is formulated in a three-dimensional framework with a pressure-sensitive yield surface, hardening and non-associated flow. The main components are the yield condition, the hardening law, the evolution law for the hardening variable and the flow rule. This model is an extension of CDPM1 in [@GraJir06], in which the plasticity response is assumed to be perfect-plastic in the regime in which damage is active. In the present study, the plasticity part exhibits hardening in this regime, which is used to model the strain rate dependence of the strength by adjusting the onset of damage. This extension to the hardening requires several extensions of the plasticity part of CDPM1, which is presented in the following section.
The yield surface is described in terms of the cylindrical coordinates in the principal effective stress space (Haigh-Westergaard coordinates), which are the volumetric effective stress $\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V}$, the norm of the deviatoric stress $\bar{\rho}$ and the Lode angle of the deviatoric stress $\bar{\theta}$. For a definition of these coordinates it is referred to [@GraJir06].
The yield function $$\label{eq:yieldSurface}
\begin{split}
& f_{\rm p}(\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V},\bar\rho,\bar\theta;\kappa_{\rm p})= \\
& \left\{\left[1-q_{\rm{h}}(\kappa_{\rm p})\right]\left( \frac{\bar{\rho}} {\sqrt{6}f_{\rm c}} + \frac{\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V}} {f_{\rm c}} \right)^2 + \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac {\bar{\rho}}{f_{\rm c}} \right\}^2 \\
& +m_0 q_{\rm{h}}(\kappa_{\rm p})q_{\rm{s}}(\kappa_{\rm p}) \left[\frac{\bar{\rho} }{\sqrt{6}f_{\rm c}}r(\cos{\bar{\theta}}) + \frac{\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V}}{f_{\rm c}} \right]\\
& - q_{\rm{h}}^2(\kappa_{\rm p}) q_{{\rm s}}^2(\kappa_{\rm p})
\end{split}$$ depends on the effective stress (which enters in the form of cylindrical coordinates) and on the hardening variable $\kappa_{\rm p}$ (which enters through the dimensionless variables $q_{\rm h}$ and $q_{\rm s}$). Parameter $f_{\rm c}$ is the uniaxial compressive strength.
The meridians of the yield surface $f_{\rm p}=0$ are parabolic, and the deviatoric sections change from triangular shapes at low confinement to almost circular shapes at high confinement. The shape of the deviatoric section is controlled by the function $$\label{eq:rFunction}
\begin{split}
&r(\cos{\bar{\theta}}) =\\
& \frac{4(1-e^2)\cos^2{\bar{\theta}} + (2e-1)^2}{2(1-e^2)\cos{\bar{\theta}} + (2e-1)\sqrt{4(1-e^2)\cos^2{\bar{\theta}}+5e^2 -4e}}
\end{split}$$ proposed by [@Willam74]. The eccentricity parameter $e$ and the friction parameter $$\label{eq:frictionM}
m_0 = \dfrac{3 \left(f_{\rm c}^2 - f_{\rm t}^2\right)}{f_{\rm c}f_{\rm t}} \dfrac{e}{e+1}$$ are calibrated from the values of uniaxial and equibiaxial compressive strengths and uniaxial tensile strength as described in [@JirBaz01]. The shape of the meridians of the yield surface is controlled by the hardening variables $q_{\rm h}$ and $q_{\rm s}$ and $m_0$. The evolution of the yield surface during hardening is presented in Figure \[fig:surfaceMeridian\] and \[fig:surfaceDeviatoric\]. The two hardening functions, which are functions of the hardening variable $\kappa_{\rm p}$ are presented in Figure \[fig:hardening\]. If the two variables $q_{\rm h}$ and $q_{\rm s}$ are equal to one, the yield surface turns into the failure surface proposed by [@Menetrey95].
![The evolution of the meridional section of the yield surface during hardening in the pre-peak and post-peak regime.[]{data-label="fig:surfaceMeridian"}](./figMeridiansFinal){width="0.7\linewidth"}
![The evolution of the deviatoric section of the yield surface during hardening for a constant volumetric stress of $\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V} = - f_{\rm c}/3$.[]{data-label="fig:surfaceDeviatoric"}](./figDeviatoricFinal){width="0.7\linewidth"}
![The two hardening laws $q_{\rm h}$ (solid line) and $q_{\rm s}$ (dashed line).[]{data-label="fig:hardening"}](./figHardening){width="0.7\linewidth"}
In the present model, the flow rule in Eq. (\[eq:flowRule\]) is non-associated, which means that the yield function $f_{\rm p}$ and the plastic potential $g_{\rm p}$ do not coincide and, therefore, the direction of the plastic flow $\mathbf{m}\equiv\partial g_{\rm p}/\partial\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}$ is not normal to the yield surface. This is important for realistic modeling of the volumetric expansion under compression for frictional materials such as concrete. An associated flow rule for this type of yield surface gives an unrealistically high volumetric expansion in compression, which leads in the case of passive confinement to an overestimated strength (peak stress); see [@Gra04]. The plastic potential is given as $$\label{eq:plasticPotential}
\begin{split}
& g_{\rm p}(\bar\sigma_{\rm V},\bar\rho;\kappa_{\rm p})=\\
& \left\{\left[1-q_{\rm{h}}(\kappa_{\rm p})\right] \left( \frac{\bar{\rho}} {\sqrt{6}f_{\rm c}} + \frac{\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V}}{f_{\rm c}} \right)^2 + \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac {\bar{\rho}}{f_{\rm c}} \right\}^2\\
& + q_{\rm{h}}(\kappa_{\rm p}) q_{\rm{s}}(\kappa_{\rm p}) \left( \frac{m_0 \bar{\rho}}{\sqrt{6}f_{\rm c}} + \frac{m_{\rm g}(\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V}, \kappa_{\rm p})}{f_{\rm c}} \right)
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{eq:mg}
m_{\rm g}(\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V}, \kappa_{\rm p})=A_{\rm g}\left(\kappa_{\rm p}\right)B_{\rm g}\left(\kappa_{\rm p}\right)f_{\rm c} \exp{\frac{\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V} - q_{\rm{s}}(\kappa_{\rm p}) f_{\rm t}/3}{B_{\rm g}\left(\kappa_{\rm p}\right) f_{\rm c}}}$$ is a variable controlling the ratio of volumetric and deviatoric plastic flow. The variables $A_{\rm g}\left(\kappa_{\rm p}\right)$ and $B_{\rm g}\left(\kappa_{\rm p}\right)$, which depend on the hardening function $q_{\rm s}$, are derived from assumptions on the plastic flow in uniaxial tension and compression. In uniaxial tension, the laterial plastic strain is chosen to be zero. In uniaxial compression, the ratio of axial and laterial plastic strain is set to the model constant $D_{\rm f}$. The plastic potential does not depend on the third Haigh-Westergaard coordinate (Lode angle $\bar{\theta}$). This increases the efficiency of the implementation and the robustness of the model. However, it also limits the capability of this flow rule to describe the response of concrete in multiaxial compression.
The evolution law for the hardening variable $\kappa_{\rm p}$ sets the rate of the hardening variable equal to the norm of the plastic strain rate scaled by a hardening ductility measure. This scaling factor is constructed such that the model response is more ductile under compression [@GraJir06].
Damage part {#sec:dam}
-----------
The damage parameter is determined by means of history variables that are based on measures of the plastic and elastic strain. The measure of the plastic strain is based on the norm of the rate of the plastic strain. The measure of the elastic strain, denoted here as the equivalent strain $\tilde{\varepsilon}$, is more difficult to choose. With the equivalent strain, the onset of damage is determined. Thus, it is required to choose an equivalent strain measure, which represents at a certain value stress states which are located on the strength envelope of concrete. In the present work, the equivalent strain $\tilde{\varepsilon}$ is chosen so that the effective stress states at the onset of damage satisfy the strength criterion developed by Menetrey and Willam [@Menetrey95] on which the yield surface in the plasticity part is based. The corresponding damage envelope has the form $$\label{eq:damageStrength}
\dfrac{3}{2} \dfrac{\bar{\rho}^2}{f_{\rm c}^2} + q_{\rm d} m_0 \left(\frac{\bar{\rho} }{\sqrt{6}f_{\rm c}}r\left(\cos \bar{\theta}\right) + \dfrac{\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V}}{f_{\rm c}} \right) - q_{\rm d}^2 = 0$$ From Eq. (\[eq:damageStrength\]), the variable $q_{\rm d}$ (positive root) is determined, which is used to define the equivalent strain $\tilde{\varepsilon}$ for the strain driven damage model. The meaning of $q_{\rm d}$ is illustrated by two representative effective stress states, namely uniaxial tension and uniaxial compression. For uniaxial tension, the effective stress state is defined as $\bar{\sigma}_1=\bar{\sigma}_{\rm t}$, $\bar{\sigma}_2=\bar{\sigma}_3=0$, $\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V} = \bar{\bar{\sigma}}_{\rm t}/3$, $\bar{s}_1 = 2 \bar{\sigma}_{\rm t}/3$, $\bar{s}_2 = \bar{s}_2 = - \bar{\bar{\sigma}}_{\rm t}/3$ and $\bar{\rho} = \sqrt{2/3} \bar{\sigma}_{\rm t}$ and $\cos \bar{\theta} = 1$. Setting this in Eq. (\[eq:damageStrength\]) results in $$f_{\rm d}\left(\bar{\sigma}_{\rm t}\right) = \dfrac{\bar{\sigma}_{\rm t}^2}{f_{\rm c}^2} + q_{\rm s} m_0 \left(\dfrac{r\left(\cos \bar{\theta}\right)}{3 f_{\rm c}} + \dfrac{1}{3 f_{\rm c}}\right) \bar{\sigma}_{\rm t} - q_{\rm s}^2 = 0$$ With $r = \dfrac{1}{e}$ for $\theta=0$ and the definition of $m_0$ in Eq. (\[eq:frictionM\]), this simplifies to $$f_{\rm d} \left(\bar{\sigma}_{\rm t}\right) = \dfrac{\bar{\sigma}_{\rm t}^2}{f_{\rm c}^2} + q_{\rm d} \bar{\sigma}_{\rm t} \dfrac{f_{\rm c}^2-f_{\rm t}^2}{f_{\rm c}^2f_{\rm t}} - q_{\rm d}^2 = 0$$ The positive root of this equation for $q_{\rm d}$ is $$q_{\rm d} = \dfrac{\bar{\sigma}_{\rm t}}{f_{\rm t}}$$
On the other hand, for uniaxial compression, the effective stress state is defined as $\bar{\sigma}_1 = -\bar{\sigma}_{\rm c}$, $\bar{\sigma}_2 = \bar{\sigma}_3 = 0$, $\bar{\sigma}_{\rm V} = -\bar{\sigma}_{\rm c}/3$ and $\bar{\rho} = \sqrt{\dfrac{2}{3}} \bar{\sigma}_{\rm c}$. Repeating the steps, which were presented above for uniaxial tension, the damage hardening parameter is determined as $$q_{\rm d} = \dfrac{\bar{\sigma}_{\rm c}}{f_{\rm c}}$$ Consequently, $q_{\rm d}$ is proportional to the effective stresses in tension and compression, respectively, and is equal to one, if the effective stresses are equal to the strength described by the criterion in Eq. (\[eq:damageStrength\]). Therefore, the variable $q_{\rm d}$ is well suited to be used for the definition of the equivalent strain, which is $$\tilde{\varepsilon} = \dfrac{f_{\rm t}}{E} q_{\rm d}$$
Based on the plastic hardening parameter $\kappa_{\rm p}$, and the equivalent strain $\tilde{\varepsilon}$, six damage history variables ($\kappa_{\rm dt}$, $\kappa_{\rm dc}$, $\kappa_{\rm d1t}$, $\kappa_{\rm d1c}$, $\kappa_{\rm d2t}$, $\kappa_{\rm d2c}$) are defined. The evolution of these damage variables is controlled by two damage loading functions $$\label{eq:tensileLoading}
f_{\rm dt} = \dfrac{1}{\alpha_{\rm r}} \tilde{\varepsilon} - \kappa_{\rm dt}$$ and $$\label{eq:compLoading}
f_{\rm dc} = \dfrac{\alpha_{\rm c}}{\alpha_{\rm r}} \tilde{\varepsilon} - \kappa_{\rm dc}$$ for which the loading-unloading conditions $$\label{eq:kappadt}
f_{\rm dt}\leq 0 \mbox{,} \hspace{0.5cm} \dot{\kappa}_{\rm dt} \geq 0 \mbox{,} \hspace{0.5cm} \dot{\kappa}_{\rm dt} f_{\rm dt} = 0$$ and $$\label{eq:kappadc}
f_{\rm dc}\leq 0 \mbox{,} \hspace{0.5cm} \dot{\kappa}_{\rm dc} \geq 0 \mbox{,} \hspace{0.5cm} \dot{\kappa}_{\rm dc} f_{\rm dc} = 0$$ apply, respectively. With the variable $\alpha_{\rm r}$ in Eqs. (\[eq:tensileLoading\]) and (\[eq:compLoading\]) the strain rate dependence of the material is modelled, see Sec. \[sec:rate\]. Furthermore, $\alpha_{\rm c}$ from Eq. (\[eq:alpha\]) is used to distinguish between tensile and compressive stress states. The next two variables are linked to the plastic hardening parameter. Here, only plastic strains after the onset of damage are considered. They are defined as $$\label{eq:kappad1t}
\dot{\kappa}_{\rm d1t} = \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\dfrac{1}{x_{\rm s} \alpha_{\rm r}} \dot{\kappa}_{\rm p} & \mbox{if $\dot{\kappa}_{\rm dt} > 0$ $\land$ $\kappa_{\rm dt} >\varepsilon_0$}\\
0 & \mbox{if $\dot{\kappa}_{\rm dt} = 0$ $\lor$ $\kappa_{\rm dt} <\varepsilon_0$}
\end{array} \right.$$ and $$\label{eq:kappad1c}
\dot{\kappa}_{\rm d1c} = \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\dfrac{\alpha_{\rm c}}{x_{\rm s} \alpha_{\rm r}} \dot{\kappa}_{\rm p} & \mbox{if $\dot{\kappa}_{\rm dc} > 0$ $\land$ $\kappa_{\rm dc} >\varepsilon_0$}\\
0 & \mbox{if $\dot{\kappa}_{\rm dc} = 0$ $\lor$ $\kappa_{\rm dc} <\varepsilon_0$}
\end{array} \right.$$ where $x_{\rm s}$ is a ductility measure, which describes the influence of multiaxial stress states on the softening response and controls so the ratio of fracture energies in tension $G_{\rm ft}$ and compression $G_{\rm fc}$. These two history variables represent the irreversible component of the inelastic strain introduced in Sec. \[sec:General\]. Finally, the last two damage history variables are related to the maximum equivalent strains $\kappa_{\rm dt}$ and $\kappa_{\rm dc}$ and are defined as $$\label{eq:kappad2t}
\dot{\kappa}_{\rm d2t} = \dfrac{\dot{\kappa}_{\rm dt}}{x_{\rm s}}$$ and $$\label{eq:kappad2c}
\dot{\kappa}_{\rm d2c} = \dfrac{\dot{\kappa}_{\rm dc}}{x_{\rm s}}$$
All six damage history variables are used to determine the two damage parameters $\omega_{\rm t}$ and $\omega_{\rm c}$ in Eq. (\[eq:general\]). The form of the two damage parameters $\omega_{\rm t}$ and $\omega_{\rm c}$ depends on the type of softening relation that is modelled. For instance, for linear softening in uniaxial tension, the stress inelastic displacement relationship in the softening regime is $$\label{eq:linearCrackOpening}
\sigma = \left \{ \begin{array}{ll} f_{\rm t} \left(1- \dfrac{h \varepsilon_{\rm i}}{w_{\rm f}}\right) & \mbox{if $0 \leq h \varepsilon_{\rm i} < w_{\rm f}$}\\
0 & \mbox{if $ w_{\rm f} \leq h \varepsilon_{\rm i}$} \end{array} \right .$$ where $w_{\rm f}$ is the crack opening at which the uniaxial stress is equal to zero. To extend this relationship to general loading, the inelastic strain $\varepsilon_{\rm i}$ is replaced by the damage history variables as $$\label{eq:inelasticStrain}
\varepsilon_{\rm i} = \kappa_{\rm d1t}+ \omega_{\rm t} \kappa_{\rm d2t}$$ Furthermore, the general stress-strain relationship in Eq. (\[eq:general\]) reduces for uniaxial tension to $$\label{eq:linearStressStrain}
\sigma = \left(1-\omega_{\rm t}\right) E \kappa_{\rm dt}$$ where $\varepsilon$ is replaced by $\kappa_{\rm dt}$ to make it applicable to general strain states. Setting Eqs. (\[eq:linearCrackOpening\]) and (\[eq:linearStressStrain\]) equal gives $$\omega_{\rm t} = \dfrac{f_{\rm t} \kappa_{\rm d1t} h + w_{\rm f} E \kappa_{\rm dt} - w_{\rm f} f_{\rm t}}{\kappa_{\rm dt} w_{\rm f} E - f_{\rm t} \kappa_{\rm d2t} h}$$ The expression for $\omega_{\rm c}$ is obtained, if $\kappa_{\rm dt}$, $\kappa_{\rm d1t}$ and $\kappa_{\rm d2t}$ are replaced by $\kappa_{\rm dc}$, $\kappa_{\rm d1c}$ and $\kappa_{\rm d2c}$, respectively. Thus, $$\omega_{\rm c} = \dfrac{f_{\rm t} \kappa_{\rm d1c} h + w_{\rm f} E \kappa_{\rm dc} - w_{\rm f} f_{\rm t}}{\kappa_{\rm dc} w_{\rm f} E - f_{\rm t} \kappa_{\rm d2c} h}$$ This procedure can be extended to derive the damage parameter for any combination of line segments, such as the bilinear stress crack opening curve shown in Figure \[fig:DamBilinear\], which is used in the analyses presented in this paper in Sections 2.5 and 3. For these analyses the parameters of the bilinear stress-strain curve were chosen as $\sigma_1 = 0.2 f_{\rm t}$ and $w_{\rm f1} = 0.2 w_{\rm f}$, for which $w_{\rm f} = 4.444 G_{\rm Ft}/f_{\rm t}$. For all the experiments, the axial specimen length was assumed to be $\ell_{\rm ref} = 0.1$ m for presenting the stress-strain curves.
![Bilinear softening.[]{data-label="fig:DamBilinear"}](./figDamBilinear){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Rate dependence {#sec:rate}
---------------
The response of concrete is strongly rate dependent. If the loading rate is increased, the apparent tensile and compressive strength increase. This increase is more pronounced in tension than in compression. In the present model, this rate dependence is taken into account in Eq. (\[eq:kappadt\]) and (\[eq:kappadc\]) by the factor $\alpha_{\rm r} \geq 1$. The greater the rate factor $\alpha_{\rm r}$, the greater is the delay of the onset of damage and, therewith, the strength. For tension, the rate dependence is modeled using the expressions proposed by Malvar and Ross in [@MalRos98]. For compression, the expressions reported in CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 [@CEB91] are used. Accordingly, the factor $\alpha_{\rm r}$ is defined as $$\label{eq:rateFactor}
\alpha_{\rm r} = \left(1-\alpha_{\rm c}\right) \alpha_{\rm rt} + \alpha_{\rm c} \alpha_{\rm rc}$$ where $\alpha_{\rm c}$ is the factor introduced in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\]) to model the different strain rate dependence in tension and compression.
For tension, the rate factor is $$\alpha_{\rm rt} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \mbox{ for $\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm max} \leq 30 \times 10^{-6}$~s$^{-1}$}\\
\left(\dfrac{\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm max}}{\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm t0}}\right)^{\delta_{\rm s}} & \mbox{ for $30 \times 10^{-6}$~s$^{-1} \leq \dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm max} \leq 1$~s$^{-1}$}\\
\beta_{\rm s} \left(\dfrac{\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm max}}{\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm t0}}\right)^{1/3} & \mbox{ for $1$~s$^{-1} \leq \dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm max} $} \end{array} \right.$$ with $$\delta_{\rm s} = \dfrac{1}{1 + 8 f_{\rm c}/f_{\rm c0}}$$ and $$\log{\beta_{\rm s}} = 6 \delta_{\rm s} - 2$$ where $\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm max}$ is the maximum principal strain rate component, $f_{\rm c0} = 10$ MPa and $\dot{\tilde{\varepsilon}}_{\rm t0} = 1 \times 10^{-6}$ s$^{-1}$. For uniaxial tension, for instance, the maximum principal strain rate component $\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm max}$ is equal to the strain rate in uniaxial tension. For compression, the rate factor is $$\alpha_{\rm rc} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \mbox{ for $\left |\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm min}\right | \leq 30 \times 10^{-6}$~s$^{-1}$}\\
\left(\dfrac{\|\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm min}\|}{\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm c0}}\right)^{1.026\alpha_{\rm s}} & \mbox{ for $30 \times 10^{-6}$~s$^{-1} \leq \left |\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm min}\right | \leq 30$~s$^{-1}$}\\
\gamma_{\rm s} \left(\dfrac{\|\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm min}\|}{\dot{\tilde{\varepsilon}}_{\rm c0}}\right)^{1/3} & \mbox{ for 30~s$^{-1}$ $\leq \left|\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm min}\right|$ }\end{array} \right.$$ where the parameter $\alpha_{\rm s}$ is defined as $$\alpha_{\rm s} = \dfrac{1}{5+9f_{\rm c}/f_{\rm c0}}$$ and $$\log{\gamma_{\rm s}} = 6.156 \alpha_{\rm s} - 2$$ Here, $\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm min}$ is the minimum principal strain rate component and $\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm c0} = 30 \times 10^{-6}$ s$^{-1}$. For uniaxial compression, $\dot{\varepsilon}_{\rm min}$ is equal to the axial compressive strain rate.
Model response for varying strain rates and cyclic loading
----------------------------------------------------------
The response of the constitutive model is illustrated by several idealised load cases, before it is compared to a wide range of experimental results in the next section. Firstly, a quasi-static strain cycle is considered, which results in a stress-strain response shown in Fig. \[fig:Cyclic\]. The strain is increased from “0” to “1”, where the tensile strength of the material is reached. Up to point “1”, the material response is elastic-plastic with small plastic strains. With a further increase of the strain form “1” to “2”, the effective stress part continues to increase, since $H_{\rm p}>0$, whereas the nominal stress decreases, since the tensile damage variable $\omega_{\rm t}$ increases. A reverse of the strain at point “2” results in an reduction of the stress with an unloading stiffness, which is less than the elastic stiffness of an elasto-plastic model, but greater than the stiffness of an elasto-damage mechanics model. At point “3”when the stress is equal to zero, a further reduction of the strain leads to a compressive response following a linear stress-strain relationship between the points “3” and “4” with the original Young’s modulus $E$ of the undamaged material. This change of stiffness is obtained by using two damage parameters, $\omega_{\rm t}$ and $\omega_{\rm c}$. At point “3” $\omega_{\rm t}>0$, but $\omega_{\rm c} = 0$. Up to “4” no further plastic strains are generated, since the hardening from “0” to “1” has increased the elastic domain of the plasticity part so much that the yield surface is not reached at “4”. A further decrease of the strain activates the compressive damage variable which leads to a reduction of the nominal stress. At point “5”, the plasticity surface is reached and a subsequent increase of strain results in hardening of the plasticity part. However, the nominal stress, shown in Figure \[fig:Cyclic\], decreases, since $\omega_{\rm c}$ increases. A second reversal of the strain direction (“6”) changes the stress from tension to compression at “7”, which is again associated with a change of the stiffness.
![Model response for cyclic loading.[]{data-label="fig:Cyclic"}](./figCyclicFinal){width="0.7\linewidth"}
The second group of examples consists of several tensile and compressive loading cases with constant strain strain rates. For uniaxial tension, strain rates of $1\times 10^{-6}$, $1$, $10$ and $100$ 1/s are applied. The corresponding stress strain responses are shown in Fig. \[fig:RateTension\]. An increase of the loading rate results in a delay of the onset of damage. The strength is increased by factor $\alpha_{\rm r}$ in Eq. (\[eq:rateFactor\]), whereas the fracture energy is increased by the factor $\alpha_{\rm r}^2$. The initial stiffness is modelled to be independent of the strain rate.
![Rate effect in tension: Stress strain response for four tensile strain rates.[]{data-label="fig:RateTension"}](./figRateTensionFinal){width="0.7\linewidth"}
For uniaxial compression, strain rates of $-1\times 10^{-6}$, $-10$ and $-100$ are considered. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:RateCompression\]. Again, the strength in compression is increased by the factor $\alpha_{\rm r}$ and the fracture energy in compression by $\alpha_{\rm r}^2$. In compression, the strain at peak stress for greater strain rates than for quasistatic loading depends strongly on the modulus $H_{\rm p}$ of the hardening function $q_{\rm s}$ depicted in Fig. \[fig:hardening\]. An increase of the strain rate results in a delay of the onset of damage. This delay shifts the point of peak stress from intersection point of the hardening functions $q_{\rm h}$ and $q_{\rm s}$ into the hardening regime of $q_{\rm s}$.
![Rate effect in compression: Stress strain response for three compressive strain rates.[]{data-label="fig:RateCompression"}](./figRateCompressionFinal){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Comparison with experimental results
====================================
In this section the model response is compared to five groups of experiments reported in the literature. For each group of experiments, the model constants $E$, $\nu$, $f_{\rm c}$, $f_{\rm t}$, $G_{\rm Ft}$ and $G_{\rm Fc}$ are adjusted to obtain a fit for the different types of concrete used in the experiments. The other model parameters are set to their default values. The hardening modulus (shown in Figure \[fig:hardening\]) is set to $H_{\rm p} = 0.5$. The first analysis is uniaxial tensile setup with unloading. The model response is compared to the experimental results reported by Gopalaratnam and Shah in [@GopSha85] (Figure \[fig:GopSha85\]). The relevant model constants for this experiment are $E = 25$ GPa, $\nu = 0.2$, $f_{\rm c} = 40$ MPa, $f_{\rm t} = 3.5$ MPa, $G_{\rm Ft} = 55$ J/m$^2$.
![Uniaxial tension: Model response compared to experimental results in [@GopSha85].[]{data-label="fig:GopSha85"}](./figGopSha85){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The next example is an uniaxial compression test with unloading, for which the model response is compared to experimental results reported by Karsan and Jirsan [@KarJir69] (Figure \[fig:KarJir69\]). The model constants are $E = 30$ GPa, $\nu = 0.2$, $f_{\rm c} = 28$ MPa, $f_{\rm t} = 2.8$ MPa, $G_{\rm Fc} = 2205$ J/m$^2$ .
![Uniaxial compression: Model response compared to experimental results reported in [@KarJir69].[]{data-label="fig:KarJir69"}](./figKarJir69){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Next, the model is compared to uniaxial and biaxial compression tests reported by Kupfer et al. in [@Kupfer69]. For these experiments, the model constants are set to $E = 32$ GPa, $\nu = 0.2$, $f_{\rm c} = 32.8$ MPa, $f_{\rm t} = 3.3$ MPa, $G_{\rm Ft} = 50$ J/m$^2$, $G_{\rm Fc} = 3500$ J/m$^2$. The comparison with experimental results is shown in Figure \[fig:Kupfer69\] for uniaxial, equibiaxial and biaxial compression. For the biaxial compression case, the stress ratio of the two compressive stress components is $\sigma_1/\sigma_2 = -1/-0.5$.
![Uniaxial compression: Model response compared to experimental results reported in [@Kupfer69].[]{data-label="fig:Kupfer69"}](./figKupfer69){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Furthermore, the performance of the model is evaluated for triaxial tests and a hydrostatic test reported in [@CanBaz00]. The material constants for this test are $E = 25$ GPa, $\nu=0.2$, $f_{\rm c} = 28$ MPa, $f_{\rm t} = 2.8$ MPa, $G_{\rm Fc} = 2205$ J/m$^2$. The model response is compared to experimental results presented in Figures \[fig:WES1994Tri\] and \[fig:WES1994Hydro\].
![Confined compression: Model response compared to experiments used in [@CanBaz00].[]{data-label="fig:WES1994Tri"}](./figWES1994Tri){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![hydrostatic compression: Model response compared to experiments used in [@CanBaz00].[]{data-label="fig:WES1994Hydro"}](./figWES1994Hydro){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Finally, the model response in triaxial compression is compared to the experimental results reported in [@ImrPan96]. The material constants for this test are $E = 25$ GPa, $\nu=0.2$, $f_{\rm c} = 28$ MPa, $f_{\rm t} = 2.8$ MPa, $G_{\rm Ft} = 100$ J/m$^2$, $G_{\rm Fc} = 15000$ J/m$^2$.
![Confined compression: Model response compared to experiments reported in [@ImrPan96].[]{data-label="fig:ImrPan96"}](./figImran1996){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Overall, the agreement of the model response with the experimental results is very good. The model is able to represent the strength of concrete in tension and multiaxial compression. In addition, the strains at maximum stress in tension and compression agree well with the experimental results. The bilinear stress-crack opening curve that was used results in a good approximation of the softening curve in uniaxial tension and compression.
Conclusions
===========
The present damage plasticity model combines a stress-based plasticity part with a strain based damage mechanics model. The model response is in good agreement with experimental results for a wide range of loading from uniaxial tension to confined compression. In the next steps, the model will be applied to boundary value problems to evaluate its performance to describe failure processes of concrete mesh-independently. It is expected that the model will perform well for these problems since the softening response is formulated so that the crack band approach can be applied, which is known to lead in many cases to mesh-independent results.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work is performed within the project “Dynamic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures subjected to blast and fragment impacts” which in turn is financially sponsored by MSB - the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=cmss10 =cmss10 at 7pt
[ **Anomalous Couplings in Double Higgs Production** ]{}
[Roberto Contino$^{\, a}$, Margherita Ghezzi$^{\, a}$, Mauro Moretti$^{\, b}$,\
Giuliano Panico$^{\, c}$, Fulvio Piccinini$^{\, d}$ and Andrea Wulzer$^{\, c,e}$]{}
$^{a}$ [*Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza" and INFN, Sezione di Roma, Italy*]{}
$^{b}$ [*Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Ferrara and INFN, Sezione di Ferrara, Italy*]{}
$^{c}$ [*Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH, CH-8093, Zurich, Switzerland*]{}
$^{d}$ [*INFN, Sezione di Pavia, Italy*]{}
$^{e}$ [*Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia and INFN, Sezione di Padova, Italy*]{}
**Abstract**
Introduction
============
Measuring the couplings of the Higgs boson at the LHC is a difficult but important task. It will give crucial information to distinguish among different theoretical scenarios that can lead to a Higgs-like particle, and can thus shed light on the mechanism behind electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB). In the Standard Model (SM), the request of perturbativity and unitarity up to Planckian scales fixes the strength of all the interactions of the Higgs boson in terms of its mass. Sizable modifications of the couplings can arise in weakly-coupled extensions, such as supersymmetry, through the mixing of the Higgs boson with new light states. In this case one expects to produce these new particles directly at the collider. A second compelling possibility is that the EWSB is triggered by new strong dynamics at the TeV scale, and a light Higgs emerges as the pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson (pNGB) of a larger spontaneously broken symmetry [@compositeHiggs]. In this case the modification of couplings is not necessarily accompanied by the presence of new light scalars and the direct manifestation of New Physics can be postponed to TeV energies. In addition to a modified pattern of linear couplings, this scenario predicts new non-linear interactions of the Higgs to the SM fields, which can lead to striking signatures at the collider and are a genuine feature of the underling strong dynamics.
The problem of extracting the Higgs couplings by measuring its production and decay rates at the LHC has been studied at length in the literature, see for example Refs. [@Zeppenfeld:2000td; @Conway:2002kk; @Belyaev:2002ua; @duhrssen; @Duhrssen:2004cv; @Lafaye:2009vr; @Bock:2010nz; @Bonnet:2011yx]. The importance of a model-independent approach has been recently re-discussed, and a first estimate of the impact of the current LHC data on the Higgs parameter space has been performed in [@Carmi:2012yp; @Azatov:2012bz; @Espinosa:2012ir; @Giardino:2012ww; @Rauch:2012wa; @Ellis:2012rx; @Azatov:2012rd; @Farina:2012ea; @Degrande:2012gr; @Klute:2012pu].
Aim of this paper is to study the effect of anomalous couplings in the process of gluon-initiated double Higgs production at the LHC, $gg\rightarrow hh$. Under the reasonable assumption of weak couplings to light fermions, this process proceeds through top quark loops and it is thus sensitive, in the first place, to the Higgs-top couplings. It also receives a contribution from the Higgs trilinear coupling, and for this reason has been studied in detail in the context of the SM [@Glover:1987nx; @Plehn:1996wb; @Dawson:1998py; @Baur:2002rb; @Baur:2002qd; @Baur:2003gpa; @Baur:2003gp]. In theories of New Physics, however, a much more interesting coupling that can be probed through this process is the non-linear interaction $t\bar t hh$. The latter is generally present in theories of composite Higgs, like for example the minimal models MCHM4 [@Agashe:2004rs] and MCHM5 [@Contino:2006qr], and gives a genuine signal of the Higgs strong interactions. As first noticed by the authors of Ref. [@Grober:2010yv] (see also Ref. [@Dib:2005re] for a discussion of the role of the $t\bar thh$ coupling in context of Little Higgs theories), the presence of the new coupling can lead to a dramatic increase of the cross section. For example, enhancements larger than one order of magnitude are possible in the MCHM5, and even for $(v/f)^2 \sim 0.15$, where $f$ is the decay constant of the pNGB Higgs, the total cross section *doubles* compared to its SM value. Given that the deviations due to Higgs compositeness are usually much milder, $gg\rightarrow hh$ seems an extremely favored channel which is worth investigating.
In this paper we derive a first quantitative assessment on the detectability of the anomalous coupling $t\bar t hh$ in the process $gg\rightarrow hh$. We do not consider the rarer process of double-Higgs production via vector boson fusion, which has been investigated at the LHC in previous studies [@Moretti:2004wa; @Giudice:2007fh; @Contino:2010mh; @Contino:2011np], since it is sensitive to the couplings of the Higgs to vector bosons and to the Higgs trilinear coupling. Neglecting such process is a very good approximation, considering that in absence of dedicated kinematic cuts its rate at the LHC is much smaller than the rate of $gg\rightarrow hh$. In section 2 we briefly summarize the parametrization of the couplings of a generic Higgs-like scalar which we adopt. In section 3 we analyze the $gg\rightarrow hh$ process in the presence of modified Higgs interactions. In particular we study the dependence of the cross section on the various couplings and show that there is high sensitivity to the new $t\bar t hh$ coupling, much larger than that on the trilinear self-interaction. For our analysis we wrote a dedicated computer code which computes the exact 1-loop matrix element for single and double Higgs production via gluon fusion as a function of the relevant couplings. The code has been implemented as one of the available processes of the event generator ALPGEN [@alpgen] and will be made public with its next official release. We then discuss two of the most promising decay channels of the Higgs pair: $hh \to WW\gamma\gamma \to l\nu jj \gamma\gamma$ in the case in which the Higgs has a suppressed single coupling to the top (fermiophobic limit), and $hh \to b\bar b \gamma\gamma$ in the case in which the linear couplings are SM like. For the latter case, we follow the strategy proposed in Ref. [@Baur:2003gp] and in section 4 we perform a first collider study to estimate the exclusion and discovery limits on the anomalous $t\bar t hh$ coupling. To compute the SM background cross section we use the results of [@Baur:2003gp] with updated $b$ and $\gamma$ efficiencies and rejection factors. We collect the results of our collider study in section 4.1. Finally, conclusions are reported in section 5.
General parametrization of the Higgs couplings
==============================================
In this section we introduce the general parametrization of Higgs couplings that will be used in this paper.
The most general effective Lagrangian that parametrizes the interactions of a Higgs-like scalar at low energy has been discussed in [@Contino:2010mh] and extended in [@Azatov:2012bz]. Under the assumption of custodial symmetry, the Nambu-Goldstone bosons associated to the electroweak symmetry breaking can be described as the coordinates of the coset $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R/SU(2)_V \sim SO(4)/SO(3)$. They can be conveniently parametrized by the $2\times 2$ matrix $$\Sigma = \exp\left(i \sigma_a \chi^a(x)/v\right)\,, \qquad \quad a=1,2,3$$ where $\sigma^a$ are the Pauli matrices and $v = 246\ {\rm GeV}$. At energy scales much below possible new physics states, the effective Lagrangian describing a light Higgs $h$ has the form $$\label{eq:eff_lagr}
\begin{split}
{\cal L}
=&\, \frac{v^2}{4} {\rm Tr}(D_\mu \Sigma^\dagger D^\mu \Sigma)
\left(1 + 2 a \, \frac{h}{v} + \ldots\right) + \frac{1}{2} (\partial_\mu h)^2 - \frac{1}{2} m_h^2 h^2
- d_3 \,\frac{1}{6} \left(\frac{3 m_h^2}{v}\right) h^3 + \ldots \\[0.2cm]
& - m_t \, \bar q_L^i \Sigma_{i1} t_R
\left(1 + c_t \,\frac{h}{v} + c_2\,\frac{h^2}{v^2} + \ldots\right)
- m_b \, \bar q_L^i \Sigma_{i2} b_R \left(1 + c_b \,\frac{h}{v} + \dots \right) + h.c.\, ,
\end{split}$$ where $q_L = (t_L, b_L)$ and $a$, $c_{t,b}$, $c_2$ and $d_3$ are the numerical coefficients that parametrize the Higgs couplings. The dots stand for terms which are not relevant for double Higgs production via gluon-fusion. In particular, we assume that the strength of single interactions of the Higgs to the fermions is not extremely enhanced compared to its SM value, so that the contribution of the light fermions and the bottom quark to double Higgs production can be safely neglected. The coupling to the bottom, $c_b$, is relevant only in the Higgs decay, and we will set $$c_t = c_b =c$$ for simplicity in the following. We also neglect $ggh$ and $gghh$ local interactions which can be generated by new heavy states at 1-loop level, as for example scalar or fermionic partners of the top quark (see Ref. [@Pierce:2006dh] for a study of the effect of such local interactions).
In this analysis we will freely vary the parameters that appear in the effective Lagrangian. In specific models, however, they can be related to each other. For example, the SM Lagrangian is obtained for $$a = c = d_3 = 1\,, \qquad \quad c_2 = 0\, .$$ A class of theories that we will consider in the following are the composite Higgs models based on the symmetry pattern $SO(5)/SO(4)$ [@Agashe:2004rs; @Contino:2006qr]. In these models the parameter $a$ is given by $$\label{eq:par_a}
a = \sqrt{1 - \xi}\,,$$ where $\xi = v^2/f^2$ and $f$ is the Nambu-Goldstone decay constant. The values of $c$, $c_2$ and $d_3$ depend on which $SO(5)$ representation the fermions are embedded in. For the two minimal choices of fermions in the spinorial (MCHM4 [@Agashe:2004rs]) and fundamental (MCHM5 [@Contino:2006qr]) representations one gets $$\begin{aligned}
&&c = d_3 = \sqrt{1-\xi}\,, \qquad
c_2 = -\frac{\xi}{2}\,, \hspace{3em} {\rm MCHM4,\ \ spinorial\ representation}\, ,\label{eq:par_MCHM4}\\[0.2cm]
&&c = d_3 = \frac{1-2\xi}{\sqrt{1-\xi}}\,, \qquad
c_2 = -2 \xi\,, \hspace{2.7em} {\rm MCHM5,\ \ fundamental\ representation}\, .\label{eq:par_MCHM5}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[eq:par\_a\]), (\[eq:par\_MCHM4\]) and (\[eq:par\_MCHM5\]) account for the value of the Higgs couplings as due to the non-linearities of the chiral Lagrangian. The exchange of new heavy particles can however give further corrections to these expressions. In the following we will neglect these effects since they are parametrically subleading [@Low:2009di], although they can be numerically important when the top or bottom degree of compositeness becomes large [@Azatov:2011qy]. This is especially justified considering that in minimal composite Higgs models with partial compositeness these additional corrections to the couplings do not affect the $gg\to h$ rate because they are exactly canceled by the contribution from loops of heavy fermions, as first observed in Refs. [@falkowski; @Low:2009di] and explained in Ref. [@Azatov:2011qy]. For double Higgs production we expect this cancellation to occur only in the limit of vanishing momentum of the Higgs external lines. In general, numerically important contributions might come from light top partners (light custodians). In models with partial compositeness, where the dominant contribution to the Higgs potential comes from top loops, the presence of light fermionic resonances is essential to obtain a light Higgs [@Contino:2006qr; @lightpartners]. In particular, $m_h \simeq 120-130\ {\rm GeV}$ requires top partners around or below $1\ {\rm TeV}$. It would be interesting to analyze in detail their effects on double Higgs production.
Double Higgs production via gluon fusion {#sec:ggHH}
========================================
In the scenario we are considering, the leading-order contributions to the process $gg \rightarrow hh$ come from Feynman diagrams containing a top-quark loop. The three relevant diagrams are shown in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\], and can be computed by using the results of Ref. [@Plehn:1996wb].
![ Feynman diagrams for double Higgs production via gluon fusion (an additional contribution comes from the crossing of the box diagram). The last diagram contains the new non-linear Higgs interaction $t\bar t hh$.[]{data-label="fig:diagrams"}](ggHH2.pdf "fig:"){width="147pt"} ![ Feynman diagrams for double Higgs production via gluon fusion (an additional contribution comes from the crossing of the box diagram). The last diagram contains the new non-linear Higgs interaction $t\bar t hh$.[]{data-label="fig:diagrams"}](ggHH1.pdf "fig:"){width="164pt"} ![ Feynman diagrams for double Higgs production via gluon fusion (an additional contribution comes from the crossing of the box diagram). The last diagram contains the new non-linear Higgs interaction $t\bar t hh$.[]{data-label="fig:diagrams"}](ggHH3_1.pdf "fig:"){width="134pt"}
We have implemented the automatic computation of the matrix element as one of the processes of the ALPGEN MonteCarlo generator [@alpgen]. The code will be made public with the next official release of ALPGEN, and it allows one to compute the total cross section and differential distributions, as well as to generate events for an arbitrary choice of the Higgs couplings $c$, $d_3$, $c_2$. The validation of the code has been performed by means of an independent C++ program linked to the QCDLoop [@Ellis:2007qk] and to the LHAPDF routines [@Whalley:2005nh]. All the results reported in the following have been derived by use of the ALPGEN matrix element calculation with CTEQ6l parton distribution functions and renormalization and factorization scales $Q = m(hh)$. The top quark mass has been set to $m_t = 173\ {\rm GeV}$.
The amplitude of each diagram in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\] is characterized by a different energy scaling at large invariant masses $\sqrt{\hat s}= m(hh) \gg m_t, m_h$. One has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:box_behaviour}
{\cal A}_\square & \sim c^2\, \alpha_s \frac{m_t^2}{v^2}\, , \\[0.3cm]
\label{eq:triangle_d3_behaviour}
{\cal A}_\triangle & \sim c\, d_3\, \alpha_s \frac{m_t^2}{v^2} \, \frac{m_h^2}{\hat s}
\left[\log\left(\frac{m_t^2}{\hat s}\right) + i \pi\right]^2\, , \\[0.3cm]
\label{eq:triangle_c2_behaviour}
{\cal A}_{\triangle nl} & \sim c_2\, \alpha_s \frac{m_t^2}{v^2}
\left[\log\left(\frac{m_t^2}{\hat s}\right) + i \pi\right]^2\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal A}_\square$, ${\cal A}_\triangle$ are the amplitudes of respectively the box and the triangle diagram with the Higgs exchange (first two diagrams of Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]), while ${\cal A}_{\triangle nl}$ denotes the amplitude of the diagram with the new non-linear interaction $t\bar t hh$ (last diagram of Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]). At large $\hat s$ the box and the diagram with the new vertex dominate, while the triangle with Higgs exchange gives its largest contribution near threshold. For SM values of the couplings there is a destructive interference between ${\cal A}_\triangle$ and ${\cal A}_\square$, so that decreasing the trilinear coupling $d_3$ leads to a softer distribution, while increasing it makes the suppression of the cross section near threshold even stronger. On the other hand, since ${\cal A}_{\triangle nl}$ and ${\cal A}_\square$ have similar energy scalings (the log enhancement of ${\cal A}_{\triangle nl}$ becomes important only at very large $\sqrt{\hat s}$ where the gluon pdfs are small), the main effect of their interference is on the total cross section, with little modification of the $m(hh)$ distribution. These behaviours are clearly visible in the distributions shown in Fig. \[fig:distributions\] for $m_h =120\,$GeV at 14 TeV.
![Invariant mass distribution of the two Higgs bosons in $pp \rightarrow hh$ at the LHC ($14\ {\rm TeV}$) for $m_h = 120\ {\rm GeV}$. The various curves correspond to different choices of Higgs couplings: $c = d_3 = 1$, $c_2 = 0$ (SM couplings, solid blue curve), $c = d_3 = 1$, $c_2 = -1$ (dashed purple curve), $c = 1$, $d_3 = c_2 = 0$ (dotted yellow curve). The dot-dashed green curve shows the distribution obtained in the approximation of infinite top mass with SM couplings. All curves have been normalized to unit area. The corresponding LO total cross sections are $15.2\,$fb (solid blue curve), $253\,$fb (dashed purple curve), $31.6\,$fb (dotted yellow curve). []{data-label="fig:distributions"}](Mhh.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
The cross section depends on the couplings as a quadratic polynomial in the variables $c_2$, $c^2$ and $c d_3$, associated respectively to the three diagrams of Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]. It can thus be conveniently expressed by the formula $$\label{eq:fitxsectot}
\sigma(pp\to hh) =\overline{\sigma}\left[ c_2^2+\left(\alpha\, c^2\right)^2+\left(\beta\, cd_3\right)^2+A_1\, c_2\left(\alpha\, c^2\right)
+A_2 \left(\alpha\, c^2\right)\left(\beta\, cd_3\right)+A_3\, c_2\left(\beta\, cd_3\right)\right]\,,$$ where the value of the (real) coefficients $\overline{\sigma},\alpha,\beta,A_1,A_2,A_3$ has been extracted by fitting the results of a Montecarlo integration, and is reported in Table \[tab:fit\] (at LO in $\alpha_s$) for $m_h=120, 125\,$GeV at 8 and 14 TeV.
------------ -------- --------------------- ---------- --------- --------- --------- --------
$\overline{\sigma}$ $\alpha$ $\beta$ $A_1$ $A_2$ $A_3$
\[0.1cm\]
\[-0.2cm\] 14 TeV $151.3\,{\rm{fb}}$ $0.453$ $0.164$ $-1.86$ $-1.77$ $1.66$
\[0.15cm\] 8 TeV $32.6\,{\rm{fb}}$ $0.474$ $0.178$ $-1.89$ $-1.78$ $1.68$
\[0.35cm\] 14 TeV $144.6\,{\rm{fb}}$ $0.457$ $0.169$ $-1.85$ $-1.79$ $1.68$
\[0.15cm\] 8 TeV $30.5\,{\rm{fb}}$ $0.475$ $0.185$ $-1.89$ $-1.79$ $1.70$
\[0.35cm\]
------------ -------- --------------------- ---------- --------- --------- --------- --------
: Coefficients for the fit of eq.(\[eq:fitxsectot\]) of the total LO $pp\to hh$ cross section via gluon fusion at the LHC. \[tab:fit\]
In the above parametrization, the coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$ measure the sensitivity of the cross section on the parameters $c^2$ and $(c d_3)$, relative to $c_2$. One can see from Table \[tab:fit\] that the dependence on $c^2$ is significant while the one on $(c d_3)$ is rather mild. This can be tracked back to the additional factor $(m_h^2/\hat s)$ in the amplitude of the triangle diagram which carries the dependence on $(c d_3)$, see eq.(\[eq:triangle\_d3\_behaviour\]). This factor leads to a suppression at large $\hat s$ and thus, because of the kinematic threshold $\hat s>4m_h^2$, to a reduction of the sensitivity on $(c d_3)$ of the total cross section.
We see in Table \[tab:fit\] that increasing the LHC center-of-mass energy from 8 TeV to 14 TeV increases the LO total cross section (hence the coefficient $\bar\sigma$) by a factor $\sim 5.2$, while the relative strength among $\alpha,\beta,A_1,A_2,A_3$ varies by less than $\sim 15\%$. When the Higgs mass is varied from $120\,$GeV to $125\,$GeV, $\bar\sigma$ decreases by $\sim 5-7 \%$, while the other coefficients change by less than $\sim 1-3\%$. The left plot of Fig. \[fig:totalxsec\] illustrates how the total cross section changes when varying individually $d_3$ and $c_2$, while fixing the other couplings to their SM value.
![Left plot: total cross section in SM units as a function of $c_2 = \Delta$ (solid blue curve) and $d_3 = 1 + \Delta$ (dashed purple curve), with the other Higgs couplings set to their SM values and $m_h =120\,$GeV. Right plot: LO total cross section (in fb) in the SM as a function of $m_h$ as computed by means of the full one-loop matrix element (solid blue curve) and the infinite top mass approximation (dot-dashed green curve). In both plots the LHC center-of-mass energy has been set to 14 TeV. []{data-label="fig:totalxsec"}](xsecvsDelta.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Left plot: total cross section in SM units as a function of $c_2 = \Delta$ (solid blue curve) and $d_3 = 1 + \Delta$ (dashed purple curve), with the other Higgs couplings set to their SM values and $m_h =120\,$GeV. Right plot: LO total cross section (in fb) in the SM as a function of $m_h$ as computed by means of the full one-loop matrix element (solid blue curve) and the infinite top mass approximation (dot-dashed green curve). In both plots the LHC center-of-mass energy has been set to 14 TeV. []{data-label="fig:totalxsec"}](Mh.pdf "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
In the vicinity of the SM point, decreasing (increasing) $d_3$ or $c_2$ leads to an enhancement (reduction) of the total cross section, with a much stronger dependence on $c_2$ than on $d_3$. The right plot in the same Figure shows how the cross section varies with the Higgs mass for the SM choice of couplings. The solid curve corresponds to the full one-loop matrix element calculation, while the dot-dashed curve is obtained by taking the limit of infinite top mass. As previously noticed [@Baur:2002rb], [^1] this approximation is reasonably accurate in the case of the total cross section, but completely fails to reproduce the correct $m(hh)$ distribution, as illustrated by the corresponding curve in Fig. \[fig:distributions\].
We have seen that modified Higgs couplings, in particular a non-vanishing $t\bar t hh$ interaction, can lead to a strong enhancement of the total $pp\to hh$ cross section. However, in order to determine the signal yield at the LHC in a given final state one has to take into account also the change in the Higgs decay branching ratios. In our case, these latter depend only on the ratio of the parameters $c$ and $a$. We will consider two illustrative situations: *i)* the case in which the branching ratios are similar to the SM ones; *ii)* the case in which the couplings of one Higgs boson to two fermions are suppressed (fermiophobic limit). The first situation is realized in models where all single Higgs couplings are rescaled by the same factor (as in the MCHM4, see eqs.(\[eq:par\_a\]), (\[eq:par\_MCHM4\])), or their shift from the SM value is small (as in composite Higgs models with small $\xi$). In this case the studies of Refs. [@Baur:2002rb; @Baur:2002qd; @Baur:2003gpa; @Baur:2003gp] suggest that the most favorable final state at the LHC for a light Higgs boson is $hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b$. On the other hand, if single Higgs couplings to fermions are suppressed (while the strength of $t\bar thh$ can still be sizable), the dominant decay mode for a light Higgs becomes $h\to WW$. The channel $hh\to WWWW$ has in this case the largest rate and should be visible in final states with two or three leptons. The $\gamma\gamma$ branching ratio is also strongly enhanced, so that in this case $hh\to WW\gamma\gamma$ also seems a promising final state. In particular, the request of one lepton from the decay of the $W$ pair should be sufficient to reduce the background and lead to a clean signature at the LHC.
Figure \[fig:BRs\] illustrates how the branching ratios $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ and $BR(hh\to WW\gamma\gamma)$ vary with $c/a$.
![Value of the branching ratio $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ (on the left) and $BR(hh\to WW\gamma\gamma)$ (on the right) in SM units as a function of the ratio of Higgs couplings $c/a$. The dots show the prediction in the MCHM5, where $c/a = (1-2\xi)/(1-\xi)$, for various values of $\xi$. In both plots the Higgs mass is set to $m_h =120\,$GeV. []{data-label="fig:BRs"}](BR_bbgaga.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Value of the branching ratio $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ (on the left) and $BR(hh\to WW\gamma\gamma)$ (on the right) in SM units as a function of the ratio of Higgs couplings $c/a$. The dots show the prediction in the MCHM5, where $c/a = (1-2\xi)/(1-\xi)$, for various values of $\xi$. In both plots the Higgs mass is set to $m_h =120\,$GeV. []{data-label="fig:BRs"}](BR_WWgaga.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Strong enhancements compared to the SM prediction are possible for $BR(hh\to WW\gamma\gamma)$ in the fermiophobic limit $c\to 0$. A fermiophobic composite Higgs can for example arise in the MCHM5 for $\xi\to 1/2$, see eq. (\[eq:par\_MCHM5\]). Although the point $(a=1$, $c=0)$ has been excluded at 95% CL in the range $m_h = 110-192\,$GeV by the combination of all CMS searches [@CMS-PAS-HIG-12-008], the one predicted by the MCHM5 for $\xi=1/2$ $(a=1/\sqrt{2},c=0)$ is still allowed for $m_h \sim 125\,$GeV and in fact could better explain the pattern of observed enhancements in the various $\gamma\gamma$ categories of the CMS analysis [@CMS-PAS-HIG-12-002]. Figure \[fig:xsecxBRMCHM5\] shows the final yield per fb$^{-1}$ predicted in the MCHM5 in the two final states $hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b$ and $hh\to WW\gamma\gamma \to l\nu q\bar q \gamma\gamma$ as a function of $\xi$ for $m_h = 120\,$GeV. The rate has been computed using the cross section for $gg\to hh$ at LO in $\alpha_s$ (*i.e.* no $K$-factor is included) given by eq.(\[eq:fitxsectot\]) and Table \[tab:fit\].
![Signal yield per fb$^{-1}$ predicted in the MCHM5 for the two final states $hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b$ (solid curves) and $hh\to WW\gamma\gamma \to l\nu q\bar q \gamma\gamma$ (dashed curves) as a function of $\xi$. The thick (thin) curves correspond to the LHC with 14 TeV (8 TeV) center-of-mass energy. The Higgs mass is set to $m_h =120\,$GeV. The rate has been computed using the cross section for $gg\to hh$ at LO in $\alpha_s$ (*i.e.* no $K$-factor is included) given by eq.(\[eq:fitxsectot\]) and Table \[tab:fit\]. []{data-label="fig:xsecxBRMCHM5"}](xsecxBR_MCHM5.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
As expected, for small values of $\xi$ the most promising channel is $\gamma\gamma b\bar b$, whose rate can be significantly enhanced compared to the SM expectation. At 14 TeV, for example, even for $\xi = 0.1$ the signal yield more than doubles. This large sensitivity to small values of $\xi = (v/f)^2$ shows that double Higgs production via gluon fusion is an extremely powerful process to probe the Higgs compositeness at the LHC. Still, the difficulty of isolating the $\gamma\gamma b\bar b$ signal from the background will require large integrated luminosities and will be possible only in the high-energy phase of the LHC. In the fortunate situation in which the Higgs is fermiophobic, on the other hand, the enhancement of the $hh\to WW\gamma\gamma \to l\nu q\bar q \gamma\gamma$ final state is so large in the MCHM5 that a first preliminary observation of the signal might be possible at the 8 TeV LHC. At this energy, for $\xi =1/2$, $m_h = 120\,$GeV and 20 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity the MCHM5 predicts $\sim 15$ signal events before cuts. [^2] Considering that the SM background is expected to be rather small for a final state with two photons and one isolated lepton, this number of events might be sufficient to establish the observation of the signal. For the same value of c.o.m. energy and integrated luminosity, the MCHM5 predicts $\sim 42$ and $\sim 27$ signal events (before cuts) respectively in $hh\to 4W\to l^{\pm} l^{\pm} \nu\nu 4q$ (two same-sign leptons) and $hh\to 4W\to 3l 3\nu q\bar q$. These high rates suggest that it might be possible to distinguish the $hh\to 4W$ signal over the SM background even at 8 TeV.
The results discussed in this section are rather encouraging, and show that double Higgs production can be an important process to extract or constrain the $t\bar t hh$ interaction and, more in general, to probe the Higgs compositeness. However, a more robust assessment of the LHC sensitivity in this sense requires a dedicated analysis of each of the relevant final states and a careful estimate of the background. In the next section we will focus on the $\gamma\gamma b\bar b$ channel and use the studies of Ref. [@Baur:2003gp] to get a first determination of the precision which can be obtained on $c_2$ at the 14 TeV LHC.
Analysis of the $b\overline b\gamma\gamma$ channel {#sec:bbgammagamma}
==================================================
The analysis of the $gg \rightarrow hh \rightarrow b \overline b \gamma \gamma$ process performed in Ref. [@Baur:2003gp] aimed at measuring the Higgs trilinear coupling, and assumed SM values for the other couplings. In this section we make use of the results of [@Baur:2003gp] to estimate the LHC sensitivity on the $t\bar t hh$ non-linear interaction.
We assume a center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} =14\,$TeV and set $m_h = 120\ {\rm GeV}$. Given the value of the signal rate and the large SM background, an analysis of $b\bar b \gamma\gamma$ at 8 TeV seems rather challenging and for this reason it will not be considered here. We expect our results at $14\,$TeV to be representative of what the LHC sensitivity will be in its future high-energy phase, even if the actual value of c.o.m. energy turns out to be different (on the prospects of 14 and 13 TeV see for example [@chamonix]). The analysis is performed at the parton level: signal events are generated by means of our implementation of double Higgs production via gluon fusion in ALPGEN, while the computation of the background processes is taken from [@Baur:2003gp]. We take the NLO QCD corrections to $gg\to hh$ into account by multiplying the LO cross section by a factor $K=2$ [@Dawson:1998py], [^3] while we neglect the smaller contribution of the vector-boson-fusion process to double Higgs production. To ensure an effective suppression of the background, we select events with two photons and two $b$-jets. Two photon tags are necessary to suppress the huge QCD background. On the other hand, the optimal number of $b$-tags depends on the strength of the signal and on the collider energy. In Ref. [@Baur:2003gp] only one $b$-tag was required for the analysis at the 14 TeV LHC. This choice was motivated by the necessity of preserving the small SM signal as much as possible, at the expense of having to cope with a larger background. In our case the signal cross section is much larger than the SM one in a sizable part of the parameter space. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that a larger $b$-tagging efficiency than that assumed in Ref. [@Baur:2003gp] is possible at the LHC [@ATLAS_btag], maintaining an acceptable rejection rate on jets. In particular, we adopt the following conservative estimates for the efficiencies ($\epsilon$) and fake rates ($r$) for $b$-tagging [@ATLAS_btag] and photon reconstruction [@ATLAS_gamma]: [^4] $$\label{eq:taggingeff}
\epsilon_\gamma = 0.8\,, \qquad r_\gamma = 2500\,, \qquad
\rule{0pt}{1.25em}\epsilon_b = 0.7\,, \qquad r_{c\rightarrow b} = 5\,,
\qquad r_{j\rightarrow b} = 25\,.$$ This allows us to require two $b$-tags, thus obtaining a stronger suppression of the background at the price of an affordable reduction of the signal. We find that including the additional category of events with one $b$-tag in the analysis does not sensibly improve our results.
Following [@Baur:2003gp], we impose the set of kinematic cuts $$\label{eq:acceptance_cuts}
\begin{gathered}
p_T(b) > 45\ {\rm GeV}\,, \qquad |\eta(b)| < 2.5\,, \qquad \Delta R(b,b) > 0.4\,,\\[0.15cm]
m_h - 20\ {\rm GeV} < m({b \overline b}) < m_h + 20\ {\rm GeV}\,, \\[0.25cm]
p_T(\gamma) > 20\ {\rm GeV}\,, \qquad |\eta(\gamma)| < 2.5\,, \qquad \Delta R(\gamma,\gamma) > 0.4\,,\\[0.15cm]
m_h - 2.3\ {\rm GeV} < m({\gamma \gamma}) < m_h + 2.3\ {\rm GeV}\,, \\[0.25cm]
\Delta R(\gamma, b) > 0.4\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ which have a high selection efficiency on the signal and ensure that the $b\overline b$ and $\gamma \gamma$ invariant masses are reconstructed in the given windows around the Higgs mass. To take into account the detector resolution, we have assumed a $79\%$ efficiency for the reconstruction of the $b\overline b$ pair and a $79\%$ efficiency for the reconstruction of the $\gamma\gamma$ pair in the signal, as done in Ref. [@Baur:2003gp]. After the above cuts, the most important irreducible backgrounds come from the $b\overline b\gamma\gamma$ continuum, and potentially by single Higgs production in association with two $b$-quarks ($h(\rightarrow \gamma\gamma) b\overline b$) or two photons ($h(\rightarrow b\overline b)\gamma\gamma$). The reducible backgrounds are QCD processes ($c\bar c \gamma\gamma$, $b\bar b \gamma j$, $c\bar c\gamma j$, $b\bar b jj$, $c\bar c jj$, $\gamma\gamma jj$, $\gamma jjj$, $jjjj$) or single-Higgs production processes ($hjj$ and $hj\gamma$) where some of the jets fake one or more $b$-quarks or photons. While the QCD backgrounds are universal and as such are not affected by New Physics, those coming from single Higgs production depend on the value of the modified Higgs couplings. In the SM, all single Higgs processes are much smaller than the double Higgs signal after the cuts of eq.(\[eq:acceptance\_cuts\]), and can be safely neglected [@Baur:2003gp]. This approximation is still valid in our context, and for this reason we will not include these backgrounds in our analysis. The list of relevant processes and their cross sections after the cuts of eq. (\[eq:acceptance\_cuts\]) (without including $b$ and photon reconstruction efficiencies) is reported in Table \[table:backgrounds\].
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
used cuts & $b\overline b \gamma\gamma$ & $c\overline c \gamma\gamma$ & $b\overline b \gamma j$ & $c\overline c \gamma j$ & $jj \gamma\gamma$ & $b\overline b jj$ & $c\overline c jj$ & $\gamma jjj$ & $jjjj$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eq. (\[eq:acceptance\_cuts\]) & $0.056$ & $0.42$ & $65$ & $250$ & $11$ & $2.5\!\times\! 10^4$ & $2.5\!\times\! 10^4\!$ & $7700$ & $5\!\times\! 10^6$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ eq. (\[eq:background\_cuts\]) & $0.0060$ & $0.0215$ & $8.28$ & $17.0$ & $0.84$ & $4520$ & $4520$ & $364$ & $4\!\times\! 10^5$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ tags & $\!0.0019\!$ & $\!5\!\times\! 10^{-4}\!$ & $\!0.0013\!$ & $\!2\!\times\! 10^{-4}\!$ & $\!9\!\times\! 10^{-4}\!$ & $\!4\!\times\! 10^{-4}\!\!$ & $\!3\!\times\! 10^{-5}\!\!$ & $\!2\!\times\! 10^{-4}\!$ & $\!1\!\times\! 10^{-4}\!$\
A further suppression of the background can be obtained by exploiting the particular topology of the signal, where the two Higgs bosons are produced back to back in the center-of-mass frame. We thus select events where the $\gamma\gamma$ pair has a small opening angle, while the minimal angular separation between a $b$-jet and a photon is large. We require [@Baur:2003gp]: $$\label{eq:background_cuts}
\Delta R(\gamma, b) > 1.0\,, \qquad \Delta R(\gamma, \gamma) < 2.0\,.$$ In most of the parameter space these cuts imply a moderate reduction of the signal ($20\% - 40\%$), while the total background is suppressed by one order of magnitude. The corresponding background cross sections are reported in the second line of Table \[table:backgrounds\].
Finally, the reducible backgrounds are drastically suppressed once the efficiencies for reconstructing two photons and two $b$-jets of eq.(\[eq:taggingeff\]) are included. The resulting final cross sections are shown in the last line of Table \[table:backgrounds\]. The corresponding total background cross section is $r_b = 5.5\ {\rm ab}$.
After performing the kinematic cuts of eqs. (\[eq:acceptance\_cuts\]), (\[eq:background\_cuts\]) and including the efficiencies for the reconstruction of the $\gamma\gamma$ and $b\bar b$ pairs, the tagging efficiencies (\[eq:taggingeff\]), and the $K$-factor, the signal rate ($r_s \equiv \sigma(pp\to hh)\times BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$) at $m_h = 120\ {\rm GeV}$ is well approximated by the formula $$\label{eq:approximate_xsection_cuts}
\begin{split}
r_s =\frac{BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)}{BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)_{SM}} \times (49.3\,\text{ab}) \Big[
& c_2^2+\left(0.407\, c^2\right)^2 + \left(0.101\, cd_3\right)^2 -1.76\, c_2\left(0.407\, c^2\right) \\
& -1.82 \left(0.407\, c^2\right)\left(0.101\, cd_3\right)+1.72\, c_2\left(0.101\, cd_3\right) \Big]\, .
\end{split}$$ For the SM case ($c=d_3=1$, $c_2=0$) we find $r_s = 4.9\ {\rm ab}$. Notice that, compared to the fit of eq.(\[eq:fitxsectot\]) at 14 TeV (see Table \[tab:fit\]), the cuts have further weakened the dependence of the cross section on $d_3$, since their efficiency is smaller for events with low $m(hh)$ invariant mass.
Results
-------
Using the signal and background rates derived above, we can estimate the sensitivity of the 14 TeV LHC on $pp\to hh \to b\bar b\gamma\gamma$ for $m_h = 120\,$GeV. Since large luminosities are typically needed to distinguish the signal from SM background, we expect that by the time the analysis of double Higgs production is performed, the Higgs branching ratios to $\gamma\gamma$ and $b\bar b$ and the linear couplings $a$, $c$ are known with good accuracy. Double Higgs production can thus be used to extract (or set limits on) the couplings $c_2$ and $d_3$.
Figure \[fig:discoveryplots\] shows the luminosity required to discover the signal as a function of $c$, $c_2$ and $d_3$, assuming that the branching ratio BR($hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ has the value predicted in the SM. [^5]
![Isocurves of discovery luminosity (in fb$^{-1}$) at the 14 TeV LHC in the plane $(c_2, d_3)$ for $c=1$ (on the left) and in the plane $(c, c_2)$ for $d_3 =c$ (on the right). Outside each contour, the $pp\to hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b$ signal can be discovered with the corresponding integrated luminosity. In both plots the Higgs mass is set to $m_h =120\,$GeV and the Higgs decay branching ratios are fixed to their SM values. See the Appendix for the definition of discovery luminosity. []{data-label="fig:discoveryplots"}](Discovery_c2_d3 "fig:"){width=".445\textwidth"} ![Isocurves of discovery luminosity (in fb$^{-1}$) at the 14 TeV LHC in the plane $(c_2, d_3)$ for $c=1$ (on the left) and in the plane $(c, c_2)$ for $d_3 =c$ (on the right). Outside each contour, the $pp\to hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b$ signal can be discovered with the corresponding integrated luminosity. In both plots the Higgs mass is set to $m_h =120\,$GeV and the Higgs decay branching ratios are fixed to their SM values. See the Appendix for the definition of discovery luminosity. []{data-label="fig:discoveryplots"}](Discovery_c_c2 "fig:"){width=".44\textwidth"}
The plots on the left and on the right show the luminosity contours respectively in the plane $(c_2, d_3)$ for $c=1$, and in the plane $(c, c_2)$ for $d_3 =c$. As expected, the sensitivity on $c$ and $c_2$ is stronger than that on the Higgs trilinear coupling $d_3$. In particular, while a discovery in the SM would require at least $1200\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, we find that much lower luminosities are sufficient even for moderately small values of $c_2$. Figure \[fig:discoveryMCHM\] shows the corresponding discovery luminosity in the composite Higgs models MCHM4 and MCHM5 as a function of $\xi$.
![Discovery luminosity at the 14 TeV LHC in the MCHM4 (dashed blue curve) and MCHM5 (continuous purple curve) as a function of $\xi$. The Higgs mass is set to $m_h =120\,$GeV. See the Appendix for the definition of discovery luminosity. []{data-label="fig:discoveryMCHM"}](discoveryMCHM){width="55.00000%"}
We find that values of $\xi$ as small as $0.15$ can be probed with $300\,\text{fb}^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. Compared to other processes like double Higgs production via vector boson fusion [@Contino:2010mh], these results show that $gg\to hh$ can be extremely powerful to study the non-linear couplings of a composite Higgs and thus probe its strong interactions.
Once a discovery is established, one can measure the couplings $c_2$ and $d_3$ by using the value of $c$ and of the Higgs branching ratios determined in single-Higgs processes. The left plot of Fig. \[fig:precision\] shows the region of $68\%$ probability in the plane $(c_2, d_3)$ with 300, 600 and 1200 fb$^{-1}$ (light, medium and dark blue regions) obtained by injecting the SM signal ($c=d_3=1$, $c_2=0$) and assuming that the coupling $c$ and the branching fraction $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ have been determined with a 20% accuracy. [^6]
![Regions of 68% probability in the plane $(c_2,d_3)$ obtained with 300 (light blue area), 600 (medium dark blue area) and 1200 fb$^{-1}$ (darker blue area) of integrated luminosity. On the left: injected signal is the SM ($c=d_3=1$, $c_2=0$); On the right: injected signal is the MCHM5 with $\xi=0.3$ ($c=d_3 = 0.48$, $c_2 = -0.6$). Both plots are obtained by assuming that the branching fraction $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ and the coupling $c$ have been measured from single-Higgs processes with a 20% uncertainty. []{data-label="fig:precision"}](SMinjected "fig:"){width=".464\textwidth"} ![Regions of 68% probability in the plane $(c_2,d_3)$ obtained with 300 (light blue area), 600 (medium dark blue area) and 1200 fb$^{-1}$ (darker blue area) of integrated luminosity. On the left: injected signal is the SM ($c=d_3=1$, $c_2=0$); On the right: injected signal is the MCHM5 with $\xi=0.3$ ($c=d_3 = 0.48$, $c_2 = -0.6$). Both plots are obtained by assuming that the branching fraction $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ and the coupling $c$ have been measured from single-Higgs processes with a 20% uncertainty. []{data-label="fig:precision"}](MCHM5CSI03injected "fig:"){width=".46\textwidth"}
In this case the precision on $c_2$ is poor even with 1200 fb$^{-1}$, while $d_3$ is basically unconstrained. A more precise determination of $c_2$ can be obtained if its value is non-vanishing. The right plot of Fig. \[fig:precision\] shows the case in which the injected signal is that of the MCHM5 with $\xi=0.3$, corresponding to ($c=d_3 = 0.48$, $c_2 = -0.6$). It assumes that the branching fraction $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ and the coupling $c=0.48$ predicted by this model have been measured with 20% accuracy in single-Higgs processes. We find that with 300 fb$^{-1}$ the coupling $c_2$ can be determined, up to a discrete ambiguity, with a precision of $\sim 20-30\%$. [^7] On the other hand, even in this case $d_3$ remains largely unconstrained with our analysis. Finally, Fig. \[fig:precisionMCHM\] shows how precisely the parameter $\xi$ can be determined in the MCHM5 through $gg\to hh \to \gamma\gamma b\bar b$ by making use only of the value of the decay branching ratios determined in single-Higgs processes (that is: without fixing $c$ to its measured value in the fit). As before, we assume that the branching fraction $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ is known with an error of 20%.
![Precision on the parameter $\xi$ in the MCHM5 which can be obtained at the 14 TeV LHC for $m_h =120\,$GeV from the analysis of $pp\to hh \to \gamma\gamma b\bar b$. For each injected value $\xi_{th}$, the solid, dashed and dot-dashed curves (red, orange and yellow regions) show the 68% probability interval which is expected on the measured value $\xi_{exp}$ respectively with 600, 300 and 100 fb$^{-1}$. The gray regions delimited by the solid, dashed and dot-dashed vertical lines indicate the values of $\xi$, respectively with 600, 300 and 100 fb$^{-1}$, for which the signal rate is too small to make a discovery, (see Fig. \[fig:discoveryMCHM\]). In particular, for $\xi \to 0.5$ the $h\to b\bar b$ decay rate vanishes (the Higgs becomes fermiophobic), and the signal cannot be distinguished from the SM background. The curves are derived by assuming that the branching fraction $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ is determined with 20% accuracy from single-Higgs production. []{data-label="fig:precisionMCHM"}](precisionMCHM5){width="50.00000%"}
For each injected value $\xi_{th}$, the solid, dashed and dot-dashed curves (red, orange and yellow regions) show the 68% probability interval which is expected on the measured value $\xi_{exp}$ respectively with 600, 300 and 100 fb$^{-1}$. For example, with 300 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, $\xi=0.2$ can be measured with a precision of $\sim 45\%$. The solid, dashed and dot-dashed vertical lines indicate the range of $\xi$, respectively for 600, 300 and 100 fb$^{-1}$, for which the expected signal yield is sufficiently large to establish a discovery (see Fig. \[fig:discoveryMCHM\]).
Conclusions
===========
The discovery of a light Higgs-like scalar at the LHC will mark a first important step forward in our comprehension of the electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism. Precise knowledge of the strength of its interactions with SM fields can shed light on the origin of the Higgs boson and indicate if the new dynamics at the electroweak scale is weakly or strongly interacting. New strong dynamics can form the Higgs as a bound state and solve naturally the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model. In this case the Higgs boson itself interacts strongly at large energies due to its modified linear couplings to SM fields and the existence of new non-linear interactions.
In this paper we have performed a first model-independent study of double Higgs production via gluon fusion, $gg\to hh$, and we have shown that its cross section is greatly enhanced by the non-linear interaction $t\bar t hh$. Such new vertex gives a contribution to the scattering amplitude of $t\bar t \to hh$ that grows with the energy, ${\cal A}(t\bar t\to hh) \sim (E m_t)/v^2$, and as such it is a genuine signature of the underlying strong dynamics. In the process $gg\to hh$ the $t\bar t hh$ vertex mediates a new diagram containing a top-quark loop which grows logarithmically at high energies and does not lead to a violation of perturbative unitarity (see eq.(\[eq:triangle\_c2\_behaviour\])). However, it does lead to a strong numerical enhancement of the cross section compared to the SM, as first noticed by the authors of Ref. [@Grober:2010yv] in the context of the MCHM composite Higgs models. The origin of this enhancement can in part be traced back to the sizable destructive interference which occurs in the Standard Model between the box and the triangle diagram with Higgs exchange. A similar cancellation has been found to take place at large $\hat s$ in $gg\to ZZ$ [@Glover:1988fe] and $gg\to WW$ [@Accomando:2007xc], and interpreted as a relic of the cancellation dictated by unitarity between the energy-growing amplitudes in the sub-process $t\bar t\to VV$. On the other hand, in the case of double Higgs production the cancellation is in the *total* cross section (*i.e.* not necessarily at large $\hat s$). Furthermore, none of the diagrams which contribute to $t\bar t\to hh$ in the SM grows with the energy, so that the cancellation between the box and the triangle diagram in $gg\to hh$ should be rather seen as a numerical accident, not driven by the unitarity of its subprocess.
The strong enhancement of the $gg\to hh$ cross section makes this process quite powerful to measure or constrain the strength of the $t\bar t hh$ interaction, which we have denoted as $c_2$. This should be compared with the much weaker sensitivity on the Higgs trilinear interaction, $d_3$, which makes the extraction of this latter coupling extremely challenging at the LHC. In particular, the weaker dependence on $d_3$ follows from an extra suppressing factor $(m_h^2/\hat s)$ carried by the triangle diagram with Higgs exchange, which thus contributes mainly at threshold. In order to assess the LHC precision on $c_2$ we have made use of the results of Refs. [@Baur:2002rb; @Baur:2002qd; @Baur:2003gpa; @Baur:2003gp], where double Higgs production via gluon fusion was studied in the context of the SM and several Higgs decay channels were investigated. In a generic scenario of New Physics, what is the best final state largely depends on the value of the Higgs decay branching ratios. In particular, enhanced branching ratios can combine with the increase in the double Higgs production cross section and lead to dramatic effects at the LHC. For example, in the (fermiophobic) limit in which the linear couplings of the Higgs to the SM fermions are suppressed ($c\to 0$), the $h\to WW$ and $h\to \gamma\gamma$ branching ratios can be sensibly enhanced compared to their SM values. In this case the final states $hh\to WWWW$ and $hh\to WW\gamma\gamma$ seem to be extremely promising, and might be visible even at the 8 TeV LHC. At this energy and with $L = 20\,$fb$^{-1}$, for example, we find that for $m_h = 120\,$GeV the MCHM5 at $\xi =0.5$ predicts $\sim 15$ signal events in $hh\to WW\gamma\gamma\to l\nu q\bar q \gamma\gamma$ (see Fig. \[fig:xsecxBRMCHM5\]).
If the Higgs decay branching ratios do not differ much from their SM values and the Higgs boson is light, the most powerful final state should be $hh\to b\bar b\gamma\gamma$, as suggested by the analysis of Ref. [@Baur:2003gp]. Even in this case, the signal rate can be significantly enhanced compared to the SM prediction if $c_2$ is not too small. At 14 TeV, for example, the signal rate predicted in the MCHM5 with $\xi =0.1$ is larger than the SM one by more than a factor two. This sensitivity on small values of $\xi = (v/f)^2$ shows that double Higgs production via gluon fusion is an extremely powerful process to probe the Higgs compositeness at the LHC. In order to estimate the LHC sensitivity on $c_2$ in a model-independent way, we have followed the strategy proposed in Ref. [@Baur:2003gp] and performed a Montecarlo study of $pp\to hh\to b\bar b\gamma\gamma$. We have computed the SM background cross section by using the results reported in [@Baur:2003gp] and rescaling them to take account of updated $b$ and $\gamma$ efficiencies and rejection factors. The results that we obtained are quite encouraging. With $L =300\,\text{fb}^{-1}$ the 14 TeV LHC can probe values $c_2 \lesssim -0.2$ and $c_2 \gtrsim 0.8$ if $c, d_3\sim 1$ (see Fig. \[fig:discoveryplots\]). In the case of the MCHM5, an integrated luminosity of $300\,\text{fb}^{-1}$ is sufficient to discover a signal with $\xi \gtrsim 0.15$ (see Fig. \[fig:discoveryMCHM\]). In general, once the signal can be statistically distinguished from the background and a discovery is made, the value of $c_2$ can be extracted with good accuracy. For example, we find that by injecting a signal with $c = d_3 = 0.48$ and $c_2=-0.6$ (as predicted in the MCHM5 for $\xi=0.3$), the coupling $c_2$ can be measured, up to a discrete ambiguity, with a precision of $\sim 20-30\%$ (see Fig. \[fig:precision\]).
Our partonic analysis of $pp\to hh \to b\bar b\gamma\gamma$ should be considered as a first estimate of the LHC potentiality, although we expect it to be robust and moderately conservative. For example, we have followed a cut-based strategy to reduce the background, although a realistic analysis will certainly make use of shape variables and extract the background from data, similarly to what has been done by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations in single Higgs searches. Also notice that we did not make use of the information on the total invariant mass distribution, $d\sigma/d m(b\bar b\gamma\gamma)$, which was instead used in Ref. [@Baur:2003gp] to further increase the signal significance. Finally, a more precise assessment of the LHC sensitivity will require full inclusion of showering and hadronization effects, as well as a detector simulation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank A. Azatov, A. Lazopoulos and R. Rattazzi for useful discussions. G.P. and A.W. thank the physics department of the University of Rome “La Sapienza” for hospitality during the completion of this work. F.P. and M.M. would like to thank the CERN TH-Unit for partial support and hospitality during several stages of the work. A.W. and R.C. were partly supported by the ERC Advanced Grant No. 267985 [*Electroweak Symmetry Breaking, Flavour and Dark Matter: One Solution for Three Mysteries (DaMeSyFla)*]{}. The work of A.W. was supported in part by the European Programme Unification in the LHC Era, contract PITN-GA-2009-237920 (UNILHC). The work of F.P. and M.M. was supported in part by the Research Executive Agency (REA) of the European Union under the Grant Agreement number PITN-GA-2010-264564 (LHCPhenoNet)
Appendix
========
We report here the details of the statistical analysis used to derive our results. We follow the Bayesian approach [^8] and construct a posterior probability for the total event rate $r$, $$p_{\cal L}(r | N) \propto L(N | r {\cal L})\, \pi(r)$$ for given number of observed events $N$ and luminosity ${\cal L}$. We denote with $\pi(r)$ the prior distribution and with $L(N | r {\cal L})$ the likelihood function, which we take to be a Poisson distribution $$L(N | r {\cal L}) = \frac{\displaystyle e^{- r {\cal L}} \, (r {\cal L})^N }{N!}\, .$$ For the plots of Figs. \[fig:discoveryplots\], \[fig:discoveryMCHM\] we use a prior distribution which is flat for $r >0$ and vanishing otherwise, and normalize the probability so that $\int_0^\infty \! d r\, p_{\cal L}(r | N) =1$. The discovery contours of Figs. \[fig:discoveryplots\] and \[fig:discoveryMCHM\] are obtained by setting the number of observed events to the total value $N = (r_s + r_b) {\cal L}$ expected in each point of the Higgs couplings’ parameter space: $r_s = r_s(a,c,c_2,d_3)$ for Fig. \[fig:discoveryplots\], $r_s = r_s(\xi)$ for Fig. \[fig:discoveryMCHM\]. We define a point in this space to be ‘discoverable’ at a certain luminosity ${\cal L}$ if the probability of having a total number of events smaller than or equal to $r_b {\cal L}$ is below $1\%$, $$\label{eq:discovery_condition}
\int_0^{r_b} \! d r' \; p_{\cal L}(r' | (r_s+r_b) {\cal L}) \leq 0.01\, ,$$ and if the number of observed events $(r_s + r_b) {\cal L}$ is 5 or larger. The discovery luminosity is thus defined to be the smallest value of ${\cal L}$ which satisfies these two conditions.
In the case of the plot of Fig. \[fig:precision\], we marginalize the probability function over all possible values of the coupling $c$ and of the branching fraction $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ assuming that they have a Gaussian distribution around their central value with 20% relative error. In practice, we set $$r_s(c_2,d_3,\theta_1,\theta_2) \equiv (1 + \delta_1 \theta_1) \, BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b) \, \sigma(\bar c\, (1 + \delta_2 \theta_2), c_2,d_3)\, ,$$ where $\sigma(c,c_2,d_3)$ is the signal production cross section, $\delta_{1,2}=0.20$ and $\bar c$ denotes the central value of $c$, and integrate over the nuisance parameters $\theta_{1,2}$: $$p_{\cal L}(c_2, d_3 | N) \propto \int \!\! d\theta_1 \int \!\! d\theta_2 \ e^{-\theta_1^2/2} e^{-\theta_2^2/2} \,
L(N | (r_s(c_2,d_3,\theta_1,\theta_2)+r_b) {\cal L})\, \pi(c_2,d_3)
\, .$$ The prior distribution is assumed to be flat over the plane $(c_2,d_3)$ and the posterior probability is normalized so that $\int\! dc_2 \!\int\! dd_3 \; p_{\cal L}(c_2, d_3 | N) =1$.
Finally, the plot of Fig. \[fig:precisionMCHM\] has been derived by expressing the posterior probability as a function of $\xi$ and marginalizing over all possible values of the branching fraction: $$p_{\cal L}(\xi | N) \propto \int\!\! d\theta_1 \ e^{-\theta_1^2/2} \, L(N | ( (1 + \delta_1 \theta_1) \, r_s(\xi)+r_b) {\cal L})\, \pi(\xi)\, .$$ We choose a flat prior for $0 \leq \xi \leq 1$ (vanishing otherwise) and normalize the probability so that $\int_0^1 \! d \xi \; p_{\cal L}(\xi | N) =1$. For each value $\xi_{th}$ the number of observed events has been set to the total expected value $N = (r_s(\xi_{th}) + r_b){\cal L}$.
[99]{}
D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B [**136**]{} (1984) 183. S. Dimopoulos and J. Preskill, Nucl. Phys. B [**199**]{}, 206 (1982). T. Banks, Nucl. Phys. B [**243**]{}, 125 (1984). D. B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B [**136**]{}, 187 (1984). H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan and P. Galison, Phys. Lett. B [**143**]{}, 152 (1984). H. Georgi and D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. B [**145**]{}, 216 (1984). M. J. Dugan, H. Georgi and D. B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B [**254**]{}, 299 (1985).
D. Zeppenfeld, R. Kinnunen, A. Nikitenko and E. Richter-Was, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 013009 \[hep-ph/0002036\]. J. Conway [*et al.*]{} \[Precision Higgs Working Group of Snowmass 2001 Collaboration\], eConf C [**010630**]{} (2001) P1WG2 \[hep-ph/0203206\]. A. Belyaev and L. Reina, JHEP [**0208**]{} (2002) 041 \[hep-ph/0205270\]. M. Duhrssen, “Prospects for the measurement of Higgs boson coupling parameters in the mass range from $110-190$GeV$/c^2$”, ATL-PHYS-2003-030.
M. Duhrssen, S. Heinemeyer, H. Logan, D. Rainwater, G. Weiglein and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 113009 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0406323\]. R. Lafaye, T. Plehn, M. Rauch, D. Zerwas and M. Duhrssen, JHEP [**0908**]{} (2009) 009 \[arXiv:0904.3866 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Bock, R. Lafaye, T. Plehn, M. Rauch, D. Zerwas and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B [**694**]{} (2010) 44 \[arXiv:1007.2645 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Bonnet, M. B. Gavela, T. Ota and W. Winter, arXiv:1105.5140 \[hep-ph\].
D. Carmi, A. Falkowski, E. Kuflik and T. Volansky, arXiv:1202.3144 \[hep-ph\]. A. Azatov, R. Contino and J. Galloway, arXiv:1202.3415 \[hep-ph\]. J. R. Espinosa, C. Grojean, M. Muhlleitner and M. Trott, arXiv:1202.3697 \[hep-ph\]. P. P. Giardino, K. Kannike, M. Raidal and A. Strumia, arXiv:1203.4254 \[hep-ph\]. M. Rauch, arXiv:1203.6826 \[hep-ph\]. J. Ellis and T. You, arXiv:1204.0464 \[hep-ph\]. A. Azatov, R. Contino, D. Del Re, J. Galloway, M. Grassi and S. Rahatlou, arXiv:1204.4817 \[hep-ph\]. M. Farina, C. Grojean and E. Salvioni, arXiv:1205.0011 \[hep-ph\]. C. Degrande, J. -M. Gerard, C. Grojean, F. Maltoni and G. Servant, arXiv:1205.1065 \[hep-ph\]. M. Klute, R. Lafaye, T. Plehn, M. Rauch and D. Zerwas, arXiv:1205.2699 \[hep-ph\]. E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B [**309**]{} (1988) 282. T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B [**479**]{} (1996) 46 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**531**]{} (1998) 655\] \[hep-ph/9603205\]. S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{} (1998) 115012 \[hep-ph/9805244\]. U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} (2002) 151801 \[hep-ph/0206024\]. U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 033003 \[hep-ph/0211224\]. U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 033001 \[hep-ph/0304015\]. U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} (2004) 053004 \[hep-ph/0310056\]. K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B [**719**]{} (2005) 165 \[hep-ph/0412089\]. R. Contino, L. Da Rold and A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 055014 \[hep-ph/0612048\]. R. Grober and M. Muhlleitner, JHEP [**1106**]{} (2011) 020 \[arXiv:1012.1562 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. O. Dib, R. Rosenfeld and A. Zerwekh, JHEP [**0605**]{} (2006) 074 \[hep-ph/0509179\]. M. Moretti, S. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A. D. Polosa, JHEP [**0502**]{} (2005) 024 \[hep-ph/0410334\]. G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**0706**]{} (2007) 045 \[hep-ph/0703164\]. R. Contino, C. Grojean, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**1005**]{} (2010) 089 \[arXiv:1002.1011 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Contino, D. Marzocca, D. Pappadopulo and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**1110**]{} (2011) 081 \[arXiv:1109.1570 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A. D. Polosa, JHEP [**0307**]{}, 001 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0206293\]. A. Pierce, J. Thaler and L. -T. Wang, JHEP [**0705**]{} (2007) 070 \[hep-ph/0609049\]. I. Low, R. Rattazzi and A. Vichi, JHEP [**1004**]{} (2010) 126 \[arXiv:0907.5413 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Azatov and J. Galloway, arXiv:1110.5646 \[hep-ph\]. A. Falkowski, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{} (2008) 055018 \[arXiv:0711.0828 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. Furlan, JHEP [**1110**]{} (2011) 115 \[arXiv:1106.4024 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Panico and A. Wulzer, JHEP [**1109**]{} (2011) 135 \[arXiv:1106.2719 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. De Curtis, M. Redi and A. Tesi, JHEP [**1204**]{} (2012) 042 \[arXiv:1110.1613 \[hep-ph\]\]. O. Matsedonskyi, G. Panico and A. Wulzer, arXiv:1204.6333 \[hep-ph\]. M. Redi and A. Tesi, arXiv:1205.0232 \[hep-ph\]. D. Marzocca, M. Serone and J. Shu, arXiv:1205.0770 \[hep-ph\].
R. K. Ellis and G. Zanderighi, JHEP [**0802**]{} (2008) 002 \[arXiv:0712.1851 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. R. Whalley, D. Bourilkov and R. C. Group, hep-ph/0508110. CMS Collaboration, “Combined results of searches for a Higgs boson in the context of the standard model and beyond-standard models”, CMS-PAS HIG-12-008.
CMS Collaboration, “Search for the fermiophobic model Higgs boson decaying into two photons," CMS-PAS HIG-12-002.
E. Todesco, C. Lorin and M. Bajko, “Energy of the LHC after the 2013-2014 shutdown”, in LHC Performance Workshop - Chamonix 2012.
The ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2012-043 (2012). The CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-BTV-11-004 (2012).
The ATLAS Collaboration, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-007 (2011).
E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Phys. Lett. B [**219**]{} (1989) 488; E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B [**321**]{} (1989) 561. E. Accomando, Phys. Lett. B [**661**]{} (2008) 129 \[arXiv:0709.1364 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. D’Agostini, “Bayesian reasoning in data analysis: A critical introduction,” New Jersey, USA: World Scientific (2003) 329 p
[^1]: The infinite top mass limit is also discussed by the authors of Ref. [@Glover:1987nx], although the contribution of the triangle diagram seems to have been accidentally omitted in their Fig. 2.
[^2]: We included a $K\text{-factor}=2$ in the estimate, which is the value obtained in Ref. [@Dawson:1998py] at 14 TeV, assuming that a similar result also applies at 8 TeV. For $m_h =125\,$GeV the number of signal event is $\sim 10$.
[^3]: Notice that the authors of Ref. [@Baur:2003gp] used a factor $K=1.65$ for the LHC at 14 TeV, which is the one appropriate for their choice of the renormalization and factorization scale $Q=m_h$. As previously discussed, we set instead $Q = m(hh)$.
[^4]: The authors of Ref. [@Baur:2003gp] use instead $\epsilon_b = 0.5$ and fake rates $r_{c\rightarrow b} = 13$ and $r_{j\rightarrow b} = 140$.
[^5]: The definition of discovery luminosity and the details of our statistical analysis are discussed in the Appendix.
[^6]: That is: the rate of observed events is assumed to be that predicted in the SM with $m_h =120\,$GeV. The uncertainties on $c$ and $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ have been taken into account by marginalizing the 2-dimensional likelihood over two nuisance parameters, see Appendix.
[^7]: This improves to $\sim 15-20\%$ if the uncertainty on $c$ and $BR(hh\to \gamma\gamma b\bar b)$ is negligible.
[^8]: See for example Ref. [@D'Agostini:2003nk] for a primer.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We give a formula for Alexander polynomials of doubly primitive knots. This also gives a practical algorithm to determine the genus of any doubly primitive knot.'
address:
- 'College of General Education, Osaka Sangyo University, Nakagaito 3-1-1, Daito, Osaka 574-8530, Japan'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Machikaneyama 1-1, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, Hiroshima University, Kagamiyama 1-1-1, Higashi-hiroshima, Japan 739-8524.'
author:
- Kazuhiro Ichihara
- Toshio Saito
- Masakazu Teragaito
title: Alexander polynomials of doubly primitive knots
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Let $S$ be a standardly embedded closed orientable surface of genus two in the $3$-sphere $S^3$. Then $S^3$ is divided into two handlebodies $H$ and $H'$ of genus two by $S$. Let $K$ be a non-trivial knot in $S^3$, which lies on $S$. Then $K$ is said to be *doubly primitive* if $K$ represents a free generator of both $\pi_1(H)$ and $\pi_1(H')$. This notion was introduced by Berge [@B], and he observed that every doubly primitive knot admits Dehn surgery which yields a lens space. Moreover, he suggested that if a knot admits such Dehn surgery then the knot is doubly primitive. See also [@G Conjecture 4.5] and [@Ki Problem 1.78]. Thus it is not too much to say that doubly primitive knots constitute one important class of knots.
Recently, Ozsváth and Szabó [@OS] gave strong restrictions on the Alexander polynomials of knots which admit lens space surgeries by using knot Floer homology. However, as they commented, their condition is not sufficient. For example, the Alexander polynomial of the knot $10_{132}$ satisfies their condition, but this knot has no lens space surgery. Also, such restrictions are obtained in [@K; @KY; @KY2; @KMOS]. In this paper, we will give an explicit formula for the Alexander polynomials of doubly primitive knots, and recover Ozsváth and Szabó’s condition. Although we need to know the description of the dual knot, defined below, of a doubly primitive knot, it is easy to calculate the Alexander polynomial by hand or computer.
To state the result, we describe the parameters of doubly primitive knots. Let $K$ be a doubly primitive knot in $S^3$. Suppose that $K$ lies on $S$ as above. Then $S\cap \partial N(K)$ consists of two essential loops on $\partial N(K)$, where $N(K)$ denotes a regular neighborhood of $K$. The isotopy class $\gamma$ of one of these loops is called the *surface slope* with respect to the pair $(S,K)$. As Berge observed, $\gamma$-Dehn surgery on $K$ yields a lens space. Since the surface slope depends on the position of $K$ on $S$, it is not unique in general. In fact, any doubly primitive knot admits at most two surface slopes. For, a surface slope corresponds to an integer in the usual way ([@R]), and any non-trivial knot admits at most two integral slopes which yield lens spaces by [@CGLS; @M]. Suppose that the $\gamma$-surgered manifold $K(\gamma)$ on $K$ is a lens space $L(p,q)$. (We can assume that $0<q<p$.) Let $K^*$ be the core of the attached solid torus of $K(\gamma)$. We call it the *associated dual knot* of $K$ with respect to $(S,K)$. Let $(V_1,V_2)$ be a genus one Heegaard splitting of $L(p,q)$. A properly embedded arc $t$ in $V_i$ is said to be *trivial* if $t$ is isotopic into $\partial V_i$. Then Berge [@B] proved that $K^*$ can be expressed as the union of two trivial arcs in $V_1$ and $V_2$. (Unfortunately, Berge’s paper [@B] is unpublished, but the proof can be found in [@S].) Furthermore, $K^*$ is isotopic to a knot $K(L(p,q);k)$ in $L(p,q)$ for some integer $k$, $1\le k<p$, which will be defined in Section \[sec:standard\]. For the doubly primitive knots constructed by Berge in [@B], which are expected to give all doubly primitive knots, there is a way to obtain such a presentation [@S2].
For the triplet $(p,q,k)$, we define a Laurent polynomial. For $i\in \{0,1,2,\dots,p-1\}$, let $\Psi(i)$ be the unique number such that $\Psi(i)q\equiv i \pmod{p}$ and $1\le \Psi(i)\le p$. Let $\Phi(i)=\sharp \{j\ |\ \Psi(j)<\Psi(i)\ \text{and}\ 1\le j\le k-1\}$, where $\sharp$ means the cardinality. Then put $$F(t)=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} t^{\Phi(i)p-\Psi(i)k}$$ and $[k]=t^{k-1}+t^{k-2}+\dots +t+1$.
\[thm:main\] Let $K$ be a doubly primitive knot in $S^3$. For a surface slope $\gamma$ of $K$, suppose that $K(\gamma)=L(p,q)$. Let $K(L(p,q);k)$ be the associated dual knot in $L(p,q)$. Then the Alexander polynomial $\Delta_K(t)$ of $K$ is equal to $F(t)/[k]$, up to multiplication by a unit $\pm t^{n}$.
Once we have $(p,q,k)$, it is easy to calculate $F(t)$. We will demonstrate some calculations in Section \[sec:example\].
Ozsváth and Szábo [@OS] showed that any doubly primitive knot is fibered. Hence the degree of the Alexander polynomial of a doubly primitive knot $K$ is equal to twice the genus $g(K)$. Thus our theorem gives a practical algorithm to determine the genus of any doubly primitive knot.
The following recovers the condition by Ozsváth and Szabó [@OS Corollary 1.3].
\[thm:main2\] Let $K$ be a doubly primitive knot in $S^3$. Then the Alexander polynomial of $K$ has the form $$\Delta_K(t)=1+\sum_{i=1}^{m}(-1)^i(t^{n_i}+t^{-n_i})$$ for some sequence $0<n_1<n_2<\dots <n_m$.
Standard position {#sec:standard}
=================
Let $K$ be a doubly primitive knot on $S$ as in Section \[sec:intro\]. Suppose that $K$ has the surface slope $\gamma$ with respect to $(S,K)$, and $K(\gamma)=L(p,q)$. Let $(V_1,V_2)$ be a genus one Heegaard splitting of $L(p,q)$. Figure \[fig:pqk\] shows $V_1$ with its meridian disk $D_1$ and $\partial D_2$ on $\partial V_1$, where $D_2$ is a meridian disk of $V_2$. We assume that $\partial D_2$ gives a $(p,q)$-curve on $\partial V_1$ with the indicated orientation.
![[]{data-label="fig:pqk"}](pqk.eps)
The intersection points of $\partial D_1$ and $\partial D_2$ are labelled $P_0,P_1,\dots,P_{p-1}$ successively along the positive direction of $\partial D_1$. Let $k\in \{1,2,\dots,p-1\}$. For $i=1,2$, let $t_i^k$ be a simple arc in $D_i$ joining $P_0$ to $P_k$. Then the knot $t_1^k\cup t_2^k$ is denoted by $K(L(p,q);k)$. In Figure \[fig:pqk\], a projection of $t_2^k$ on $\partial V_1$ is illustrated.
For $i\in \{0,1,2,\dots,p-1\}$, let $\Psi(i)$ be the unique integer such that $\Psi(i)q\equiv i\pmod{p}$ and $1\le \Psi(i)\le p$, and let $\Phi(i)=\sharp\{j\ |\ \Psi(j)<\Psi(i)\ \text{and}\ 1\le j\le k-1\}$ as in Section \[sec:intro\]. Although the function $\Psi(i)$ does not depend on $k$, $\Phi(i)$ depends on $k$. We call the sequence $\{nq \pmod{p}\}_{n=1}^p$ the *basic sequence*. Then $\Psi(i)$ indicates the position of $i$ in the basic sequence. For convenience, let $\Psi(p)=p$ and $\Phi(p)=k-1$. Thus $\Psi$ determines a permutation on the set $\{1,2,\dots,p\}$, since $p$ and $q$ are coprime. We remark that $\Psi(k)=\Psi_{p,q}(k)$ and $\Phi(k)=\Phi_{p,q}(k)$ in the notation of [@S]. Saito [@S Theorem 4.5] shows that $p\cdot \Phi(k)-k\cdot \Psi(k)=\pm 1$ or $\pm 1-p$. In fact, this condition is necessary but not sufficient for a knot $K(L(p,q);k)$ to admit an integral surgery yielding $S^3$. In particular, we have:
\[lem:saito\] $p$ and $k$ are coprime.
Presentation of knot group
==========================
For $i\in \{1,2,\dots,p\}$, let $$E(i)=
\begin{cases}
1 \quad\text{if there is some integer $0\le j< k$ with $j\equiv iq \pmod{p}$}, \\
0 \quad\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ We remark that exactly $k$ terms are non-zero among $\{E(i)\}$.
Let $G=\pi_1(L(p,q)-K(L(p,q);k))$. Then $G$ has a presentation $\langle X,Y\ |\ R(X,Y)\rangle$, where $R(X,Y)=\Pi_{i=1}^p(XY^{E(i)})$ and the abelianizer $\mathfrak{a}: G \to \mathbb{Z}=\langle t \rangle$ sends $X$ to $t^{-k}$ and $Y$ to $t^p$.
Let $F=\langle X,Y\rangle$ be the free group generated by $\{X,Y\}$, and let $\phi:F\to G=F/\langle R(X,Y)\rangle$ be the canonical homomorphism. The unique extensions of $\phi$ and $\mathfrak{a}$ to the group rings are denoted by the same symbols. Then the Alexander matrix of the above presentation of $G$ is $$\begin{pmatrix}
F_X(t) & F_Y(t)
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathfrak{a}\phi(\frac{\partial R(X,Y)}{\partial X}) & \mathfrak{a}\phi(\frac{\partial R(X,Y)}{\partial Y})
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Thus the Alexander polynomial $\Delta_K(t)$ is the greatest common divisor of $F_X(t)$ and $F_Y(t)$ (cf. [@CF]).
\[lem:derivative\] $\frac{\partial R(X,Y)}{\partial X}=1+\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}\prod_{j=1}^{i}XY^{E(j)}$ and $\frac{\partial R(X,Y)}{\partial Y}=\sum_{i=1}^{p}E(i)(\prod_{j=1}^{i-1}XY^{E(j)})X$.
This is a straightforward calculation. See [@CF].
Suppose $E(i_j)\ne 0$ for $i_j$, where $i_1<i_2<\dots <i_k$. For convenience, let $i_0=1$ when $i_1>1$. Notice that $i_k=p$.
Let $s(i)=\sum_{j=1}^{i}E(j)$ and $c(i)=-ik+ps(i)$. Then $s(p)=k$ and $c(p)=0$.
\[lem:degree\] $F_X(t)=\sum_{i=1}^{p}t^{c(i)}$ and $F_Y(t)=\sum_{j=1}^k t^{c(i_j)-p}$.
By Lemma \[lem:derivative\], $F_X(t)=1+\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}\prod_{j=1}^{i}t^{-k+E(j)p}=1+\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}t^{-ik+ps(i)}
=\sum_{i=1}^{p}t^{-ik+ps(i)}$. Similarly, $\frac{\partial R(X,Y)}{\partial Y}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}(\prod_{h=1}^{i_j-1}XY^{E(h)})X$, and hence $F_Y(t)=\sum_{j=1}^k t^{-i_jk+(j-1)p}$. Since $c(i_j)=-i_jk+ps(i_j)=-i_jk+pj$, we have $F_Y(t)=\sum_{j=1}^k t^{c(i_j)-p}$.
For positive integers $h$ and $n$, we define $[h]^n=t^{(h-1)n}+t^{(h-2)n}+\dots+t^n+1$. In particular, $[h]=t^{h-1}+t^{h-2}+\dots+t+1$.
\[lem:divide\] $[p]$ divides $F_X(t)$, and $[k]$ divides $F_Y(t)$.
Let $\zeta\ne 1$ be a $p$-th root of unity. Then $F_X(\zeta)=\sum_{i=1}^{p}\zeta^{-ik}=0$, since $p$ and $k$ are coprime. Hence $[p]$ divides $F_X(t)$.
Similarly, if $\xi\ne 1$ is a $k$-th root of unity, then $F_Y(\xi)=\sum_{j=1}^{k}\xi^{(j-1)p}=0$, since $p$ and $k$ are coprime again. Thus $[k]$ divides $F_Y(t)$.
By Lemma \[lem:divide\], we can set $F_X(t)=[p]\ f_X(t)$ and $F_Y(t)=[k]\ f_Y(t)$. Since $p$ and $k$ are coprime by Lemma \[lem:saito\], two polynomials $[p]$ and $[k]$ are also coprime. Hence the greatest common divisor of $F_X(t)$ and $F_Y(t)$ coincides with that of $f_X(t)$ and $f_Y(t)$.
Let $d=\min\{c(i)\ |\ 1\le i\le p\}$ and $e=\min\{c(i_j)-p\ |\ 1\le j\le k\}$. Consider the polynomial $G_X(t)=t^{-d}F_X(t)$. Hence the lowest degree of the terms in $G_X(t)$ is zero. Then $G_X(t)=\sum_{i=1}^{p}t^{c(i)-d}$ by Lemma \[lem:degree\]. A term $t^{c(i)-d}$ of $G_X(t)$ is said to be *excessive* if $c(i)-d\ge p$. Similarly, let $G_Y(t)=t^{-e}F_Y(t)$. Then the lowest degree of the terms in $G_Y(t)$ is also zero, and $G_Y(t)=\sum_{j=1}^{k}t^{c(i_j)-p-e}$. A term $t^{c(i_j)-p-e}$ of $G_Y(t)$ is said to be *excessive* if $c(i_j)-p-e\ge k$. For a term $t^{c(i_j)-p-e}$ of $G_Y(t)$, let $d(i_j)$ be the unique integer such that $0\le d(i_j)<k$ and $c(i_j)-p-e\equiv d(i_j) \pmod{k}$. Then $(c(i_j)-p-e)-d(i_j)=m(i_j)k$ for some $m(i_j)\ge 0$. This integer $m(i_j)$ is called the *multiplicity* of the term. In particular, $m(i_j)=0$ for a non-excessive term. Since $G_Y(t)$ contains a constant term, $m(i_j)=0$ for some $j$.
The next two propositions will be proved in Section \[sec:calculation\].
\[pro:gy\] $t^{-e}f_Y(t)=1+(t-1)\sum_{m(i_j)>0}t^{d(i_j)}[m(i_j)]^k$.
\[pro:gx\] $t^{-d}f_X(t)=1+(t-1)\sum_{m(i_j)>0}t^{d(i_j)}[m(i_j)]^k$.
By Propositions \[pro:gy\] and \[pro:gx\], the Alexander polynomial $\Delta_K(t)=f_Y(t)=F_Y(t)/[k]$. Hence it suffices to show that $F(t)$, defined in Section \[sec:intro\], coincides with $F_Y(t)$.
Let $\Psi^{-1}$ be the inverse of the permutation $\Psi$. Then $\Psi^{-1}\{i_1,i_2,\dots,i_k\}=\{0,1,2,\dots,k-1\}$. Since $\Phi(\Psi^{-1}(i_j))=j-1$, $c(i_j)-p=(-i_{j}k+jp)-p=-i_jk+\Phi(\Psi^{-1}(i_j))p$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
F(t) &=& \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}t^{\Phi(i)p-\Psi(i)k}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}t^{\Phi(\Psi^{-1}(i_j))p-\Psi(\Psi^{-1}(i_j))k} \\
&=& \sum_{j=1}^{k}t^{c(i_j)-p}=F_Y(t)\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \[lem:degree\]. This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Similarly, we can show that $F_X(t)=\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}t^{(1-\Psi(i))k+\Phi(i)p}$. Thus the Alexander polynomial $\Delta_K(t)$ is also equal to $F_X(t)/[p]$. But it is simpler to use $F_Y(t)/[k]$ for a calculation, because $k<p$.
Degree sequences {#sec:calculation}
================
If $1\le a<b\le p$, then the interval $[a,b]$ means the set $\{i : a\le i\le b\}\subset \{1,2,\dots,p\}$, and $[b,a]$ means $\{i : b\le i\le p\ \text{or}\ 1\le i\le a\}$. Moreover, if $1\le a\le p<c<a+p$, then let $[a,c]=[a,p]\cup [1,c-p]$. Thus $[a,c]=[a,c-p]$.
\[lem:ci\]
- Let $j\in \{0,1,2,\dots,k-1\}$. On the interval $[i_j,i_{j+1}-1]$, $c(i)=-ik+pj$, and $c(i_{j+1})=c(i_{j+1}-1)+p-k$. Here, $i_{1}-1=i_k$ if $i_1=1$.
- $\{c(i)\ |\ 1\le i\le p\}=\{0,1,2,\dots,p-1\} \pmod{p}$.
- Let $i_a\le i< i_{a+1}$ for $a\in \{0,1,2,\dots,k-1\}$. Then $c(i)=c(i_j)-(i-i_j)k+(a-j)p$ for $1\le j\le k$.
\(1) On the interval $[i_j,i_{j+1}-1]$, $s(i)=j$. Hence $c(i)=-ik+pj$. Since $s(i_{j+1})=j+1$, $c(i_{j+1})=-i_{j+1}k+p(j+1)=c(i_{j+1}-1)+p-k$.
\(2) Since $c(i)\equiv -ik \pmod{p}$, the conclusion follows from the fact that $p$ and $k$ are coprime.
\(3) From (1), $c(i)=-ik+pa$ and $c(i_a)=-i_ak+pa$. Hence $c(i)=c(i_a)-(i-i_a)k$. If $a\ge 2$, $c(i_{a})=c(i_{a-1})-(i_a-i_{a-1})k+p$, so $c(i)=c(i_{a-1})-(i-i_{a-1})k+p$. Thus we have $c(i)=c(i_j)-(i-i_j)k+(a-j)p$ for $1\le j\le a$.
From (1), $c(i_{a+1})=c(i_{a+1}-1)+(p-k)=c(i)-(i_{a+1}-1-i)k+p-k=c(i)-(i_{a+1}-i)k+p$. Thus $c(i)=c(i_{a+1})-(i-i_{a+1})k-p$. For $j\ge a+2$, $c(i_j)=c(i_{a+1})-(i_j-i_{a+1})k+(j-a-1)p$. Hence $c(i)=c(i_j)-(i-i_j)k+(a-j)p$.
Thus the degree sequence $\{c(i)\}_{i=1}^p$ of $F_X(t)$ increases by $p-k$ at $i_1,i_2,\dots,i_k$, and decreases by $k$ elsewhere.
\[lem:d\] $\{d(i_1),d(i_2),\dots,d(i_k)\}=\{0,1,2,\dots,k-1\}$.
Assume $d(i_j)=d(i_h)$. Then $c(i_j)\equiv c(i_h) \pmod{k}$. Since $c(i_j)\equiv pj \pmod{k}$ and $c(i_h)\equiv ph \pmod{k}$, we have $pj\equiv ph \pmod{k}$. Thus $j=h$, because $p$ and $k$ are coprime. Hence $\{d(i_1),d(i_2),\dots,d(i_k)\}=\{0,1,2,\dots,k-1\}$.
By Lemma \[lem:d\], $$\begin{aligned}
G_Y(t) &=& \sum_{j=1}^k t^{c(i_j)-p-e}=\sum_{j=1}^kt^{d(i_j)+m(i_j)k}=\sum_{m(i_j)=0}t^{d(i_j)}+\sum_{m(i_j)>0}t^{d(i_j)+m(i_j)k}\\
&=& [k]+\sum_{m(i_j)>0}\bigl(t^{d(i_j)+m(i_j)k}-t^{d(i_j)}\bigr)=[k]+\sum_{m(i_j)>0}t^{d(i_j)}\bigl(t^{m(i_j)k}-1\bigr).\\
&=& [k]+\sum_{m(i_j)>0}t^{d(i_j)}[k](t-1)[m(i_j)]^k = [k]\Bigl(1+(t-1)\sum_{m(i_j)>0}t^{d(i_j)}[m(i_j)]^k\Bigr).\\\end{aligned}$$ Since $G_Y(t)=t^{-e}F_Y(t)=t^{-e}[k]f_Y(t)$, we have the conclusion.
To prove Proposition \[pro:gx\], we need some technical lemmas.
\[lem:impact\] Let $m(i_j)>0$ and $n\ge 0$.
- $c(i_j)-d-nk\ge p$ if and only if $n\le m(i_j)-1$.
- $\sum_{n=0}^{m(i_j)-1}t^{c(i_j)-d-nk-p} = t^{d(i_j)}[m(i_j)]^k$.
\(1) First, we claim
\[cl:min\] $d=e+k$.
By Lemma \[lem:ci\], $d=c(i_\ell-1)$ for some $\ell$, and $e=c(i_\ell)-p$. Since $c(i_\ell)=c(i_\ell-1)+(p-k)$, $e+p=d+(p-k)$.
By Claim \[cl:min\], $c(i_j)-d-nk-p=(c(i_j)-p-e)-(n+1)k=d(i_j)+(m(i_j)-1-n)k$. Thus $c(i_j)-d-nk-p\ge 0$ if and only if $m(i_j)-1\ge n$.
\(2) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{m(i_j)-1}t^{c(i_j)-d-nk-p} &=& t^{d(i_j)+(m(i_j)-1)k}+t^{d(i_j)+(m(i_j)-2)k}+\dots +t^{d(i_j)+k}+t^{d(i_j)} \\
&=& t^{d(i_j)}(t^{(m(i_j)-1)k}+t^{(m(i_j)-2)k}+\dots+t^k+1) \\
&=& t^{d(i_j)}[m(i_j)]^k.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\mathcal{E}=\{i : \text{the $i$-th term of $G_X(t)$ is excessive}\}$, and let $\mathcal{E}'$ be its complement in $\{1,2,\dots,p\}$. Since $G_X(t)$ contains a constant term, $\mathcal{E}'\ne \emptyset$. Then $$G_X(t) = \sum_{i\in \mathcal{E}'}t^{c(i)-d}+\sum_{i\in \mathcal{E}}t^{c(i)-d}.$$ Consider a partition of $\mathcal{E}$ as follows. Let $W(h)=\{i : hp\le c(i)-d <(h+1)p\}$ for a positive integer $h$, and let $\mathcal{E}=W(1)\cup W(2)\cup\dots \cup W(\ell)$.
\[lem:height\] $\ell\le k-1$.
By Lemma \[lem:ci\], the sequence $\{c(i)\}_{i=1}^p$ increases only $k$ times. (If $i_1=1$, then count $c(i_k)\to c(i_1)$.) Thus $\mathrm{deg}\,G_X(t)\le k(p-k)<kp$.
\[lem:excessive\] Let $i\in \mathcal{E}$, and let $A=\{j : m(i_j)>0\ \text{and}\ i\in[i_j,i_j+m(i_j)-1] \}$. Then $i\in W(h)$ if and only if $\sharp A=h$.
Choose the biggest $i_a$ with $i_a\le i$ among $\{i_1,i_2,\dots,i_k\}$. (If $i<i_1$, then let $i_a=i_k$.)
Assume $i\in W(h)$. Then $hp\le c(i)-d <(h+1)p$. We distinguish two cases.
*Case $a>h$.*
For $j\in \{0,1,\dots,h-1\}$, $c(i)-d=c(i_{a-j})-e-(i-i_{a-j}+1)k+jp$ by Lemma \[lem:ci\](3) and Claim \[cl:min\]. Hence $c(i_{a-j})-e-(i-i_{a-j}+1)k+jp\ge hp$, giving $c(i_{a-j})-p-e\ge (i-i_{a-j}+1)k\ge k$. Hence $m(i_{a-j})>0$.
Furthermore, $c(i_{a-j})-p-e=d(i_{a-j})+m(i_{a-j})k\ge (i-i_{a-j}+1)k$ gives $(1+m(i_{a-j}))k > (i-i_{a-j}+1)k$, since $d(i_{a-j})<k$. Thus $m(i_{a-j})>i-i_{a-j}$, so $i\in [i_{a-j},i_{a-j}+m(i_{a-j})-1]$.
Since $c(i)=c(i_{a-h})-(i-i_{a-h})k+hp$, $c(i)-d-hp=c(i_{a-h})-d-(i-i_{a-h})k<p$. Then $i-i_{a-h}\ge m(i_{a-h})$ by Lemma \[lem:impact\](1). That is, $i\ge i_{a-h}+m(i_{a-h})$. Hence $A=\{a-j\ :\ 0\le j\le h-1\}$.
*Case $a\le h$.*
For $1\le j\le a$, we can show that $m(i_j)>0$ and $i\in [i_{j},i_{j}+m(i_{j})-1]$ exactly as in Case 1. By Lemma \[lem:ci\], $c(i)=c(i_k)-ik+ap$. If $a=h$, then $c(i_k)-d-ik=c(i)-d-hp<p$. Thus $i\ge m(i_k)$ by Lemma \[lem:impact\](1). Hence $A=\{1,2,\dots,h\}$. Thus we suppose $a<h$. Consider $i_{k-j}$ for $j=0,1,2,\dots,h-a-1$. By Lemma \[lem:height\], $h\le \ell\le k-1$. Hence $k-(h-a-1)\ge a+2$. Then $c(i)=c(i_{k-j})-(i-i_{k-j})k+(a-(k-j))p$ by Lemma \[lem:ci\](3). Thus $c(i_{k-j})-p-e=c(i)-d-(j+a+1)p+(i+p-i_{k-j}+1)k\ge k$, so $m(i_{k-j})>0$.
Also, $c(i_{k-j})-p-e=d(i_{k-j})+m(i_{k-j})k\ge (i+p-i_{k-j}+1)k$ gives $m(i_{k-j})>i+p-i_{k-j}$. Therefore $i< i_{k-j}+m(i_{k-j})-p$, which means $i\in [i_{k-j},i_{k-j}+m(i_{k-j})-1]$.
Finally, $c(i)=c(i_{k-h+a})-(i-i_{k-h+a})k+(a-(k-h+a))p=c(i_{k-h+a})-(i-i_{k-h+a})k+(h-k)p$. Then $c(i)-d-hp=c(i_{k-h+a})-d-(i+p-i_{k-h+a})k<p$. By Lemma \[lem:impact\](1), $i+p-i_{k-h+a}\ge m(i_{k-h+a})$. That is, $i\ge i_{k-h+a}+m(i_{k-h+a})-p$. Hence $\sharp A=h$.
Conversely, if $\sharp A=h$, then we can verify that $A=\{a-j : 0\le j\le h-1\}$ if $a\ge h$ or $A=\{k-j : 0\le j\le h-a-1\}\cup \{1,2,\dots,a\}$ if $a<h$.
In the former, $c(i)=c(i_{a-h+1})-(i-i_{a-h+1})k+(h-1)p$. Since $c(i_{a-h+1})-d-(i-i_{a-h+1})k\ge p$ by Lemma \[lem:impact\](1), $c(i)-d-hp=c(i_{a-h+1})-d-(i-i_{a-h+1})k-p\ge 0$. Thus $c(i)-d\ge hp$. If $c(i)-d\ge (h+1)p$, then $a-h\in A$ if $a>h$, or $k\in A$ if $a=h$, a contradiction. Hence $i\in W(h)$.
If $a<h$, then $c(i)=c(i_{k-h+a+1})-(i-i_{k-h+a+1})k+(a-(k-h+a+1))p=c(i_{k-h+a+1})-(i-i_{k-h+a+1})k+(h-k-1)p$. Since $c(i_{k-h+a+1})-d-(i+p-i_{k-h+a+1})k\ge p$, $c(i)-d-hp=c(i_{k-h+a+1})-d-(i+p-i_{k-h+a+1})k-p\ge 0$. If $c(i)-d\ge (h+1)p$, then $k-h+a\in A$, a contradiction. Hence $i\in W(h)$.
Let $R(t)=\sum_{i\in \mathcal{E}}t^{c(i)-d}$. Then $$R(t)=t^p\sum_{i\in W(1)}t^{c(i)-d-p}+t^{2p}\sum_{i\in W(2)}t^{c(i)-d-2p}+\dots+t^{\ell p}\sum_{i\in W(\ell)}t^{c(i)-d-\ell p}.$$
Thus $$\begin{aligned}
G_X(t) &=& [p]+ R(t)-(\sum_{i\in W(1)}t^{c(i)-d-p}+\sum_{i\in W(2)}t^{c(i)-d-2p}+\dots+\sum_{i\in W(\ell)}t^{c(i)-d-\ell p}) \\
&=& [p] + (t^p-1)\sum_{i\in W(1)}t^{c(i)-d-p}+(t^{2p}-1)\sum_{i\in W(2)}t^{c(i)-d-2p}+\dots \\
& & \qquad \dots+(t^{\ell p}-1)\sum_{i\in W(\ell)}t^{c(i)-d-\ell p} \\
&=& [p]\Bigl(1+(t-1)\sum_{i\in W(1)}t^{c(i)-d-p}+(t-1)[2]^p\sum_{i\in W(2)}t^{c(i)-d-2p}+\dots \\
& & \qquad \dots+(t-1)[\ell]^p\sum_{i\in W(\ell)}t^{c(i)-d-\ell p}\Bigr)\\
&=& [p] \biggl( 1+(t-1)\Bigl([1]^p\sum_{i\in W(1)}t^{c(i)-d-p}+[2]^p\sum_{i\in W(2)}t^{c(i)-d-2p}+\dots \\
& & \qquad \dots+[\ell]^p\sum_{i\in W(\ell)}t^{c(i)-d-\ell p}\Bigr)\biggr).\end{aligned}$$
Let $S_h(t)=[h]^p\sum_{i\in W(h)}t^{c(i)-d-hp}$ for $1\le h\le \ell$. Since $G_X(t)=t^{-d}F_X(t)=t^{-d}[p]f_X(t)$, we have $t^{-d}f_X(t)=G_X(t)/[p]$. Thus it suffices to show that $\sum_{h=1}^{\ell}S_h(t)=\sum_{m(i_j)>0}t^{d(i_j)}[m(i_j)]^k$.
First, $$\begin{aligned}
S_h(t) &=& (t^{(h-1)p}+t^{(h-2)p}+\dots+t^{p}+1)\sum_{i\in W(h)}t^{c(i)-d-hp} \\
&=& \sum_{i\in W(h)}t^{c(i)-d-p}+\sum_{i\in W(h)}t^{c(i)-d-2p}+\dots+\sum_{i\in W(h)}t^{c(i)-d-hp}.\end{aligned}$$
Suppose $i\in W(h)$. Let $A=\{j : m(i_j)>0 \ \text{and}\ i\in [i_j,i_j+m(i_j)-1]\}$. By Lemma \[lem:excessive\], $\sharp A=h$. Let $i_a$ be the biggest in $A$ as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:excessive\]. Recall that $A=\{a-j : 0\le j\le h-1\}$ if $a\ge h$ or $A=\{k-j : 0\le j\le h-a-1\}\cup \{1,2,\dots,a\}$ if $a<h$. Then $t^{c(i)-d-p}$ appears in $t^{d(i_a)}[m(i_a)]^k$ by Lemma \[lem:impact\](2). Similarly, $t^{c(i)-d-2p}$ appears in $t^{d(i_{a-1})}[m(i_{a-1})]^k$ if $a>1$, or $t^{d(i_{k})}[m(i_{k})]^k$ if $a=1$. Continuing this, we see that $t^{c(i)-d-p}, t^{c(i)-d-2p},\dots, t^{c(i)-d-hp}$ appear in $\sum_{j\in A}t^{d(i_j)}[m(i_j)]^k$ and the correspondence is one-one.
Conversely, let $m(i_j)>0$, and choose a term $t^{c(i_j)-d-p-nk}$ in $t^{d(i_j)}[m(i_j)]^k$. Let $i=i_j+n$. Then $c(i)-d=c(i_j)-d-nk\ge p$ by Lemma \[lem:impact\](1). Hence $i\in W(h)$ for some $h$. Thus the term $t^{c(i_j)-d-p-nk}$ appears in $S_h(t)$.
A computer experiment suggests that $\mathcal{E}=W(1)$, that is, $\mathrm{deg}\,G_X(t)<2p$. If this is true, then the proofs of Lemma \[lem:excessive\] and Proposition \[pro:gx\] would be greatly simplified.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main2\] {#sec:main2}
==============================
Let $\{a_1,a_2,\dots,a_h\}=\{i_j : m(i_j)>0\}$ and $a_1<a_2<\dots<a_h$. By Propositions \[pro:gy\] and \[pro:gx\], the Alexander polynomial of $K$ has the form $1+(t-1)\sum_{i=1}^{h}t^{d(a_i)}[m(a_i)]^k=1+(t-1)\sum_{i=1}^{h}(t^{d(a_i)+(m(a_i)-1)k}+t^{d(a_i)+(m(a_i)-2)k}+\dots+t^{d(a_i)+k}+t^{d(a_i)})$. Let $U_i=\{d(a_i)+(m(a_i)-j)k : 1\le j\le m(a_i)\}$ and $V_i=\{d(a_i)+(m(a_i)-j)k+1 : 1\le j\le m(a_i)\}$ for $1\le i\le h$. Also, let $\mathcal{U}=\cup_{i=1}^{h}U_i$ and $\mathcal{V}=\cup_{i=1}^{h}V_i$.
\[lem:coeff\] If $i\ne j$, then $U_i\cap U_j=\emptyset$, and hence $V_i\cap V_j=\emptyset$.
Since any element of $U_i$ is congruent to $d(a_i)$ modulo $k$, the conclusion immediately follows from Lemma \[lem:d\].
Lemma \[lem:coeff\] implies that any coefficient in $\Delta_K(t)$ is $\pm 1$.
The elements of $\mathcal{U}\cup \mathcal{V}-(\mathcal{U}\cap \mathcal{V})$ have the order $u_1<v_1<u_2<v_2<\dots<u_m<v_m$, where $u_i\in \mathcal{U}$ and $v_j\in \mathcal{V}$.
Let $u_1=\min\{d(a_i) : 1\le i\le h\}$. Then $u_1$ is the minimal number of $\mathcal{U}$ and $u_1\not\in \mathcal{V}$, but $u_1+1\in \mathcal{V}$. If $u_1+1\not\in \mathcal{U}$, then let $v_1=u_1+1$. Otherwise, $u_1+2\in\mathcal{V}$. If $u_1+2\not\in\mathcal{U}$, then let $v_1=u_1+2$. Continuing this process, we finally find $v_1\in \mathcal{V}-\mathcal{U}$ satisfying that $u_1<v_1$ and there is no element of $\mathcal{U}\cup \mathcal{V}-(\mathcal{U}\cap \mathcal{V})$ between $u_1$ and $v_1$. The same argument shows that for any $u\in \mathcal{U}-\mathcal{V}$, the next element appears in $\mathcal{V}$. Since $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ have the same cardinality, the elements of $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ must alternate.
Since $G_Y(t)$ contains a constant term, the corresponding $d(i_j)$ is zero. Hence $d(a_i)\ne 0$ for $1\le i\le h$. This means $u_1\ne 0$. Thus the set $\mathcal{U}\cup \mathcal{V}-(\mathcal{U}\cap \mathcal{V})$ gives all degrees of the terms in $\Delta_K(t)$ except the constant term $1$. Thus $\Delta_K(t)=1-t^{u_1}+t^{v_1}-\dots-t^{u_m}+t^{v_m}$. From the reciprocity of Alexander polynomials ([@CF]), this completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:main2\].
Examples {#sec:example}
========
Let $K$ be the right-handed trefoil. Then $5$-surgery on $K$ yields $L(5,4)$. The associated dual knot is $K(L(5,4);2)$ as shown in [@S Example 5.1]. Set $p=5$, $q=4$ and $k=2$. Let us consider the basic sequence $$\{nq\}_{n=1}^{5}:4,3,2,1,0.$$ Then $\Psi(i)$ is equal to the position of $i$ in this sequence, and $\Phi(i)$ is equal to the number of terms smaller than $k$ before the term $i$ in the sequence. See Table \[table:trefoil\].
$$\begin{array}{c|cc}
\hline
i & 0 & 1 \\
\hline
\Psi(i) & 5 & 4 \\
\hline
\Phi(i) & 1 & 0 \\
\hline
\Phi(i)p-\Psi(i)k & -5 & -8 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Thus $F(t)=t^{-5}+t^{-8}=t^{-8}(t^3+1)$. Since $[k]=[2]=t+1$, $\Delta_K(t)=F(t)/[2]=t^{-8}(t^2-t+1)\doteq t^2-t+1$.
Let $K$ be the $(-2,3,7)$-pretzel knot. It is well known that $18$-surgery on $K$ yields $L(18,5)$. In fact, $K$ is doubly primitive, and the associated dual knot in $L(18,5)$ is $K(L(18,5);7)$ as shown in [@S Example 5.2]. Set $p=18, q=5$ and $k=7$. Then the basic sequence is $$\{nq\}_{n=1}^{18}: 5,10,15,2,7,12,17,4,9,14,1,6,11,16,3,8,13,0.$$ Thus we can calculate $\Psi(i)$ and $\Phi(i)$ as in Table \[table:pretzel\].
$$\begin{array}{c|ccccccc}
\hline
i & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\
\hline
\Psi(i) & 18 & 11 & 4 & 15 & 8 & 1 & 12 \\
\hline
\Phi(i) & 6 & 3 & 1 & 5 & 2 & 0 & 4 \\
\hline
\Phi(i)p-\Psi(i)k & -18 & -23 & -10 & -15 & -20 & -7 & -12 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Hence $F(t)=t^{-23}(t^5+1+t^{13}+t^8+t^3+t^{16}+t^{11})$. Since $[k]=[7]=t^6+t^5+t^4+t^3+t^2+t+1$, $\Delta_K(t)=F(t)/[7]\doteq 1 - t + t^3 - t^4 + t^5 -t^6 + t^7 - t^9 + t^{10}$.
[10]{}
J. Berge, *Some knots with surgeries yielding lens spaces*, unpublished manuscript.
R. H. Crowell and R. H. Fox, *Introduction to knot theory*, Ginn and Co., Boston, Mass. 1963.
M. Culler, C. McA. Gordon, J. Luecke and P. Shalen, *Dehn surgery on knots*, Ann. of Math. **125** (1987), 237–300.
C. McA. Gordon, *Dehn filling a survey*, in Knot theory (Warsaw, 1995), 129–144, Banach Center Publ., 42, Polish Acad. Sci., Warsaw, 1998.
T. Kadokami, *Reidemeister torsion of homology lens spaces*, preprint.
T. Kadokami and Y. Yamada, *A deformation of the Alexander polynomials of knots yielding lens spaces*, preprint.
T. Kadokami and Y. Yamada, *Reidemeister torsion and lens surgeries on $(-2,m,n)$-pretzel knots*, preprint.
R. Kirby, *Problems in low-dimensional topology*, Edited by Rob Kirby, AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., 2.2, Geometric topology (Athens, GA, 1993), 35–473, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997.
P. Kronheimer, T. Mrowka, P. Ozsváth and Z. Szabó, *Monopoles and lens space surgeries*, preprint, `arXiv:math.GT/0310164`.
L. Moser, *Elementary surgery along a torus knot*, Pacific J. Math. **38** (1971), 737–745. .
P. Ozsváth and Z. Szabó, *On knot Floer homology and lens space surgeries*, preprint, `arXiv:math.GT/0303017`.
D. Rolfsen, *Knots and links*, Mathematics Lecture Series, **7**, Publish or Perish, Inc., Berkeley, Calif., 1976.
T. Saito, *Dehn surgery and $(1,1)$-knots in lens spaces*, preprint.
T. Saito, *The dual knots of doubly primitive knots*, preprint.
[^1]: The second author is supported by the 21st Century COE program Towards a New Basic Science; Depth and Synthesis, Osaka University.
[^2]: The third author is partially supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), 16540071.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Light boson dark matter such as axion or hidden photon can be resonantly converted into a magnon in a magnetic insulator under the magnetic field, which can be detected experimentally. We provide a quantum mechanical formulation for the magnon event rate and show that the result is consistent with that obtained by a classical calculation. Besides, it is pointed out that the experimental setup of the QUAX proposal for the axion detection also works as a detector of hidden photon dark matter. It has good sensitivity in the mass range around 1meV, which is beyond astrophysical constraints.'
---
UT-20-02\
.75in
[**Detecting Light Boson Dark Matter through\
Conversion into Magnon** ]{}
.75in
[So Chigusa$^{(a)}$, Takeo Moroi$^{(a,b)}$ and Kazunori Nakayama$^{(a,b)}$ ]{}
0.25in
$^{(a)}$[*Department of Physics, Faculty of Science,\
The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan*]{}\
$^{(b)}$[*Kavli IPMU (WPI), The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan*]{}
.5in
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
Light bosonic dark matter (DM) is one of the well-motivated frameworks of DM model [@Jaeckel:2010ni; @Arias:2012az]. The QCD axion is the best-known example [@Preskill:1982cy; @Abbott:1982af; @Dine:1982ah; @Kim:1986ax; @Kawasaki:2013ae], but more general axion-like particles may also be motivated from string theory [@Svrcek:2006yi; @Arvanitaki:2009fg; @Cicoli:2012sz]. The axion-like particle can easily have a correct relic abundance through coherent oscillation. It has an (almost) homogeneous field value during inflation, which eventually becomes a coherently oscillating field when the Hubble parameter decreases to the axion mass. It behaves as a non-relativistic matter thereafter. There are many experimental ideas dedicated to detecting axion DM. The cavity haloscope [@Sikivie:1983ip; @Bradley:2003kg] experiments including ADMX [@Asztalos:2009yp], HAYSTAC [@Zhong:2018rsr], ORGAN [@McAllister:2017lkb], KLASH [@Alesini:2017ifp], CULTASK [@Semertzidis:2019gkj], as well as MADMAX [@Horns:2012jf; @Jaeckel:2013eha; @TheMADMAXWorkingGroup:2016hpc], ABRACADABRA [@Kahn:2016aff] and also other ideas [@Marsh:2018dlj; @Obata:2018vvr; @Nagano:2019rbw; @Lawson:2019brd; @Zarei:2019sva] use the axion-photon coupling of the form $\mathcal L \propto a F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$, while the CASPEr [@Budker:2013hfa] uses the axion-nucleon coupling, and the QUAX [@Barbieri:1985cp; @Barbieri:2016vwg; @Crescini:2020cvl] is sensitive to the axion-electron coupling. They already exclude broad parameter regions of axion mass and coupling constant and some of them begin to reach the parameter regions predicted by the QCD axion.
The hidden photon is another well-motivated candidate of DM, which is also expected to show up in the string theory framework [@Cicoli:2011yh]. There are several scenarios for hidden photon DM production with sub-eV mass scale: production through the axionic coupling [@Agrawal:2018vin; @Co:2018lka; @Bastero-Gil:2018uel], scalar coupling [@Dror:2018pdh], cosmic strings [@Long:2019lwl], inflationary fluctuation [@Graham:2015rva], gravitational production [@Ema:2019yrd] and coherent oscillation [@Arias:2012az; @AlonsoAlvarez:2019cgw; @Nakayama:2019rhg]. There are many experiments dedicated to the detection of hidden photon [@Horns:2012jf; @Wagner:2010mi; @Parker:2013fxa; @Chaudhuri:2014dla; @Hochberg:2016ajh; @Hochberg:2016sqx; @Bloch:2016sjj; @Knapen:2017ekk; @Griffin:2018bjn; @Hochberg:2017wce; @Arvanitaki:2017nhi; @Baryakhtar:2018doz].
In this paper, we explore the possibility to detect axion and hidden photon DM. In particular, the detection of light boson DM may be possible using the ferromagnet or ferrimagnet insulator through the magnon (i.e., electron spin wave) excitation. Such an idea was proposed for the axion DM detection in the QUAX proposal [@Barbieri:1985cp; @Barbieri:2016vwg]. We point out that the experimental setup of the QUAX also works as a hidden photon DM detector. Through the small kinetic mixing with the Standard Model (SM) photon, the hidden photon interacts with the SM particles. The hidden photon DM can excite the magnon in the magnetic insulator. It can be viewed as a conversion of a hidden photon into a magnon in the field theory language. By applying the external magnetic field, the magnon frequency can be tuned so that it matches the DM mass and the conversion is kinematically accessible. We compare the sensitivities of axion and dark photon searches using magnon and those using cavity mode of the electromagnetic wave in the QUAX-like setup.
In Sec. \[sec:magnon\] we briefly review the property of the magnon. In particular, its dispersion relation is derived. In Sec. \[sec:conv\] the axion DM conversion rate into the magnon is calculated and the experimental sensitivity is estimated. First, we derive the axion-magnon conversion rate by a quantum mechanical calculation, which has advantageous applicability to the case with only a small number of magnons. Then we apply the same method for the hidden photon DM in Sec. \[sec:hidden\]. In Sec. \[sec:conc\] we discuss another idea to use the (proposed) axion detector as a hidden photon detector.
Magnon in ferromagnetic materials {#sec:magnon}
=================================
In the insulator, the outermost electrons bounded by each atomic cell may contribute to the magnetic properties. For example, in the case of the Yttrium Iron Garnet (YIG) used for the QUAX, five electrons in the outermost orbit of each Iron atom explain its ferromagneticity. Let us start with the Heisenberg model $$\begin{aligned}
H = -g\mu_B \sum_\ell \sum_j \vec B^0 \cdot \vec S_{\ell j}
- \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\ell,\ell'} \sum_{j,j'} \left( J_{\ell \ell' j j'} \vec S_{\ell j} \cdot \vec S_{\ell' j'}
+ \sum_{\alpha \beta} D_{\ell \ell' j j'}^{\alpha\beta} S_{\ell j}^\alpha S_{\ell' j'}^\beta \right),
\label{Heisenberg}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec S_{\ell j}$ is the total electron spin at each cell, $g=2$, $\mu_B = e/(2m_e)$ is the Bohr magneton with $e$ and $m_e$ being the absolute electromagnetic charge and mass of the electron, respectively, and $\vec B^0$ is the external magnetic field. Here, $\ell, \ell' = 1,\dots, N$ labels magnetic unit cells, while $j, j' = 1,\dots, n$ labels atomic cells inside a magnetic unit cell. Note that the indices $j, j'$ can also be viewed as labels of the sublattice. The interaction terms proportional to $J_{\ell \ell' j j'}$ and $D_{\ell \ell' j j'}^{\alpha\beta}$ with $\alpha, \beta$ being the vector indices are called the exchange and dipole interactions, respectively. Hereafter, we neglect dipole interaction since it is typically much smaller than the exchange interaction.
In some species of ferromagnetic materials including the YIG and many other ferrimagnetic insulators, electrons belonging to different sublattices have different directions to which their spins are oriented. We introduce a local coordinate system for each atomic cell in which the total electron spin $\vec S'_{\ell j}$ is oriented to the $z$ direction in the ground state. Besides, we introduce $n$ rotation matrices $R_j^{\alpha \beta}$ with which we can relate local and global coordinate systems as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\ell j}^\alpha = \sum_{\beta} R_j^{\alpha \beta} S_{\ell j}^{' \beta}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we define the global coordinate system such that the magnetic moment of the material is along with the $z$ direction.
It is convenient to consider fluctuations around the ground state with creation and annihilation operators introduced by the Holstein-Primakoff transformation $$\begin{aligned}
&S_{\ell j}^{'+} \equiv S_{\ell j}^{'x} + i S_{\ell j}^{'y} = \sqrt{2s_j} \sqrt{1-\frac{\widetilde c_{\ell j}^\dagger \widetilde c_{\ell j}}{2s_j}} \widetilde c_{\ell j},\\
&S_{\ell j}^{'-} \equiv S_{\ell j}^{'x} - i S_{\ell j}^{'y} = \sqrt{2s_j} \widetilde c_{\ell j}^\dagger \sqrt{1-\frac{\widetilde c_{\ell j}^\dagger \widetilde c_{\ell j}}{2s_j}},\\
&S_{\ell j}^{'z} = s_j - \widetilde c_{\ell j}^\dagger \widetilde c_{\ell j},\end{aligned}$$ where $s_j$ is the total spin at each cite belonging to the sublattice $j$, which takes a universal value of $5/2$ for the YIG, and $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \widetilde c_{\ell j}, \widetilde c_{\ell' j'}^\dagger \right] = \delta_{\ell\ell'} \delta_{jj'}.\end{aligned}$$ One can easily recover the correct commutation relations $[S_{\ell j}^{'+},S_{\ell' j'}^{'-}]=2S^{'z}_{\ell j} \delta_{\ell\ell'}
\delta_{jj'}$ and $[S_{\ell j}^{'z}, S_{\ell' j'}^{'\pm}] =\pm S_{\ell j}^{'\pm} \delta_{\ell\ell'} \delta_{jj'}$. Let us Fourier expand the creation and annihilation operators as $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde c_{\ell j} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{\vec k \in \text{1BZ}} e^{-i\vec k\cdot \vec x_{\ell j}} c_{j, \vec k},~~~~~~
\widetilde c_{\ell j}^\dagger = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{\vec k \in \text{1BZ}} e^{i\vec k\cdot \vec x_{\ell j}} c_{j, \vec k}^\dagger,
\label{FourierExpansion}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec x_{\ell j} = \vec x_\ell + \vec x_j$ is the position of the atomic cite labeled by $\ell$ and $j$ with $\vec x_\ell$ and $\vec x_j$ being the position of the center of the $\ell$-th magnetic unit cell and that of the $j$-th atom measured from the center, and $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ c_{j, \vec k}, c_{j', \vec k'}^\dagger \right] = \delta_{jj'} \delta_{\vec k,\vec k'}.\end{aligned}$$ Hereafter, the summation of $\vec k$ is taken over the first Brillouin zone (1BZ) associated with magnetic unit cells. Noting the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\vec k} e^{i \vec k \cdot (\vec x_\ell - \vec x_{\ell'})} = N\delta_{\ell\ell'},
~~~~~~
\sum_{\ell} e^{i(\vec k - \vec k')\cdot \vec x_{\ell}} =N \sum_{\vec G} \delta_{\vec k - \vec k', \vec G},\end{aligned}$$ with the sum of the vector $\vec G$ is taken over all the reciprocal vectors,[^1] the inverse transformation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
c_{j, \vec k} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_\ell e^{i\vec k\cdot \vec x_{\ell j}} \widetilde c_{\ell j},~~~~~~
c_{j, \vec k}^\dagger = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_\ell e^{-i\vec k\cdot \vec x_{\ell j}} \widetilde c_{\ell j}^\dagger.\end{aligned}$$ Using the above relations, we can rewrite the Hamiltonian in a convenient form. Terms quadratic in $c_{j, \vec k}$ and $c_{j, \vec k}^\dagger$ represent the free Hamiltonian of the magnon, as soon shown below, and higher order terms represent its self interactions. Note that, under the existence of non-zero matrix element $R_j^{z,x}, R_j^{z,y}$ or dipole interaction $D_{\ell\ell' jj'}^{\alpha \beta}$, there are terms of the form of $c_{j, \vec k} c_{j', \vec k'}$ and $c_{j, \vec k}^\dagger c_{j', \vec k'}^\dagger$ in the quadratic part of the Hamiltonian. Thus we perform a Bogoliubov transformation to go to the canonical basis: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} c_{j, \vec k} \\ c^\dagger_{j, -\vec k} \end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix} u_{\vec k} & v_{\vec k} \\ v_{-\vec k}^* & u^*_{-\vec k} \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \gamma_{\nu, \vec k} \\ \gamma^\dagger_{\nu, -\vec k} \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{\vec k} = \{ u_{j\nu, \vec k} \}$ and $v_{\vec k} = \{ v_{j\nu, \vec k} \}$ are $n \times n$ matrices with $\nu$ labeling $n$ different excitation modes. By choosing proper matrices $u_{\vec k}$ and $v_{\vec k}$, we diagonalize the quadratic part of the Hamiltonian, which we denote by $H_0^{(\gamma)}$, as $$\begin{aligned}
H_0^{(\gamma)} = \sum_\nu \sum_{\vec k} \omega_{\nu, \vec k} \gamma_{\nu, \vec k}^\dagger \gamma_{\nu, \vec k}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\gamma_{\nu, \vec k}$ and $\gamma_{\nu, \vec k}^\dagger$ represent the annihilation and creation operators of a quanta around the ground state, which is called magnon, and $\omega_{\nu, \vec k}$ denotes the dispersion relation of the magnon mode $\nu$. In general, the magnon dispersion relation is anisotropic, i.e., $\omega_{\nu, \vec k}$ depends not only on $|\vec k|$ but also on the direction of $\vec k$ [@Herring:1951; @Gurevich].
As we will see later, only the lowest energy magnon mode around $k
\simeq 0$ is important for our discussion. This mode, which is a Nambu-Goldstone (NG) mode resulting from the symmetry breaking of the spatial rotation, can be expressed in a much simpler effective Hamiltonian. We define the total spin operator $\vec S_\ell$ of the $\ell$-th magnetic unit cell and the effective Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\text{eff}} = -g \mu_B \sum_\ell \vec B^0 \cdot \vec S_\ell
- \frac{J}{2} \sum_{\ell,\ell'} \vec S_\ell \cdot\vec S_{\ell'},\end{aligned}$$ where the second sum is taken over the adjacent cells. The above effective Hamiltonian describes the NG mode as the unique magnon mode. We can consider the Holstein-Primakoff transformation of the total spin operator as $$\begin{aligned}
&S_{\ell}^{+} \equiv S_{\ell}^{x} + i S_{\ell}^{y}
= \sqrt{2s} \sqrt{1-\frac{\widetilde c_{\ell}^\dagger \widetilde c_{\ell}}{2s}} \widetilde c_{\ell},\\
&S_{\ell}^{-} \equiv S_{\ell}^{x} - i S_{\ell}^{y}
= \sqrt{2s} \widetilde c_{\ell}^\dagger \sqrt{1-\frac{\widetilde c_{\ell}^\dagger \widetilde c_{\ell}}{2s}},\\
&S_{\ell}^{z} = s - \widetilde c_{\ell}^\dagger \widetilde c_{\ell},\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \widetilde c_\ell, \widetilde c_{\ell'}^\dagger \right] =
\delta_{\ell\ell'}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $s$ is the size of the total spin of electrons inside a magnetic unit cell. With Fourier expanding $\widetilde c_\ell$ and $\widetilde
c_\ell^\dagger$ as Eq. , we can see that the quadratic part of $H_{\rm eff}$, which we call free Hamiltonian, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{0} = \sum_{\vec k} \left[ \omega_L + 2Js \sum_p (1-\cos(\vec k \cdot \vec a_p)) \right] c_{\vec k}^\dagger c_{\vec k} \equiv \sum_{\vec k} \omega_{\vec k} c_{\vec k}^\dagger c_{\vec k},
\label{H_magnon}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_L \equiv g\mu_B B_z^0$ is the Larmor frequency with $B_z^0$ being the $z$ component of the magnetic field $\vec B^0$, and $\vec a_p$ $(p=1,2,3)$ are fundamental translation vectors that generate magnetic unit cells. For the YIG, we can use $s = 10$ and $J
= 0.35\,\text{meV}$, and the magnetic unit cell is a cube with $L
\equiv |\vec a_1| = |\vec a_2| = |\vec a_3| =
12.56\,\text{\AA}$ [@Cherepanov:1993].
Let us focus on the material with the cubic unit cell for simplicity. In the long wavelength limit $|\vec k| L \ll 1$, the dispersion relation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\vec k} \simeq \omega_L + JsL^2 k^2 \equiv \omega_L + \frac{k^2}{2M},\end{aligned}$$ with $k \equiv |\vec k|$. The $k=0$ mode corresponds to the homogeneously rotating mode around the external magnetic field with Larmor frequency, which is called the Kittel mode. In a typical material, $M \sim \mathcal O(1)$MeV; for example, using the values shown above, we obtain $M \sim 3.5\,\text{MeV}$ for the YIG. The Larmor frequency is evaluated as $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_L = \frac{eB_z^0}{m_e} \simeq 1.2\times 10^{-4}\,{\rm eV}\left( \frac{B_z^0}{1\,{\rm T}} \right).\end{aligned}$$ For the purpose of DM detection discussed below, the DM detection rate is enhanced if the Larmor frequency is close to the DM mass, and hence we are interested in the DM mass of meV range.[^2]
Axion conversion into magnon {#sec:conv}
============================
First, we consider the case of axion DM which interacts with the electron and calculate the axion-magnon conversion rate. In Ref. [@Barbieri:2016vwg], a classical calculation was used to estimate the axion-magnon conversion rate. We take a quantum mechanical method to calculate the conversion rate and show that it reproduces the result of Ref. [@Barbieri:2016vwg]. A quantum mechanical calculation of the conversion rate with a slightly different manner has been done in Ref. [@Flower:2018qgb] and the result is also consistent with ours. An advantage of the quantum mechanical calculation is that it is applicable even in the case where only a small number of magnons are excited during the time scale of our interest. We then apply the same method to the hidden photon DM.
Formulation
-----------
The axion (denoted by $a$) is assumed to interact with the electron, as in the DFSZ model [@Zhitnitsky:1980tq; @Dine:1981rt] or the flaxion/axiflavon [@Ema:2016ops; @Calibbi:2016hwq]. The Lagrangian density is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu a)^2-\frac{1}{2}m_a^2a^2 + \overline\psi (i{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$\partial$}}} - m_e) \psi + \frac{\partial_\mu a}{2f} \overline\psi \gamma^\mu\gamma_5 \psi,
\label{L_DFSZ}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi$ denotes the electron and $f$ is of the order of the Peccei-Quinn symmetry breaking scale. Then, in the non-relativistic limit of the electron, the total interaction Hamiltonian of the material is $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm int} = \frac{1}{f} \sum_\ell \vec\nabla a(\vec x_\ell)\cdot \vec S_\ell,\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec S_\ell$ is the electron spin at each cite $\ell$ (see Appendix \[sec:heff\]).
Below we treat the axion as a classical background described by $$\begin{aligned}
a(\vec x,t) = a_0 \cos(m_a t - m_a \vec{v}_a \cdot\vec x + \delta),\end{aligned}$$ with $v_a\ll 1$. This treatment is valid within the axion coherence time $\tau_a \sim (m_a v_a^2)^{-1}$. Note that $m_a a_0 =
\sqrt{2\rho_{\rm DM}}$, with $\rho_{\rm DM} \sim 0.3\,\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{cm}^3$ being the energy density of DM. In the following, the location of the ferromagnetic material is chosen to be close to the origin $\vec{x}\sim 0$. Then, the interaction Hamiltonian becomes $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm int} =
\frac{m_a a_0 v_a}{f} \sum_\ell
\vec e_v\cdot \vec S_\ell\, \sin(m_a t + \delta),
\label{Hint_axion}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec e_v$ is the unit vector pointing to the direction of $\vec v_a$. At the first order in the magnon creation or annihilation operator, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm int} = \frac{m_a a_0 \sin(m_a t+ \delta)}{f} \sqrt{\frac{s}{2}} \sum_\ell \left( v_a^- \widetilde c_\ell + v_a^+ \widetilde c_\ell^\dagger \right)
= \sin(m_a t+ \delta) \left(V^* c_0 + V c_0^\dagger \right),\end{aligned}$$ where we used the fact that $(m_av_a)^{-1}$ is expected to be much larger than the size of the ferromagnetic material. In addition, we define $$\begin{aligned}
v_a^\pm \equiv v^x_a \pm i v^y_a, ~~~~~~~~V\equiv \sqrt{\frac{sN}{2}}\frac{m_a a_0 v_a^+}{f},\end{aligned}$$ with choosing the direction of $\vec S_\ell$ in the ground state as the $z$-axis. The total magnon-axion Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
H =H_0 + H_{\rm int},\end{aligned}$$ where the magnon free Hamiltonian $H_0$ is given in Eq. (\[H\_magnon\]).
Now let us estimate the axion-magnon conversion rate based on the Hamiltonian derived above. For the axion-magnon conversion, only the $k\simeq 0$ mode matters since the axion momentum is negligible compared with its mass. The magnon has a dispersion relation $\omega_k = \omega_L + k^2/(2M)$ and $\omega_L$ is chosen such that $\omega_L \simeq m_a$. The system can be approximated by a two-level system: the ground state $\left|0\right>$ and the excited state $\left|1\right>$ which is defined by $c_0^\dagger \left|0\right>$. In principle, there are higher excited states $\left(c_0^\dagger \right)^n \left| 0\right>$ $(n\geq 2)$, but the probability to reach to these states is negligibly small for the situation of our interest. The quantum state $\left|\psi(t)\right>$ is, in general, a linear superposition of them: $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\psi(t)\right> = \alpha_0(t) \left|0\right> + \alpha_1(t) \left|1\right>.\end{aligned}$$ The initial condition is taken to be $\alpha_0(t=0)=1$ and $\alpha_1(t=0)=0$. The Schrodinger equation is $$\begin{aligned}
i \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left|\psi(t)\right> = (H_0 + H_{\rm int}) \left|\psi(t)\right>.\end{aligned}$$ It is convenient to go to the interaction picture: let us define $\left|\phi(t)\right>\equiv e^{iH_0 t}\left|\psi(t)\right>$. Then the Schrodinger equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
i \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left|\phi(t)\right> = e^{iH_0 t}H_{\rm int} e^{-i H_0 t} \left|\phi(t)\right>.\end{aligned}$$ From this, we obtain the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
&i \dot\alpha_0 = V^* \sin(m_at+ \delta) \alpha_1,\\
&i\dot \alpha_1 = \omega_L \alpha_1 + V \sin(m_at+ \delta) \alpha_0.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming $|V| \ll \omega_L$, which is valid in parameters of our interest, it is solved as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1(t) \simeq \frac{iV}{2}\frac{ e^{i\delta}(m_a-\omega_L)(e^{im_at}-e^{-i\omega_Lt}) + e^{-i\delta}(m_a+\omega_L)(e^{-im_at}-e^{-i\omega_L t}) }{m_a^2-\omega_L^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The probability that we find the state $\left|1\right>$ at the time $t$ is given by $P(t)=|\alpha_1(t)|^2$. Clearly, the probability is enhanced for $\omega_L \simeq m_a$. In this case, we have[^3] $$\begin{aligned}
P(t) \simeq \frac{|V|^2 t^2}{4}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the Kittel mode is maximally hybridized with the cavity mode, half of the power may be detected as the photon. Thus the power obtained by this transition is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dE_{\rm signal}}{dt} = \frac{\omega_L P(t)}{2t} = \frac{\omega_L |V|^2 t}{8}. \label{power_magnon}\end{aligned}$$ It is consistent with classical calculation in [@Barbieri:2016vwg] (see also Appendix \[sec:classical\]). Note that $t$ is limited by the axion coherence time $\tau_a$ or the magnon-polariton relaxation time $\tau_m$ (due to spin-lattice and spin-spin interactions and dissipation of cavity mode), whichever is smaller determines the effective coherence time through $\tau \equiv {\rm min}[\tau_a, \tau_m]$. The event rate is then $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{dN_{\rm signal}}{dt}\right]_{\rm spin} &= \frac{P(\tau)}{2\tau} = \frac{|V|^2 \tau}{8}=\frac{sN}{4} \frac{\rho_{\rm DM}(v_a^{x2}+v_a^{y2})\tau}{f^2}.\end{aligned}$$ To derive more convenient expression, we convert the factor $s N$ to the target mass $M_{\rm target}$ through $$\begin{aligned}
M(T) M_{\rm target} = g \frac{e}{2m} s N,\end{aligned}$$ where $M(T)$ is the magnetization of the target. Hereafter, we assume the target material to be YIG at temperature $T \sim 100\,\mathrm{mK}$ according to the QUAX proposal, which yields $M \simeq 38\, \mathrm{emu / g}$ [@Cherepanov:1993]. Substituting all the above, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \frac{dN_{\rm signal}}{dt}\right]_{\rm spin}
\simeq 0.05\,{\rm s^{-1}}\left( \frac{M_{\rm target}}{1\,{\rm kg}} \right)
\left( \frac{10^{10}\,{\rm GeV}}{f} \right)^2 \left( \frac{\tau}{2\,{\rm \mu s}} \right)\left( \frac{v_a}{10^{-3}} \right)^2 \sin^2\theta,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ is the angle between $\vec v_a$ and $z$ direction.
Sensitivity {#sec:sens_axion}
-----------
So far we have discussed the axion-spin interaction. One should note that the cavity setup also works as a standard haloscope [@Sikivie:1983ip; @Bradley:2003kg] if the axion has a Chern-Simons coupling like $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L = -C_{a\gamma}\frac{\alpha_e}{8\pi} \frac{a}{f} F_{\mu\nu} \widetilde F^{\mu\nu}
= C_{a\gamma}\frac{\alpha_e}{2\pi} \frac{a}{f} \vec B\cdot \vec E,
\label{LTI_axion}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde F^{\mu\nu} \equiv \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F_{\rho\sigma}/2$, $\alpha_e$ is the electromagnetic fine structure constant and $C_{a\gamma}$ is an $\mathcal O(1)$ model-dependent coupling constant. The background DM axion generates the cavity mode under the applied magnetic field. The photon event rate is estimated as [@Sikivie:1983ip; @Bradley:2003kg] $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{dN_{\rm signal}}{dt}\right]_{\rm CS} &= \left( \frac{C_{a\gamma} \alpha_e}{2\pi f} \right)^2 \frac{\rho_{\rm DM} B_0^2}{m_a} V_{\rm cav}\mathcal G_{\rm cav}{\rm min}\left[\tau_a,\tau_{\rm cav}\right] \\
&\simeq 7.1\times 10^{-1}\,{\rm s^{-1}} C_{a\gamma}^2
\left( \frac{10^{-4}\,{\rm eV}}{m_a} \right)\left( \frac{10^{10}\,{\rm GeV}}{f} \right)^2\left( \frac{B_0}{1\,{\rm T}} \right)^2
\left( \frac{V_{\rm cav} \mathcal G_{\rm cav}}{100\,{\rm cm^3}} \right)\left( \frac{\tau_{\rm cav}}{2\,{\rm \mu s}} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal G_{\rm cav}$ is an $\mathcal O(1)$ form factor which depends on a cavity mode, $V_{\rm cav}$ is the cavity volume and $\tau_{\rm cav}$ is the cavity decay time.[^4] Comparing it with $\left[dN_{\rm signal} /dt \right]_{\rm spin}$, the signal induced by Chern-Simons coupling may not be neglected. The relative ratio of these two signals depends on the target mass of the ferromagnet and cavity volume. Note that the axion-spin coupling is greatly suppressed in the KSVZ axion model [@Kim:1979if; @Shifman:1979if], and hence in such a model only the signal from the Chern-Simons coupling is relevant. Thus one can distinguish the axion model by comparing the signal with and without insertion of the ferromagnetic material inside the cavity.
Let us estimate the experimental sensitivity following Ref. [@Barbieri:2016vwg]. As an ideal setup, we consider only thermal fluctuation as a source of the noise. For example, for a cavity temperature of $100$mK, the noise rate is about $dN_{\rm noise}/dt \sim 10^{-3}$Hz at $m_a=0.2$meV. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) during the observation time $T_{\rm obs}$ for each scan is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm SNR} = \frac{(dN_{\rm signal}/dt) T_{\rm obs}}{\sqrt{(dN_{\rm noise}/dt) T_{\rm obs} }}.\end{aligned}$$ Requiring ${\rm SNR} \sim (\text{a few})$, one obtains a minimal observation time $T_{\rm obs}$ for each DM parameter. On the other hand, the bandwidth of the magnon-polariton is about $\Delta \omega \sim 1$MHz, while the effective coherence time is given by $\tau \simeq \tau_m = 2/\Delta \omega \simeq 2\,\mu$s at the target axion mass $m_a = 200\,\mu$eV. Thus the covered DM mass range during the total observation time $T_{\rm total}$ (say, $T_{\rm total} \sim 10$ years) is given by $\Delta m_a \simeq \Delta \omega\times (T_{\rm total}/T_{\rm obs})$.
![ Sensitivity plot for $\text{SNR} = 3$ under $T_{\text{total}} = 10\,\text{years}$. *Left*: Sensitivity of the magnon detector on the axion-electron coupling $g_{aee}$ as a function of the axion mass $m_a$. The green and blue bands show the sensitivity with using $T_{\mathrm{obs}} = 10^3$ and $10^4\,\mathrm{s}$ for each scan, respectively. The setup of $M_{\text{target}} = 1\,\mathrm{kg}$, $\tau=2\,\mathrm{\mu s}$, $v_a = 10^{-3}$, and $\sin^2\theta = 0.5$ is assumed. Besides, the gray regions show the parameter region already excluded by other searches and the yellow region and the black solid line correspond to the prediction of the DFSZ model with $0.28 \lesssim \tan\beta \lesssim 140$ and that of the KSVZ model, respectively. *Right*: Sensitivity of the cavity detector on the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ as a function of $m_a$. Similar to the left panel, the green and blue regions show the sensitivities with $B_0 = 1\,\mathrm{T}$, $V_{\text{cav}} \mathcal{G}_{\text{cav}} = 100\,\mathrm{cm}^3$, and $\tau_{\text{cav}} = 2\,\mathrm{\mu s}$. The other shaded regions show the region excluded by other searches and the black dashed (solid) line corresponds to the prediction of the DFSZ (KSVZ) model. []{data-label="fig:axion"}](sensitivity_axion_magnon.pdf "fig:"){width="0.48\hsize"} ![ Sensitivity plot for $\text{SNR} = 3$ under $T_{\text{total}} = 10\,\text{years}$. *Left*: Sensitivity of the magnon detector on the axion-electron coupling $g_{aee}$ as a function of the axion mass $m_a$. The green and blue bands show the sensitivity with using $T_{\mathrm{obs}} = 10^3$ and $10^4\,\mathrm{s}$ for each scan, respectively. The setup of $M_{\text{target}} = 1\,\mathrm{kg}$, $\tau=2\,\mathrm{\mu s}$, $v_a = 10^{-3}$, and $\sin^2\theta = 0.5$ is assumed. Besides, the gray regions show the parameter region already excluded by other searches and the yellow region and the black solid line correspond to the prediction of the DFSZ model with $0.28 \lesssim \tan\beta \lesssim 140$ and that of the KSVZ model, respectively. *Right*: Sensitivity of the cavity detector on the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ as a function of $m_a$. Similar to the left panel, the green and blue regions show the sensitivities with $B_0 = 1\,\mathrm{T}$, $V_{\text{cav}} \mathcal{G}_{\text{cav}} = 100\,\mathrm{cm}^3$, and $\tau_{\text{cav}} = 2\,\mathrm{\mu s}$. The other shaded regions show the region excluded by other searches and the black dashed (solid) line corresponds to the prediction of the DFSZ (KSVZ) model. []{data-label="fig:axion"}](sensitivity_axion_cavity.pdf "fig:"){width="0.48\hsize"}
In Fig. \[fig:axion\], we show the sensitivity of the magnon detector (left) and the cavity detector (right) with requiring $\text{SNR} = 3$ under $T_{\text{total}} = 10\,\text{years}$. As for the observation time for each frequency range, we use two different choices of $T_{\text{obs}} = 10^3\,\mathrm{s}$ and $10^4\,\mathrm{s}$, which are shown by green and blue regions, respectively. We have taken $dN_{\rm noise}/dt \sim 10^{-3}$Hz for concreteness. The center of the scanned region of the hidden photon mass is fixed to be $m_a = 200\,\mathrm{\mu eV}$ and the width of the region is given by $\Delta m_a$ for each choice of $T_{\text{obs}}$.
In the left panel, the sensitivity on the dimensionless axion-electron coupling $g_{aee} \equiv m_e / f$ is shown as a function of the axion mass $m_a$, assuming the setup of $M_{\text{target}} =
1\,\mathrm{kg}$, $\tau=2\,\mathrm{\mu s}$, $v_a = 10^{-3}$, and $\sin^2\theta = 0.5$. Gray regions correspond to the parameter space excluded by other searches using the bremsstrahlung from white dwarfs [@Bertolami:2014wua], the brightness of the tip of the red-giant branch in globular clusters [@Viaux:2013lha], and the direct detection of solar axions at the EDELWEISS-II [@Armengaud:2013rta], the XENON100 [@Aprile:2014eoa], and the LUX [@Akerib:2017uem] collaborations. Besides, the yellow region and the black solid line show the prediction for the DFSZ and KSVZ models, respectively. To obtain the DFSZ prediction, we variate $\tan\beta$, which is the ratio between vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets, within $0.28 \lesssim \tan\beta \lesssim 140$ as required by the perturbative unitarity of Yukawa couplings [@Chen:2013kt]. We can see that the axion search using the cavity mode has a better sensitivity than that using magnon excitation for the DFSZ and KSVZ models. At the same time, however, the sensitivity of the magnon detector reaches just above the DFSZ prediction, showing the potential to probe the axion-electron coupling depending on the details of the model. It opens up a possibility to distinguish the KSVZ and DFSZ model by looking at the magnon-induced signal, once the DM signal is discovered at the cavity experiment.
In the right panel, the sensitivity on the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma} \equiv C_{a\gamma} \alpha_e / (2\pi f)$ is shown, assuming the setup of $B_0 = 1\,\mathrm{T}$, $V_{\text{cav}} \mathcal{G}_{\text{cav}} = 100\,\mathrm{cm}^3$, and $\tau_{\text{cav}} = 2\,\mathrm{\mu s}$ in this case. Three shaded regions in $|g_{a\gamma\gamma}| \gtrsim 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ correspond to the regions excluded by existing searches; the helioscope CAST [@Anastassopoulos:2017ftl], the Light-Shining-through-Walls (LSW) experiments such as the OSQAR [@Ballou:2015cka], and the measurement of the vacuum magnetic birefringence at the PVLAS [@DellaValle:2015xxa]. The black dashed (solid) line corresponds to the prediction of the DFSZ (KSVZ) model. We can see that the predicted values of $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ around $m_a\simeq 200\,\mathrm{\mu eV}$ are covered by the cavity detector with the given setup.
Hidden photon conversion into magnon {#sec:hidden}
====================================
Formulation
-----------
Let us consider a model with a massive hidden photon which has a kinetic mixing with hypercharge photon. In such a model, the hidden photon interacts with SM fields via $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L = -\frac{1}{4} H_{\mu\nu}H^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{4} B_{\mu\nu}B^{\mu\nu} + \frac{\epsilon_Y}{2} H_{\mu\nu}B^{\mu\nu}
+\frac{1}{2} m_H^2 H_\mu H^\mu,
\label{L_hiddenphoton}\end{aligned}$$ where $H_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu H_\nu-\partial_\nu H_\mu$ with $H_\mu$ being the hidden photon, $B_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu B_\nu-\partial_\nu
B_\mu$ with $B_\mu$ being the hypercharge photon and $\Phi$ denotes the SM Higgs doublet. The kinetic terms of gauge bosons are diagonalized by the following transformation: $$\begin{aligned}
B_\mu' = B_\mu - \epsilon_Y H_\mu,~~~~~~H_\mu'=\sqrt{1-\epsilon_Y^2} H_\mu,\end{aligned}$$ so that the kinetic term of the hidden photon and hypercharge photon and the hidden photon mass term become $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L = -\frac{1}{4} H'_{\mu\nu}H^{\prime\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{4} B'_{\mu\nu}B^{\prime\mu\nu} + \frac{1}{2} m_H^{\prime 2} H'_\mu
H^{\prime\mu},\end{aligned}$$ where $m_H^{\prime 2} = m_H^2/(1-\epsilon_Y^2)$. After the Higgs obtains a VEV, these gauge bosons, as well as the neutral weak gauge boson $(W^3_\mu)$, are mixed. Denoting the Higgs VEV as $v\simeq 174\,$GeV, the gauge boson mass term is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_{\rm mass} = \frac{m_Z^2}{2}\left( c_W W_\mu^3- s_W B_\mu \right)^2 + \frac{m_H^{\prime 2}}{2} H_\mu^{\prime 2}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $m_Z^2=(g_W^2+g_Y^2)v^2/2$, $c_W=g_W/\sqrt{g_W^2+g_Y^2}$, where $s_W=g_Y/\sqrt{g_W^2+g_Y^2}$, $g_W$ is the weak gauge coupling and $g_Y$ is the hypercharge gauge coupling $(g_Y=e/c_W)$. Besides, the SM fermions (denoted as $\psi$) are neutral for the hidden photon gauge interaction and hence the interactions between the SM fermions and hidden photon originate from $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_{\rm int} =
\overline{\psi}
(Q_Y g_Y \gamma^\mu B_\mu + Q_{T_3}g_W \gamma^\mu W^3_\mu)
\psi,\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_Y$ is the hypercharge of $\psi$ and $Q_{T_3}$ is the charge under $T_3$ rotation of SU(2).
The mass matrix in the $(W_\mu^3,B_\mu', H_\mu')$ basis is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal M^2= m_Z^2\begin{pmatrix}
c_W^2 & -s_Wc_W & s_W c_W \epsilon_Y/\sqrt{1-\epsilon_Y^2} \\
-s_Wc_W & s_W^2 & -s_W^2 \epsilon_Y/\sqrt{1-\epsilon_Y^2} \\
s_W c_W \epsilon_Y/\sqrt{1-\epsilon_Y^2} & -s_W^2\epsilon_Y/\sqrt{1-\epsilon_Y^2} & s_W^2 \epsilon_Y^2/(1-\epsilon_Y^2)+m_H^{\prime 2}/m_Z^2
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Up to the first order in $\epsilon_Y$, It is diagonalized by the following unitary transformation to go to the mass eigenstate $(Z_\mu, A_\mu, H_\mu')$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
W_\mu^3 \\ B_\mu' \\ H_\mu'
\end{pmatrix}
\simeq
\begin{pmatrix}
c_W & s_W & -s_W c_W \epsilon_Y \\
-s_W & c_W & s_W^2 \epsilon_Y \\
s_W \epsilon_Y & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
Z_\mu \\ A_\mu \\ H_\mu''
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ with the mass eigenvalues of $(m_Z^2, 0, m_H^{\prime 2})$.
After integrating out $Z$-boson, whose mass is much larger than the energy scale of our interest, the relevant part of the fermion interaction can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_{\rm int} \supset
- \epsilon \,e Q \,H_\mu'' \,\overline \psi \gamma^\mu \psi,\end{aligned}$$ where $Q = Q_Y + Q_{T_3}$ is the electromagnetic charge and $\epsilon
\equiv \epsilon_Y c_W$. Thus, the hidden photon effectively couples to electromagnetic current with an effective coupling constant $\epsilon
e$. The interaction Hamiltonian with electron in the non-relativistic limit is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm int} = - \frac{\epsilon eQ}{m_e}
\sum_\ell \vec{B}_H (\vec{x}_\ell) \cdot \vec{S}_\ell,\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{B}_H\equiv \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{H}$ is the hidden magnetic field (see Appendix \[sec:heff\]).
We parametrize the hidden photon background as $$\begin{aligned}
H_0(t,\vec x) = &\,
-\vec v_H \cdot \vec{\widetilde H}\cos\left(m_H t - m_H \vec{v}_H \cdot\vec x + \delta \right), \\
\vec H(t,\vec x) = &\, \vec{\widetilde H}\cos\left(m_H t - m_H \vec{v}_H \cdot\vec x + \delta \right),\end{aligned}$$ to satisfy the equation of motion $(\square + m_H^2) \vec H = 0$ and the Lorentz condition $\partial_\mu H^\mu=0$. At the location of the ferromagnetic material, the hidden electric and magnetic fields are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\vec E_H \simeq &\,
\vec{\widetilde H}\,m_H \sin\left(m_H t + \delta \right),\\
\vec B_H \simeq &\,
\vec v_H\times \vec{\widetilde H}\,m_H \sin\left(m_H t + \delta \right).\end{aligned}$$ The DM density is given by $\rho_{\rm DM} = m_H^2 \widetilde H^2/2$.
The hidden photon-magnon interaction Hamiltonian is written as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm int} =
\frac{\epsilon e m_H \widetilde H v_H}{m_e}
\sum_\ell
\vec e_{B} \cdot \vec S_\ell \sin\varphi\,\sin(m_H t + \delta),
\label{Hint_HP_magnon}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi$ denotes the angle between $\vec v_H$ and $\vec H$, and $\vec e_{B}$ is the unit vector of the direction of $\vec B_H$. It causes hidden photon-magnon conversion under the static magnetic field as in the case of the axion. Comparing (\[Hint\_HP\_magnon\]) with the axion-magnon Hamiltonian (\[Hint\_axion\]), we can repeat the same analysis by just reinterpreting $1/f \to \epsilon e\sin\varphi/m_e$. Thus, referring to (\[power\_magnon\]), the power obtained by this process is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dE_{\rm signal}}{dt} = \frac{(\epsilon e)^2 \omega_L sN \rho_{\rm DM} v_H^2 t}{8 m_e^2}\sin^2\theta \sin^2\varphi,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ denotes the angle between $\vec B_H$ and $z$-axis. Note again that $t$ is limited by the hidden photon coherence time or magnon relaxation time (due to spin-lattice or spin-spin interactions), which we denote by $\tau$. The event rate is then $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{dN_{\rm signal}}{dt}\right]_{\rm spin} &= \frac{(\epsilon e)^2 sN \rho_{\rm DM} v_H^2 \tau}{8 m_e^2}\sin^2\theta \sin^2\varphi
\nonumber \\
&\simeq 9.6\times 10^{-5}\,{\rm s^{-1}}\left( \frac{\epsilon}{10^{-14}}\right)^2\left( \frac{M_{\text{target}}}{1\,\text{kg}} \right)
\left( \frac{v_H}{10^{-3}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{\tau}{2\,{\rm \mu s}} \right) \sin^2\theta \sin^2\varphi,\end{aligned}$$ where we use the same setup like that in the previous section to convert $sN$ into $M_{\text{target}}$.
Sensitivity {#sensitivity}
-----------
So far we have discussed the hidden photon interaction with electron spin and its consequences for magnon excitation. However, as in the case of axion DM, the cavity setup itself also works as a hidden photon detector even without magnetic material [@Wagner:2010mi; @Arias:2012az]. The background DM hidden photon generates the cavity mode through the kinetic mixing term and the photon event rate is estimated as [@Arias:2012az] $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{dN_{\rm signal}}{dt}\right]_{\rm mix} &= \epsilon^2 m_H \rho_{\rm DM}V_{\rm cav}\mathcal G_{\rm cav}{\rm min}\left[\tau_H,\tau_{\rm cav}\right] \\
&\simeq 1.4\times 10^{3}\,{\rm s^{-1}}
\left( \frac{\epsilon}{10^{-14}} \right)^2\left( \frac{m_H}{10^{-4}\,{\rm eV}} \right)
\left( \frac{V_{\rm cav} \mathcal G_{\rm cav}}{100\,{\rm cm^3}} \right)\left( \frac{\tau_{\rm cav}}{2\,{\rm \mu s}} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal G_{\rm cav}$ is an $\mathcal O(1)$ form factor which may take a different value from the axion DM case. Comparing it with $\left[dN_{\rm signal} /dt \right]_{\rm spin}$, the signal induced by the mixing is expected to be much larger than the spin-induced ones. Note, however, that if each magnon event could be detected in other ways, i.e, without the use of cavity, the hidden photon interactions with spin and SM photon may be separately confirmed, which works as strong evidence of hidden photon DM. Conversely, if the DM signal is discovered in a cavity without magnetic material and the sizable spin-induced signal is also present, one can rule out the hidden photon DM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![ Sensitivity of the magnon and cavity detectors in the $m_H$ vs. $\epsilon$ plane. We require $\text{SNR}=3$ under $M_{\text{target}} = 1\,\text{kg}$ and $T_{\text{total}} = 10\,\text{years}$. The other parameters are chosen as $v_H = 10^{-3}$, $\tau = 1\,\mathrm{\mu s}$, and $\sin^2 \theta = \sin^2 \varphi = 1/2$. The green and blue regions correspond to the setups with $T_{\text{obs}} = 10^3$ and $10^4\,\text{s}$, respectively, while the dark-meshed and the light regions show results of the magnon and the cavity detectors, respectively. The gray region corresponds to the parameter space already excluded by other experiments. Magenta region shows the expected sensitivity of polar materials, while purple and light green lines show that of Dirac materials.[]{data-label="fig:sensitivity"}](sensitivity.pdf "fig:"){width="0.6\hsize"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Let us estimate the experimental sensitivity as done in Sec. \[sec:sens\_axion\]. In Fig. \[fig:sensitivity\], we show the sensitivity of the magnon detector on the hidden photon with requiring $\text{SNR} = 3$ under $M_{\text{target}} = 1\,\text{kg}$ and $T_{\text{total}} = 10\,\text{years}$. As for the observation time for each frequency range, we again use two different choices of $T_{\text{obs}} = 10^3\,\mathrm{s}$ (green) and $10^4\,\mathrm{s}$ (blue), and the center of the scan is fixed to be $m_H =
200\,\mathrm{\mu eV}$. To derive the sensitivity, we use the parameter choices $v_H = 10^{-3}$, $\tau = 1\,\mathrm{\mu s}$, and $\sin^2 \theta = \sin^2 \varphi = 1/2$. The dark-meshed regions show the sensitivity of the magnon detector, while the light regions that of the cavity detector. Also shown in gray color is the parameter region already excluded [@McDermott:2019lch]; this includes constraints from spectral distortions [@Arias:2012az], modifications to $N_{\text{eff}}$ [@Arias:2012az], and stellar cooling [@An:2013yfc; @Redondo:2013lna; @Vinyoles:2015aba]. The magenta region shows the expected sensitivity using polar materials with phonon excitation by the hidden photon absorption [@Knapen:2017ekk]. The purple (light green) solid line shows the expected sensitivity using Dirac materials with a band gap of $\Delta = 2.5\,\mathrm{meV}$ ($\Delta = 0$) [@Hochberg:2017wce], while the light green dotted line is an extrapolation of the sensitivity assuming that the electron excitation with energy of $\mathcal{O} (10^{-4})\,\mathrm{eV}$ can be detected. From the figure, we can see the strong potential of this setup on the hidden photon search. Even if we use a much shorter value of $T_{\text{obs}}$ than the canonical value adopted in the QUAX proposal, a much stronger bound on the kinetic mixing $\epsilon$ is obtained than the existing ones. For models with kinetic mixing between the photon and hidden photon DM, we can see that the cavity mode can cover a larger parameter region. It is notable that the magnon mode can also reach a parameter region which has not been explored yet. If one can separate the cavity signal and magnon-induced signal, it is in principle possible that the hidden photon DM scenario is confirmed by looking at the ratio of both the signals, although it might be challenging due to the weakness of the magnon signal.
Although we have fixed the central value of $m_H$ for the scan to be $200\,\mathrm{\mu eV}$, the choice of this value is not mandatory. The mass range to which this search method can be applied is estimated as follows. As for the heavier region, the strength of the magnetic field will put an upper bound on the applicability. The hidden photon mass of $200\,\mathrm{\mu eV}$ already corresponds to the magnetic field of $1.7\,\text{T}$, which should be amplified linearly as considering heavier mass. Thus a few times $10^{-4}\,\mathrm{eV}$ is considered to be the largest mass that can practically be probed. On the other hand, for the lighter region, the energy deposited to the detector from the hidden photon becomes comparable to the thermal noise when $m_H \sim 10^{-5}\,\mathrm{eV}$. This lower bound, however, may be loosened by further cooling the detector, though larger cavity may be needed to detect magnon-polariton as a final state particle.
So far, we have seen that the cavity mode has a better sensitivity than the magnon mode if the coupling to the hidden photon is dominated by the kinetic mixing given in Eq. . This conclusion is, however, model dependent. For example, one can consider a model without kinetic mixing at the tree level but the electron has a tiny charge of the hidden U(1): $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L = -\frac{1}{4} H_{\mu\nu}H^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{4} B_{\mu\nu}B^{\mu\nu}
+\frac{1}{2} m_H^2 H_\mu H^\mu + \overline\psi\left[\gamma^\mu\left(i\partial_\mu- e_H H_\mu\right)- m_e\right]\psi,\end{aligned}$$ where we have omitted the electron interaction terms with the SM gauge bosons. The hidden photon-magnon interaction is obtained in the same way by reinterpreting $\epsilon e \to e_H$. In such a case the kinetic mixing arises at the loop level and the relative importance of the magnon signal is enhanced, though it is still subdominant compared with the direct cavity signal. One may also consider a model where the electron has only the magnetic interaction with the hidden photon: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L = -\frac{1}{4} H_{\mu\nu}H^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{4} B_{\mu\nu}B^{\mu\nu}
+\frac{1}{2} m_H^2 H_\mu H^\mu + \frac{m_e}{M^2} \overline\psi\sigma_{\mu\nu} \psi H^{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ with some cutoff scale $M$. In this case, the magnon-induced photon is practically the only possible signal and the strongest constraint on $\epsilon$, which is now reinterpreted as the effective interaction strength $m_e/M^2$, may be obtained from the magnon excitation.
Conclusions and discussion {#sec:conc}
==========================
We have shown that the light boson DM (axion and hidden photon) can be converted into magnon and it can be used as a DM detection method. Such an idea was already given in the QUAX proposal [@Barbieri:2016vwg] for the axion DM detection and we have shown that a similar process happens for the hidden photon DM. A key observation is that the hidden photon has a magnetic interaction with electrons, which induces a spin wave or the magnon in the ferromagnetic/ferrimagnetic insulator. Since the magnon dispersion relation can be adjusted by applying the external magnetic field, one can scan the hidden photon DM mass. Unfortunately, such a spin-induced signal is smaller than the conventional hidden photon to SM conversion in the cavity, but it can be used to distinguish the axion DM (DFSZ or flaxion model) and hidden photon DM since the former predicts relatively large signal from the DM-magnon interaction.
Below we comment on ideas of hidden photon DM detection in the condensed-matter system. Refs. [@Hochberg:2016ajh; @Hochberg:2016sqx] considered superconductor and semiconductor as a target material. The hidden photon is absorbed by electrons in the conducting band and it emits the (acoustic) phonon, hence it is a scattering process $\vec H + e \to P + e$, where $P$ denotes the phonon. Refs. [@Knapen:2017ekk; @Griffin:2018bjn] also considered the hidden photon absorption by polar material, which has gapped optical phonon modes. It may be regarded as a hidden photon conversion process into an optical phonon, followed by the dissipation of the optical phonon. On the other hand, we focused on the hidden photon conversion into magnon in a ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic insulator.
We have only considered resonant conversion into the magnon. It is rather regarded as a magnon-polariton so that the magnon effectively induces a cavity photon mode [@Barbieri:2016vwg]. While the conversion rate is enhanced, one drawback of this idea is that it takes a long time to scan the wide range of DM mass. It is in principle possible that the magnon decays into several quanta, such as two magnons [@Kreisel:2009; @Ruckriegel:2014] or magnon plus phonon [@Streib:2019]. Multi-phonon processes in the context of light DM detection was discussed in Refs. [@Schutz:2016tid; @Knapen:2016cue; @Acanfora:2019con] for superfluid helium target and in Ref. [@Campbell-Deem:2019hdx] for crystal target. In such a case the kinematical constraint is weakened and wide mass range may be covered while the excitation rate is suppressed. We keep a detailed study of this issue as a future work [@Chigusa:2020].
Here we point out that other ideas for axion DM detection may also be used as a hidden photon detector. In Ref. [@Marsh:2018dlj] a novel method to detect axion DM was proposed using the topological antiferromagnet insulator. The axion is assumed to have an interaction with photon through the Chern-Simons term like (\[LTI\_axion\]). In a topological magnetic insulator, the magnon may also have a similar Chern-Simons coupling to the photon [@Li:2010]. Under the applied magnetic field, the background DM axion is converted into the electric field. It is again converted into the magnon under the magnetic field, which induces photon emission due to the boundary effect. By choosing the magnetic field appropriately, the intermediate magnon hits the resonance to enhance the signal. Notably, the same idea also applies to the hidden photon DM. The hidden photon DM is converted to the electric field through the kinetic mixing $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L = \frac{\epsilon}{2} H_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} = -\epsilon(\vec E_H\cdot \vec E- \vec B_H\cdot \vec B).
\label{LTI_hidden}\end{aligned}$$ Given $|\vec E_H| \gg |\vec B_H|$, the hidden photon DM mainly produces electric fields. Then it is converted into the magnon under the magnetic field, as explained above.[^5] Comparing (\[LTI\_axion\]) with (\[LTI\_hidden\]), one obtains a sensitivity on the kinetic mixing parameter $\epsilon$ by replacing the sensitivity on $(m_a,f)$ obtained in Ref. [@Marsh:2018dlj] through the correspondence $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon = C_{a\gamma}\frac{\alpha_e}{2\pi} \frac{B_0}{m_a f}
\simeq 2\times 10^{-17}\,C_{a\gamma}\left( \frac{10^{10}\,{\rm GeV}}{f} \right)\left( \frac{1\,{\rm meV}}{m_a} \right)
\left( \frac{B_0}{1\,{\rm T}} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $B_0$ is the applied magnetic field. Thus it may have a very good sensitivity on the hidden photon DM. We will also come back to this issue in a separate publication.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant (Nos. 17J00813 \[SC\], 16H06490 \[TM\], 18K03608 \[TM\], 18K03609 \[KN\], 15H05888 \[KN\] and 17H06359 \[KN\]).
Effective Hamiltonian of magnon {#sec:heff}
===============================
Here, we derive the magnon couplings to axion and hidden photon, starting from the Lorentz-invariant quantum field theory (QFT). Let us denote the electron field operator in the QFT as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi (x) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3 \sqrt{2p_0}}
\sum_s a_{\vec{p},s} u_{\vec{p},s} e^{-ipx},\end{aligned}$$ where $p_0\equiv\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m_e^2}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
u_{\vec{p},s} =
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{p_0+m} \, \chi_s \\
\sqrt{p_0-m} \, \vec{e}_p \cdot \vec{\sigma} \chi_s
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $\vec{e}_p$ denoting the unit vector pointing to the direction of $\vec{p}$, and $\chi_s=(1,0)^T$ or $(0,1)^T$. (We adopt the Dirac representation of the $\gamma$-matrices.) Besides, the creation and annihilation operators of the electron are denoted as $a_{\vec{p},s}$ and $a^\dagger_{\vec{p},s}$, respectively, which satisfy $\{a_{\vec{p},s}, a^\dagger_{\vec{p}',s'}\} =(2\pi)^3\delta
(\vec{p}-\vec{p}')\delta_{ss'}$. We are interested in the system containing only the electron, so we neglect the positron degrees freedom. Concentrating on non-relativistic degrees of freedom, the spin operator in the QFT is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{S}^{\rm (QFT)} =
\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \sum_{s, s'}
a^\dagger_{\vec{p},s} a_{\vec{p},s'}
\chi_s^\dagger \vec{\sigma} \chi_{s'}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the spin operator given above satisfies the relevant commutation relations.
We expect that the total spin operator in the QFT is matched to that in the Heisenberg model as $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{S}^{\rm (QFT)} \rightarrow \sum_\ell \vec{S}_\ell.\end{aligned}$$ Hereafter, we derive the effective interaction of the magnon using this matching condition as well as assuming the locality of the interaction.
In the model with the hidden photon, the magnon couples to the hidden photon via the kinetic mixing with the hypercharge photon given in Eq. . Because we are interested in the energy scale much lower than the electron mass, we can concentrate on the effective field theory that contains only non-relativistic electron, photon, and hidden photon. In such a case, the only relevant interaction of the hidden photon with the electron is from the mixing of the hidden photon with the ordinary photon, and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} = -\epsilon e Q H_\mu \bar{\psi} \gamma^\mu \psi,\end{aligned}$$ where $Q$ is the charge of the electron (in units of $e$), and $\epsilon \equiv \epsilon_Y c_W$. Then, we can find $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm int} \simeq
\frac{\epsilon eQ}{2m_e} \epsilon_{ijk} \int d^3x
\frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{d^3 p'}{(2\pi)^3} \sum_{s,s'}
a^\dagger_{\vec{p},s} a_{\vec{p}',s'}
(\partial_i H_j) e^{i(p-p')x} \chi^\dagger_s \sigma^k \chi_{s'}
+
\epsilon \int d^3 x H_\mu j^\mu ,
\label{H_int(hiddenph)}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
j^0 \equiv &\,
- e Q
\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{d^3 p'}{(2\pi)^3} \sum_{s}
a^\dagger_{\vec{p},s} a_{\vec{p}',s}
e^{i(p-p')x},
\\
\vec{j} \equiv &\,
- e Q
\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{d^3 p'}{(2\pi)^3} \sum_{s}
\frac{\vec{p}+\vec{p'}}{2m_e}
a^\dagger_{\vec{p},s} a_{\vec{p}',s}
e^{i(p-p')x}.\end{aligned}$$ The first term of the right-hand side gives the coupling of magnon to the hidden photon. Assuming the locality of the interaction, and using the (discrete) translational invariance of the system, we expect that the effective interaction between the spin (i.e., magnon) and the hidden photon contains the following term: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm int} \ni - \frac{\epsilon eQ}{m_e}
\sum_\ell \vec{B}_H (\vec{x}_\ell)\cdot \vec{S}_\ell,\end{aligned}$$ with $\vec{B}_H$ being the hidden magnetic field. The second term of the right-hand side of Eq. is the coupling of the (ordinary) current with the vector potential of the hidden photon. So far, we have concentrated on the coupling between the hidden photon and the electron. The hidden photon coupling to the nucleon can be also derived similarly. The nucleon counterpart of the second term of Eq. may cause the hidden photon-phonon conversion. However, it is not kinematically allowed unless the (optical) phonon energy gap happens to be close to the hidden photon mass. The hidden photon absorption by polar material was considered in Refs. [@Knapen:2017ekk; @Griffin:2018bjn] for the mass range of $10^{-2}$–$10^{-1}$eV. We consider lighter DM mass region around meV, so we neglect such an effect.[^6]
The magnon-axion coupling originates from the axion-electron interaction (see the last term of Eq. ). Using the fact that, in the non-relativistic limit, $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{S}^{\rm (QFT)} \simeq
\frac{1}{2}
\int d^3 x \bar{\psi} \vec{\gamma} \gamma_5 \psi,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the coupling of an axion to a magnon as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm int} = \frac{1}{f} \sum_\ell \vec{\nabla} a (x_\ell) \cdot \vec{S}_\ell.\end{aligned}$$
Classical calculation of conversion rate {#sec:classical}
========================================
Let us reproduce the same result with classical calculation [@Barbieri:2016vwg]. We treat the magnetization $\vec M$ of the material as a classical magnetic moment and study its motion under the classical axion background. Neglecting damping effects due to radiation, spin-spin or spin-lattice interactions, the classical equation of motion is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\vec M} =\frac{e}{m_e} \vec M \times \vec B,~~~~~~\vec B = B_z^0 \vec e_z + \vec B_a.\end{aligned}$$ We find $$\begin{aligned}
&\ddot M_x + \omega_L^2 M_x = \frac{e M_z}{m_e} \left( \omega_L B_x^a- \dot B_a^y \right),\\
&\ddot M_y + \omega_L^2 M_y = \frac{e M_z}{m_e} \left( \omega_L B_y^a+ \dot B_a^x \right).\end{aligned}$$ We can rewrite these equations by using $M_{\pm}\equiv M_x\pm i M_y$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\ddot M_+ + \omega_L^2 M_+= i \frac{esN m_a^2 a_0 v^+}{m_e}e^{-i(m_at + \delta)}, \\
&\ddot M_- + \omega_L^2 M_-= -i \frac{esN m_a^2 a_0 v^-}{m_e}e^{i(m_at + \delta)}.\end{aligned}$$ The solution is $$\begin{aligned}
M_+(t) = \frac{i\widetilde V e^{-i(m_at+\delta)}}{m_a^2-\omega_L^2}\left[
-1 + e^{i m_at}\left(\cos(\omega_L t)-i \frac{m_a}{\omega_L}\sin(\omega_L t)\right)
\right] + \frac{i\widetilde V \sin(\omega_Lt)\sin\delta}{m_a \omega_L},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde V \equiv \frac{esN m_a^2 a_0 v_a^+}{m_e f}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the limit $\omega_L = m_a$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
M_+(t) \simeq \frac{i\widetilde V t e^{-i(m_at+\delta)}}{2m_a},~~~~~~M_-(t) \simeq -\frac{i\widetilde V^* t e^{i(m_at+\delta)}}{2m_a},\end{aligned}$$ for $m_a t \gg 1$. The power obtained by the axion wind is then estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dE_{M}}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt}(\vec B\cdot \vec M)
\simeq \frac{sN \rho_{\rm DM} m_a (v_a^{x2}+v_a^{y2})t}{f^2} \sin^2(m_at+\delta).\end{aligned}$$ After averaging $\sin^2(m_at+\delta)=1/2$, it is consistent with (\[power\_magnon\]).
[99]{}
J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**60**]{}, 405 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.0329 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, JCAP [**1206**]{}, 013 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.5902 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B [**120**]{}, 127 (1983). L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B [**120**]{}, 133 (1983). M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B [**120**]{}, 137 (1983). J. E. Kim, Phys. Rept. [**150**]{}, 1 (1987). M. Kawasaki and K. Nakayama, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**63**]{}, 69 (2013) \[arXiv:1301.1123 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP [**0606**]{}, 051 (2006) \[hep-th/0605206\]. A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 123530 (2010) \[arXiv:0905.4720 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell and A. Ringwald, JHEP [**1210**]{}, 146 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.0819 \[hep-th\]\]. P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{}, 1415 (1983) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 695 (1984)\]. R. Bradley, J. Clarke, D. Kinion, L. J. Rosenberg, K. van Bibber, S. Matsuki, M. Muck and P. Sikivie, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 777 (2003). S. J. Asztalos [*et al.*]{} \[ADMX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 041301 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.5914 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. L. Zhong [*et al.*]{} \[HAYSTAC Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 9, 092001 (2018) \[arXiv:1803.03690 \[hep-ex\]\]. B. T. McAllister, G. Flower, E. N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, J. Bourhill and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Dark Univ. [**18**]{}, 67 (2017) \[arXiv:1706.00209 \[physics.ins-det\]\]. D. Alesini, D. Babusci, D. Di Gioacchino, C. Gatti, G. Lamanna and C. Ligi, arXiv:1707.06010 \[physics.ins-det\]. Y. K. Semertzidis [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1910.11591 \[physics.ins-det\].
D. Horns, J. Jaeckel, A. Lindner, A. Lobanov, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, JCAP [**1304**]{}, 016 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.2970 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Jaeckel and J. Redondo, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, no. 11, 115002 (2013) \[arXiv:1308.1103 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Caldwell [*et al.*]{} \[MADMAX Working Group\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**118**]{}, no. 9, 091801 (2017) \[arXiv:1611.05865 \[physics.ins-det\]\]. Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi and J. Thaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, no. 14, 141801 (2016) \[arXiv:1602.01086 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. J. E. Marsh, K. C. Fong, E. W. Lentz, L. Smejkal and M. N. Ali, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**123**]{}, no. 12, 121601 (2019) \[arXiv:1807.08810 \[hep-ph\]\]. I. Obata, T. Fujita and Y. Michimura, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**121**]{}, no. 16, 161301 (2018) \[arXiv:1805.11753 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. K. Nagano, T. Fujita, Y. Michimura and I. Obata, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**123**]{}, no. 11, 111301 (2019) \[arXiv:1903.02017 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Lawson, A. J. Millar, M. Pancaldi, E. Vitagliano and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**123**]{} (2019) no.14, 141802 \[arXiv:1904.11872 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Zarei, S. Shakeri, M. Abdi, D. J. E. Marsh and S. Matarrese, arXiv:1910.09973 \[hep-ph\]. D. Budker, P. W. Graham, M. Ledbetter, S. Rajendran and A. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. X [**4**]{}, no. 2, 021030 (2014) \[arXiv:1306.6089 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Barbieri, M. Cerdonio, G. Fiorentini and S. Vitale, Phys. Lett. B [**226**]{}, 357 (1989). R. Barbieri [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Dark Univ. [**15**]{}, 135 (2017) \[arXiv:1606.02201 \[hep-ph\]\]. N. Crescini [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:2001.08940 \[hep-ex\].
M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, JHEP [**1107**]{}, 114 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.3705 \[hep-th\]\]. P. Agrawal, N. Kitajima, M. Reece, T. Sekiguchi and F. Takahashi, arXiv:1810.07188 \[hep-ph\]. R. T. Co, A. Pierce, Z. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D [**99**]{}, no. 7, 075002 (2019) \[arXiv:1810.07196 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Bastero-Gil, J. Santiago, L. Ubaldi and R. Vega-Morales, JCAP [**1904**]{}, no. 04, 015 (2019) \[arXiv:1810.07208 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. A. Dror, K. Harigaya and V. Narayan, Phys. Rev. D [**99**]{}, no. 3, 035036 (2019) \[arXiv:1810.07195 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. J. Long and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**99**]{}, no. 6, 063529 (2019) \[arXiv:1901.03312 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. W. Graham, J. Mardon and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 10, 103520 (2016) \[arXiv:1504.02102 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. Ema, K. Nakayama and Y. Tang, JHEP [**1907**]{}, 060 (2019) \[arXiv:1903.10973 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Alonso-Alvarez, T. Hugle and J. Jaeckel, arXiv:1905.09836 \[hep-ph\]. K. Nakayama, JCAP [**1910**]{}, no. 10, 019 (2019) \[arXiv:1907.06243 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Wagner [*et al.*]{} \[ADMX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 171801 (2010) \[arXiv:1007.3766 \[hep-ex\]\]. S. R. Parker, J. G. Hartnett, R. G. Povey and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 112004 (2013) \[arXiv:1410.5244 \[hep-ex\]\]. S. Chaudhuri, P. W. Graham, K. Irwin, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 7, 075012 (2015) \[arXiv:1411.7382 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. Hochberg, T. Lin and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 1, 015019 (2016) \[arXiv:1604.06800 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. Hochberg, T. Lin and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 2, 023013 (2017) \[arXiv:1608.01994 \[hep-ph\]\]. I. M. Bloch, R. Essig, K. Tobioka, T. Volansky and T. T. Yu, JHEP [**1706**]{}, 087 (2017) \[arXiv:1608.02123 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Knapen, T. Lin, M. Pyle and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Lett. B [**785**]{}, 386 (2018) \[arXiv:1712.06598 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. Hochberg [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{} (2018) no.1, 015004 \[arXiv:1708.08929 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Griffin, S. Knapen, T. Lin and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}, no. 11, 115034 (2018) \[arXiv:1807.10291 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. X [**8**]{}, no. 4, 041001 (2018) \[arXiv:1709.05354 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Baryakhtar, J. Huang and R. Lasenby, Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}, no. 3, 035006 (2018) \[arXiv:1803.11455 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Herring and C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. 81, 869 (1951).
A. G. Gurevich, G. A. Melkov, “Magnetization Oscillation and Waves”, CRC Press (1996).
V. Cherepanov, I. Kolokolov and V. L’vov, Physics Reports [**229**]{}, 81 (1993).
T. Trickle, Z. Zhang and K. M. Zurek, arXiv:1905.13744 \[hep-ph\]. G. Flower, J. Bourhill, M. Goryachev and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Dark Univ. [**25**]{}, 100306 (2019) \[arXiv:1811.09348 \[physics.ins-det\]\]. A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**31**]{}, 260 (1980) \[Yad. Fiz. [**31**]{}, 497 (1980)\]. M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. [**104B**]{}, 199 (1981). Y. Ema, K. Hamaguchi, T. Moroi and K. Nakayama, JHEP [**1701**]{}, 096 (2017) \[arXiv:1612.05492 \[hep-ph\]\]. L. Calibbi, F. Goertz, D. Redigolo, R. Ziegler and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 9, 095009 (2017) \[arXiv:1612.08040 \[hep-ph\]\]. X. Zhang, C. Zou, L. Jiang and H. X. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 156401 (2014).
Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami and Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 083603 (2014) \[arXiv:1405.1913\].
Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki and K. Usami, Comp. Rend. Phys. 17, 729 (2016) \[arXiv:1508.05290\].
J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**43**]{}, 103 (1979). M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B [**166**]{}, 493 (1980).
M. M. Miller Bertolami, B. E. Melendez, L. G. Althaus and J. Isern, JCAP [**1410**]{} (2014) 069 \[arXiv:1406.7712 \[hep-ph\]\]. N. Viaux, M. Catelan, P. B. Stetson, G. Raffelt, J. Redondo, A. A. R. Valcarce and A. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{} (2013) 231301 \[arXiv:1311.1669 \[astro-ph.SR\]\]. E. Armengaud [*et al.*]{}, JCAP [**1311**]{} (2013) 067 \[arXiv:1307.1488 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. E. Aprile [*et al.*]{} \[XENON100 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{} (2014) no.6, 062009 Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{} (2017) no.2, 029904\] \[arXiv:1404.1455 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. D. S. Akerib [*et al.*]{} \[LUX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**118**]{} (2017) no.26, 261301 \[arXiv:1704.02297 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. C. Y. Chen and S. Dawson, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 055016 \[arXiv:1301.0309 \[hep-ph\]\]. V. Anastassopoulos [*et al.*]{} \[CAST Collaboration\], Nature Phys. [**13**]{} (2017) 584 \[arXiv:1705.02290 \[hep-ex\]\]. R. Ballou [*et al.*]{} \[OSQAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{} (2015) no.9, 092002 \[arXiv:1506.08082 \[hep-ex\]\]. F. Della Valle, A. Ejlli, U. Gastaldi, G. Messineo, E. Milotti, R. Pengo, G. Ruoso and G. Zavattini, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{} (2016) no.1, 24 \[arXiv:1510.08052 \[physics.optics\]\].
S. D. McDermott and S. J. Witte, arXiv:1911.05086 \[hep-ph\]. H. An, M. Pospelov and J. Pradler, Phys. Lett. B [**725**]{} (2013) 190 \[arXiv:1302.3884 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Redondo and G. Raffelt, JCAP [**1308**]{} (2013) 034 \[arXiv:1305.2920 \[hep-ph\]\]. N. Vinyoles, A. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Redondo and J. Isern, JCAP [**1510**]{} (2015) 015 \[arXiv:1501.01639 \[astro-ph.SR\]\]. A. Kreisel, F. Sauli, L. Bartosch and P. Kopietz, Eur. Phys. J. B [**71**]{}, 59 (2009) \[arXiv:0903.2847\].
A. Ruckriegel, P. Kopietz, D. A. Bozhko, A. A. Serga and B. Hillebrands, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 184413 (2014) \[arXiv:1402.6575\].
S. Streib, N. Vidal-Silva, K. Shen and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B [**99**]{}, 184442 (2019) \[arXiv:1906.01042\].
K. Schutz and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, no. 12, 121302 (2016) \[arXiv:1604.08206 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Knapen, T. Lin and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 5, 056019 (2017) \[arXiv:1611.06228 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Acanfora, A. Esposito and A. D. Polosa, Eur. Phys. J. C [**79**]{}, no. 7, 549 (2019) \[arXiv:1902.02361 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. Campbell-Deem, P. Cox, S. Knapen, T. Lin and T. Melia, arXiv:1911.03482 \[hep-ph\]. S. Chigusa, T. Moroi and K.Nakayama, in preparation.
R. Li, J. Wang, X. L. Qi, S. C. Zhang, Nature Phys. 6, 284 (2010) \[arXiv:0908.1537\].
[^1]: Note that the unique contribution to the calculation throughout this paper comes from $\vec G = 0$ since the sum over the magnon momentum covers only the first Brillouin zone.
[^2]: Ref. [@Trickle:2019ovy] considered DM scattering with an electron as an excitation process of magnon. It may be interpreted as the magnon emission by DM. On the other hand, we consider DM absorption by the electron, which may be regarded as the DM conversion into a magnon. In the latter case, it is essential to apply the magnetic field to control the gap of the magnon dispersion relation.
[^3]: In the QUAX setup, the cavity photon mode is chosen such that the cavity frequency $\omega_{\rm cav}$ coincides with $\omega_L$. In this case, the hybridization (or the mixing) between cavity and Kittel mode takes place, and the magnon should be regarded rather as a polariton (or “magnon-polariton”) [@Zhang:2014; @Tabuchi:2014; @Tabuchi:2015].
[^4]: Generally speaking, $\tau_{\rm cav}$ can be different from $\tau_m$ since the latter includes the effect of spin relaxation time. For simplicity, however, we take $\tau_m \simeq \tau_{\rm cav}$ as assumed in Ref. [@Barbieri:2016vwg].
[^5]: In the mass eigenstate basis $H_\mu''$, one can interpret the same process as a result of direct interaction of the magnon with the photon and hidden photon through the Chern-Simons term.
[^6]: Absorption of hidden photon DM as light as meV by the Dirac material was considered in Ref. [@Hochberg:2017wce].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We construct a “Quantum Rosetta Stone”, that is, a correspondence between quantum states and the observable input-output correlations they are compatible with. Formally, for any family of states, one needs to provide: i) to the experimenter, [*all*]{} the measurements that generate extremal input-output correlations, and ii) to the theoretician, the [*full*]{} characterization of such correlations. Comparing the correlations observed in i) with those predicted by ii) corresponds to device-independently testing the states. We solve the problem in [*closed-form*]{} for the case of qubit states and tests, and as applications we specify our results to the case of any pair of pure states and to the case of pure states uniformly distributed on the Bloch equatorial plane.'
author:
- Michele
title: 'Device-Independent Tests of Quantum States'
---
Quantum systems are most generally described by quantum states, abstract vectors in a mathematical space with the quirky property of not being perfectly distinguishable – a property called [*superposition*]{} of pure states. However, all an observer can ultimately observe are just correlations among perfectly distinguishable events in usual space and time. How can the language of the quantum realm be translated into something intelligible by an observer? Here, we construct a “Quantum Rosetta Stone”, that unlocks the quantum language by providing a correspondence between quantum states and observable correlations among space-time events.
The problem is most generally framed as a game involving an experimenter, claiming to be able to prepare $m$ quantum states $\{ \rho_x \}$ and to measure them, and a skeptical theoretician who is willing to base their conclusion on observed correlations only. At each run of the experiment, first the experimenter prepares state $\rho_x$ upon input of $x$, and then measures measurement $\{ \pi_{y|w} \}$ upon input of $w$. Finally, the theoretician collects outcome $y$, thus reconstructing correlation $\{ p_{y|x,w} \}$. The setup is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{y|x, w} := {\operatorname{Tr}}[\rho_x \pi_{y|w} ] \quad = \quad
\begin{aligned}
\Qcircuit @C=8pt @R=4pt {
\push{x \;} & \prepareC{\rho_x} \cw & \qw & \multimeasureD{1}{\pi_{y|w}} & \cw & \push{\; y} \\
& & \push{w \;} & \cghost{\pi_{y|w}}
}
\end{aligned} \;.\end{aligned}$$
Let us denote with $S_n( \rho_x )$ the set of correlations generated by states $\{ \rho_x \}$ for any $n$-outcomes measurement $\{ \pi_y \}$, that is $$\begin{aligned}
S_n(\rho_x) := \left\{ p \; \Big| \; p_{y|x} = {\operatorname{Tr}}[\rho_x
\pi_y] \right\}\end{aligned}$$ (we take $y \in [0, n-2]$ since for $y = n-1$ one simply has $p_{n-1|x} = 1 - \sum_{y=0}^{n-2} p_{y|x}$). On the theoretician’s side, the problem amounts to fully characterize $S_n(\rho_x)$, for any $\{ \rho_x \}$, in order to check if $\{ p_{y|x,w} \} \in S_n(\rho)$, for any $w$. On the experimenter’s side, the problem amounts to choosing measurements $\{ \pi_{y|w} \}$ generating all the extremal correlations of $S_n(\rho_x)$ (of course, the validity of the conclusion itself will be independent of $\{ \pi_{y|w}
\}$). Therefore, $w$ represents a direction to be probed in the space of correlations in order to reconstruct $S_n(\rho_x)$. Since, as shown later, $S_n(\rho_x)$ is strictly convex, $w$ is a continuous parameter.
Here, we provide a full closed-form solution of this problem for qubit states $\{ \rho_x \}$ and tests, that is measurements with $n = 2$ outcomes. In particular, for any $\{ \rho_x \}$, we explicitly derive: i) the measurements $\{ \pi_{y|w} \}$ generating a correlation at the boundary of $S_2(\rho_x)$ for [*any arbitrarily given direction*]{} $w$; and ii) the [*full closed-form characterization*]{} of $S_2(\rho_x)$. It turns out that $S_2(\rho_x)$ is given by the convex hull of the two isolated points ${{0}}$ and ${{u}}$ (vectors with null and unit entries, respectively) and the $4$-dimensional hyper-ellipsoid given by the system: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:preview}
\begin{cases}
(\openone - Q^{-1}Q) ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) = 0,\\
({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T Q^{-1} ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})
\le 1,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{x_0,x_1} = \frac12 {\operatorname{Tr}}[\rho_{x_0} \rho_{x_1}] -
\frac14$. This situation is represented in Fig. \[fig:ellipse\].
[fig01]{} (-1, -1) [${{0}}$]{} (95, -1) [$p_0$]{} (-4, 97) [$p_1$]{} (90, -1) [$1$]{} (-1, 90) [$1$]{} (91, 93) [${{u}}$]{} (48, 50) [$\frac12 {{u}}$]{} (20, 63) [${{w}}_0$]{} (21, 73) [${{w}}_1$]{} (27, 80) [${{w}}_2$]{}
As applications, we explicitly discuss the case where $m =
2$ and $\{ \rho_x \}$ are pure states, and the case where $\{ \rho_x \}$ are distributed on the $m$-vertices of a regular polygon on the Bloch equatorial plane.
Our results share analogies with previous works on device-independent testing of quantum dimension [@GBHA10; @HGMBAT12; @ABCB12; @DPGA12] and entropy [@CBB15]. Notice however that therein the aim is to test a specific scalar property of states $\{ \rho_x
\}$ rather then their most general operatorial form, and the set of correlations is probed along an arbitrarily chosen direction rather than being fully reconstructed. Moreover, the present author has recently addressed the very related problems of device-independent tests of quantum channels [@DBB16] and measurements [@DBBV16].
[*Experimental observations.*]{} — We will make use of standard definitions and results in Quantum Information Theory [@NC00]. Any quantum state is represented by a density matrix $\rho$, that is a unit-trace positive semi-definite operator. Any quantum measurement is represented by a positive-operator valued measure (POVM), that is a collection $\{ \pi_y \}$ of positive semi-definite operators such that $\sum_y \pi_y = \openone$. The conditional probability $p_{y|x}$ of outcome $y$ given input state $\rho_x$ is given by the Born rule, that is $p_{y|x} =
{\operatorname{Tr}}[\rho_x \pi_y]$.
The experimenter claims to be able to prepare states $\{
\rho_x \}$ and to measure them. Their task is to support such claims by generating all the correlations at the boundary of $S_n(\rho_x)$. To this aim, for any direction $w$ in the space of correlations, the experimenter must measure the POVM $\{ \pi_{y|w} \}$ that generates the correlation $p_{y|x} := {\operatorname{Tr}}[\rho_x \pi_{y|w}]$ that maximizes $p^T w$. In this section, we derive any such a POVM for any given $\{ \rho_x \}$ and $w$.
Formally, $\{ \pi_{y|w} \}$ is given by the solution of the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:threshold0}
W(\rho_x, w) := \max_{\substack{\{ \pi_y \ge 0\} \\ \sum_y
\pi_y = \openone}} \sum_{x = 0}^{m-1} \sum_{y=0}^{n-2}
w_{x,y} {\operatorname{Tr}}[\rho_x \pi_y].\end{aligned}$$
In the following, we make the restriction $n = 2$, hence $p$ and $w$ are column vectors with $m$ entries. Therefore, the maximum in Eq. is attained when $\pi_0$ is the projector on ${\operatorname{Pos}}(\sum_x {{w}}_x \rho_x)$, where ${\operatorname{Pos}}(\cdot)$ denotes the positive part of operator $(\cdot)$, and in this case one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:threshold1}
W(\rho_x, w) = {\operatorname{Tr}}\left[ {\operatorname{Pos}}\left(\sum_x w_x \rho_x \right)
\right].\end{aligned}$$
Hence, our first result provides a closed-form characterization of the POVM $\{ \pi_{y|w} \}$ achieving the correlation $p$ at the boundary of $S_2(\rho_x)$ that maximizes $p^T w$, for any given family $\{ \rho_x\}$ of states and direction $w$.
\[prop:povms\] For any family $\{ \rho_x \}$ of states and direction $w$ in the space of correlations, the POVM $\{ \pi_{y|w} \}$ generating the correlation $p_{y|x} := {\operatorname{Tr}}[\rho_x
\pi_{y|w}]$ on the boundary of $S_2(\rho_x)$ that maximizes $p^T w$ is such that $\pi_{0,w}$ is the projector on ${\operatorname{Pos}}\left( \sum_x w_x \rho_x \right)$ and $\pi_{1|w} = \openone - \pi_{0|w}$.
Proposition \[prop:povms\] restricts the set of POVMs $\{
\pi_{y|w}\}$ that need to be measured. Indeed, whenever $\{
\pi_{y|w}\}$ is such that ${\operatorname{rank}}\pi_0 = 0$ or ${\operatorname{rank}}\pi_1 =
0$, correlation $p$ is trivial (i.e. $p = 0$ or $p = u$, respectively), thus direction $w$ does not need to be probed.
[*Theoretical predictions.*]{} — The theoretician does not believe any of the claims made by the experimenter about the experimental setup. Their task is to test such claims by comparing the observed correlations with $S_2(\rho_x)$. To this aim, in this section we provide a full closed-form characterization of $S_2(\rho_x)$ under the restriction that $\{ \rho_x \}$ are qubit states.
The set $S_2(\rho_x)$ is recovered by further optimizing $W(\rho_x, {{w}})$, as given by Eq. , over any direction ${{w}}$, that is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:program0}
S_2(\rho_x) =\left \{ p \; \Big| \; {{p}} = \max_w
({{p}}^T {{w}} - W(\rho_x, {{w}})) \le 0) \right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Upon fixing a computational basis, $\{ \rho_x \}$ can be decomposed in terms of Pauli matrices $\{ \sigma_k \}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_x = \frac12 \openone + \sum_{k=1}^3 S_{x,k} \sigma_k,\end{aligned}$$ where $S_{x,k} := \frac12 {\operatorname{Tr}}[\rho_x \sigma_k]$. Of course, our result will be independent of the choice of computational basis.
It is then a simple computation to find that $$\begin{aligned}
W(\rho_x, {{w}}) = \max \left(0, \; {\left|\!\left|{{{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_1, \;
\frac12 {\left|\!\left|{{{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_1 + {\left|\!\left|{S^T{{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_2 \right),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\left|\!\left|{\cdot}\right|\!\right|}_p$ denotes the $p$-norm of vector $(\cdot)$. The maximum is achieved by ${{0}}$ and ${\left|\!\left|{{{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_1$ if $\{ \pi_{y|w} \}$ is trivial ($\pi_{0|w} =
0$ and $\pi_{0|w} = \openone$, respectively), and by $\frac12 {\left|\!\left|{{{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_1 + {\left|\!\left|{S^T{{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_2^2$ if $\{ \pi_{y|w}
\}$ is rank-one projective. If $\{ \pi_{y|x} \}$ is trivial, the optimization problem in Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
\max_{{{w}}} {{p}}^T {{w}} \le 0, & \quad \textrm{if } \pi_0 = 0,\\
\max_{{{w}}} ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T {{w}} \le 0, &
\quad \textrm{if } \pi_0 = \openone
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ which, as expected, are verified if and only if ${{p}} =
{{0}}$ and ${{p}} = {{u}}$, respectively.
If however $\{ \pi_{y|w} \}$ is rank-one projective, the optimization problem in Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:program1}
\max_{{{w}}} \left[ ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T {{w}} -
{\left|\!\left|{S^T {{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_2 \right] \le 0.\end{aligned}$$ This optimization problem is formally equal to that in Eq. (5) of Ref. [@DBBV16], where the problem of device-independent tests of quantum measurements was addressed. Notice however that the operational interpretation and, accordingly, the mathematical representation of the symbols are different. For example, in Ref. [@DBBV16] $p$ represents the probability distribution of the outcomes of a POVM, and thus $\sum_y p_y
= 1$, while here $p$ represents the vector of probabilities of outcome $\pi_0$ given states $\rho_x$, and thus there is no linear constraint on the sum of its elements. Analogous differences hold for $u$ ($t$ in Ref. [@DBBV16]) and $S$. The consequences of these differences on the solution of Eq. will be discussed at the end of this section.
Since Eq. is left invariant by the transformation $w \to w = |({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T
{{w}}|^{-1} w$ (we recall that $w$ only represents a direction in the space of correlations), without loss of generality one can take $({{p}}-\frac12 {{u}})^T {{w}} = 0,
\pm 1$. When $({{p}}-\frac12 {{u}})^T {{w}} = 0, - 1$, the inequality in Eq. is of course satisfied, thus let $({{p}}-\frac12 {{u}})^T {{w}} = 1$. Equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:program2}
\max_{\substack{{{w}} \\ ({{p}}-\frac12 {{u}})^T {{w}} =
1}} {\left|\!\left|{S^T {{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_2^2 \ge 1,\end{aligned}$$ that is, a linearly-constrained quadratic-programming problem. It is known [@BV04] that such a problem is solved by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:solution}
\begin{cases}
Q {{w}} = - \lambda ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}),\\
({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T {{w}} = 1
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q := S S^T$ and $\lambda$ is a Lagrange multiplier. Upon denoting with $(\cdot)^{-1}$ the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse [@AG03] of matrix $(\cdot)$, it is known [@AG03] that the system in Eq. is solved by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
{{w}} = - \lambda Q^{-1} ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) + (\openone - Q^{-1}Q) {{v}},\\
-\lambda ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T Q^{-1} ({{p}} -
\frac12 {{u}}) + ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T (\openone -
Q^{-1}Q) {{v}} = 1.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Notice that the facts that $(\openone - Q^{-1}Q)$ is a projector and that $Q^{-1} \ge 0$ imply the following system $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T (\openone - Q^{-1}Q) ({{p}} -
\frac12 {{u}}) \ge
0,\\
({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T Q^{-1} ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})
\ge 0.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Let us distinguish four cases.
First, consider the case $({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T
(\openone - Q^{-1}Q) ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) > 0$ and $({{p}} -
\frac12 {{u}})^T Q^{-1} ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) > 0$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
v = \frac{(\openone - Q^{-1}Q) \left( {{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}
\right) }{ \left( {{p}} - \frac12 {{u}} \right)^T
(\openone - Q^{-1}Q) \left( {{p}} - \frac12 {{u}} \right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\lambda = 0$, ${{w}} = {{v}}$ and thus ${\left|\!\left|{S^T
{{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_2^2 = 0$.
Second, consider the case $({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T
(\openone - Q^{-1}Q) ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) > 0$ and $({{p}} -
\frac12 {{u}})^T Q^{-1} ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) = 0$. Let ${{v}}$ be as before. Then $\lambda$ is undetermined, ${{w}} = {{v}}$ and thus ${\left|\!\left|{S^T {{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_2^2 = 0$.
Third, consider the case $({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T
(\openone - Q^{-1}Q) ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) = 0$ and $({{p}} -
\frac12 {{u}})^T Q^{-1} ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) > 0$. Let ${{v}} = {{0}}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda = \left[ \left( {{p}} - \frac12 {{u}} \right)^T
Q^{-1} \left( {{p}} - \frac12 {{u}} \right) \right]^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ ${{w}} = \lambda Q^{-1} ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})$, and thus ${\left|\!\left|{S^T {{w}}}\right|\!\right|}_2^2 = \lambda$.
Fourth, consider the case $({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T
(\openone - Q^{-1}Q) ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) = 0$ and $({{p}} -
\frac12 {{u}})^T Q^{-1} ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) = 0$. The latter equality implies $Q^{-1}Q ( {{p}} - \frac12) = 0$, which together with the former inequality implies ${{p}} = \frac12
{{u}}$.
Hence, the solution of the optimization problem in Eq. is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ellipse}
\begin{cases}
(\openone - Q^{-1}Q) ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}}) = 0,\\
({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})^T Q^{-1} ({{p}} - \frac12 {{u}})
\le 1.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by explicit computation it immediately follows that $Q$ is the real symmetric matrix given by $Q_{x_0,x_1} =
\frac12 {\operatorname{Tr}}[\rho_{x_0} \rho_{x_1}] - \frac14$, thus as expected the system in Eq. does not depend on the choice of computational basis.
Then, our second main result provides a full closed-form characterization of the set $S_2(\rho_x)$ of correlations compatible with any arbitrary given qubit family $\{
\rho_x\}$ of states.
\[prop:characterization\] The set $S_2(\rho_x)$ of correlations generated by a given family $\{ \rho_x \}$ of qubit states and any test $\{
\pi_y \}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
S_2(\rho_x) = {\operatorname{conv}}\left\{ {{0}}, {{u}}, \textrm{
Eq.~\eqref{eq:ellipse}} \right\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{x_0,x_1} = \frac12 {\operatorname{Tr}}[\rho_{x_0} \rho_{x_1}] -
\frac14$.
Let us provide a geometrical interpretation of Proposition \[prop:characterization\]. The system of equalities in Eq. represents ${\operatorname{rank}}(\openone - Q^{-1}Q)$ linear constraints, while the inequality represents an $m$-dimensional cylinder with $({\operatorname{rank}}Q)$-dimensional hyper-ellipsoidal section. Thus, Eq. represents a $({\operatorname{rank}}Q)$-dimensional hyper-ellipsoid embedded in an $m$-dimensional space. By denoting with $l$ the maximum number of linearly independent states in $\{ \rho_x \}$, one has that ${\operatorname{rank}}Q = l - 1$ if $\openone \in {\operatorname{span}}(\rho_x)$, and ${\operatorname{rank}}Q = l$ otherwise.
Notice as a comparison that, while in this case ${\operatorname{rank}}Q$ is between $1$ and $4$, in the case of the device-independent tests of quantum measurements [@DBBV16] ${\operatorname{rank}}Q$ is between $1$ and $3$, due to the constraint on the sum of POVM elements. Furthermore, while in this case $S_2(\rho_x)$ includes the two isolated correlations ${{0}}$ and ${{u}}$, no isolated correlations are included in the case of device-independent tests of quantum measurements.
[*Comparison.*]{} — Finally, we discuss the comparison of the set of correlations observed by the experimenter according to Proposition \[prop:povms\] and the set $S_2(\rho_x)$ predicted by the theoretician according to Proposition \[prop:characterization\]. Notice first that the inclusion relation $S_2(\rho_x) \supseteq S_2(\rho'_x)$ induces a partial ordering among families of quantum states $\{ \rho_x \}$ and $\{ \rho'_x \}$, that is $\{ \rho_x \}
\succeq \{ \rho'_x \} \Leftrightarrow S_2(\rho_x) \supseteq
S_2(\rho'_x)$. Of course, if the experimenter produces [ *some*]{} correlation not in $S_2(\rho_x)$, the theoretician must conclude that the prepared states $\{ \rho'_x \}$ are such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:weaktest}
\{ \rho'_x \} \not\preceq \{ \rho_x\}.\end{aligned}$$
However, if the experimenter produces [*all*]{} the extremal correlations of $S_2(\rho_x)$ (as per Proposition \[prop:povms\]), the theoretician must conclude that the prepared states $\{ \rho'_x \}$ are such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:strongtest}
\{ \rho'_x \} \succeq \{ \rho_x \}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the ordering $\succeq$ is partial, Eq. is of course strictly stronger than Eq. , that is Eq. implies Eq. but the vice-versa is false. Informally, Eq. allows the theoretician to lower bound the “ability” to create input-output correlations of the states prepared by the experimenter.
An even stronger result can be achieved when $m = 2$. In this case Proposition \[prop:characterization\] provides for the first time the full closed-form quantum relative Lorenz curve for any pair $\{ \rho_0, \rho_1 \}$ of qubit state, as illustrated by Fig. \[fig:ellipse\]. Quantum relative Lorenz curves have been recently introduced by Buscemi and Gour [@BG17] in the context of quantum relative majorization. As a consequence of a result therein, in turn based on a previous result by Alberti and Uhlmann [@AU80], under the additional assumption that the prepared states $\{ \rho'_0, \rho'_1 \}$ are qubit states, Eq. implies the existence of a quantum channel $\mathcal{C}$, that is a completely-positive trace-preserving linear map, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:alberti}
\mathcal{C}(\rho'_x) = \rho_x, \qquad x = 1,2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Eq. means that the states $\{
\rho'_x \}$ prepared by the experimenter are less noisy than the claimed states $\{ \rho_x \}$. However, it is known [@Mat14] that this implication fails if the assumption that the prepared states $\{ \rho'_x\}$ are qubit states is relaxed.
[*Applications.*]{} — As an application of the case $m =
2$, we consider any pair of pure states $\rho_x =
\ket{\psi_x} \! \! \bra{\psi_x}$, that can be written without loss of generality as $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\psi_0} = \ket{0}, \qquad \ket{\psi_1} =
\cos\frac\alpha2 \ket{0} + \sin\frac\alpha2 \ket{1}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $|\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}|^2 = \cos^2\frac\alpha2$, matrix $Q_{x_0,x_1} := \frac12
|\braket{\psi_{x_0}|\psi_{x_1}}|^2 - \frac14$ is given by $Q
= [(1+\cos\alpha) v_+v_+^\dagger + (1-\cos\alpha)
v_-v_-^\dagger]/4$, where $v_\pm = 1/\sqrt{2}(1, \pm 1)^T$. If $\alpha \neq 0, \pi$, the system in Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac1{1+\cos\alpha} (p_0+p_1-1)^2 + \frac1{1-\cos\alpha}
(p_0-p_1)^2 \le \frac12.\end{aligned}$$ If $\alpha = 0$ or $\alpha = \pi$, that is $\ket{\psi_0} =
\ket{\psi_1}$ or $\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1} = 0$ respectively, the system in Eq. trivially becomes $p_0
= p_1$ or $p_0 = 1 - p_1$, respectively.
As an application of the general case we consider $m$ pure states $\rho_x = \ket{\phi_x} \!\! \bra{\phi_x}$ uniformly distributed in the Bloch equatorial plane, that can be written without loss of generality as $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\phi_x} = \cos \frac{\pi x}{m} \ket{0} + \sin
\frac{\pi x}{m} \ket{1}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $|\braket{\phi_{x_0}|\phi_{x_1}}|^2 = \cos^2 \frac{\pi
(x_0-x_1)}{m}$, matrix $Q_{x_0,x_1} := \frac12
|\braket{\phi_{x_0}|\phi_{x_1}}|^2 - \frac14$ is circulant, that is $Q_{x_0+k, x_1+k} = Q_{x_0,x_1}$ for any $x_0$, $x_1$, and $k$. Therefore, it is lengthy but not difficult to show that its eigenvalues are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_j & = \frac14 \sum_{k=0}^{m-1} \cos
\frac{2\pi k}{m} \exp\frac{2 \pi i
j (m-k)}{m} \\ & = \frac{\left( e^{2 \pi i j} -
1\right) \left( e^{\frac{2 \pi i j}m} + e^{\frac{2 \pi
i (j+2)}m} - 2 e^{\frac{2 \pi i}m} \right)} {8
\left(e^{\frac{2\pi i}m} - e^{\frac{2 \pi i j}m} \right)
\left( e^{\frac{2 \pi i (j+1)}m} - 1\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, one has that $\lambda_1 = \lambda_{m-1} = m/8$ and $\lambda_j = 0$ otherwise, and two eigenvectors $v_\pm$ corresponding to non-null eigenvalues are given by ${{v}}_\pm$ where $({{v}}_\pm)_k := \frac1{\sqrt{m}} \exp
\left( \pm \frac{2 \pi i k}m \right)$. Accordingly, one has that $Q = \frac{m}8 \left( {{v}}_+{{v}}_+^\dagger +
{{v}}_-{{v}}_-^\dagger \right)$, and the system in Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
(\openone - {{v}}_+{{v}}_+^\dagger - {{v}}_-{{v}}_-^\dagger) {{p}} = 0,\\
{\left|\!\left|{{{v}}_+^\dagger {{p}}}\right|\!\right|}_2^2 \le \frac{16}m.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ For instance, consider the case of two mutually unbiased bases [@KR05] (MUBs), obtained for $m = 4$. MUBs have applications e.g. in classical communications over quantum channels [@Dal14], quantum cryptography [@BB84], and locking of classical information in quantum states [@DHLST04]. One has that ${{v}}_\pm = (1, \pm i,
-1, \mp i)^T$, from which the system in Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
p_0 + p_2 = p_1 + p_3 = 1,\\
{\left|\!\left|{{{p}}}\right|\!\right|}_2^2 \le \frac32.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
[*Conclusion.*]{} — In this work we have constructed a “Quantum Rosetta Stone”, that is, a correspondence between any given family $\{ \rho_x \}$ of $m$ quantum states and the set $S_n(\rho_x)$ of observable correlations they can generate for any POVM $\{ \pi_y \}$. Formally, for any $\{
\rho_x \}$, one needs to provide: i) to the experimenter, the measurement $\{ \pi_{y|w} \}$ that generates a correlation on the boundary of $S_n(\rho_x)$ for [*any*]{} given direction $w$, and ii) to the theoretician, the [ *full*]{} characterization of $S_n(\rho_x)$. Comparing the correlations observed in i) with those predicted by ii) corresponds to device-independently testing the states. We have solved the problem in [*closed-form*]{} for the case of qubit states and tests, that is measurements with $n = 2$ outcomes, and discussed the geometrical interpretation of our results. As applications, we have specified our results to the case of any pair of pure states and to the case of pure states uniformly distributed on the Bloch equatorial plane.
Natural open problems include relaxing some of the restrictions we considered, e.g. considering POVMs with arbitrary number of outcomes and states in arbitrary dimension. Furthermore, the characterization of the set $S_n(\rho_x)$ of correlations compatible with an arbitrary dimensional family $\{ \rho_x \}$ of $m = 2$ states might prove to be the key to solve a well-known longstanding conjecture by Shor [@Sho02], based on numerical work by Fuchs and Peres: whether the accessible information of any binary ensemble is attained by a Von Neumann POVM. Finally, the full closed-form characterization of the quantum relative Lorenz curve for qubit states provided by Proposition \[prop:characterization\] naturally leads to applications in quantum resource theories [@DB17], within the general framework provided by the quantum Blackwell theorem [@Bus12].
We conclude by noticing that our results are remarkably suitable for experimental implementation. For any family of qubit states that an experimenter claims to be able to prepare, our framework only requires Von Neumann measurements to be performed in order to experimentally reconstruct the entire boundary of the set of compatible correlations.
[*Acknowledgements.*]{} — M. D. is grateful to Sarah Brandsen, Francesco Buscemi, and Vlatko Vedral for valuable discussions, comments, and suggestions. M. D. acknowledges support from the Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund Tier 3 (Grant No. MOE2012-T3-1-009).
R. Gallego, N. Brunner, C. Hadley, and A. Acín, [*Device-Independent Tests of Classical and Quantum Dimensions*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 230501 (2010). M. Hendrych, R. Gallego, M. Mičuda, N. Brunner, A. Acín, and J. P. Torres, [*Experimental estimation of the dimension of classical and quantum systems*]{}, Nature Phys. [**8**]{}, 588-591 (2012). H. Ahrens, P. Badziag, A. Cabello, and M. Bourennane, [*Experimental Device-independent Tests of Classical and Quantum Dimensions*]{}, Nature Physics [**8**]{}, 592 (2012). M. Dall’Arno, E. Passaro, R. Gallego, and A. Acín, [*Robustness of device independent dimension witnesses*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**86**]{}, 042312 (2012). R. Chaves, J. Bohr Brask, and N. Brunner, [ *Device-Independent Tests of Entropy*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **115**]{}, 110501 (2015). M. Dall’Arno, S. Brandsen, F. Buscemi, [*Device-independent tests of time-like correlations*]{}, arXiv:1606.02799. M. Dall’Arno, S. Brandsen, F. Buscemi, and V. Vedral, [*Device-independent tests of quantum measurements*]{}, arXiv:1609.07846. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, [ *Quantum computation and quantum information*]{} (Cambridge university press, 2010). S. P. Boyd, L. Vandenberghe, [*Convex Optimization*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2004). B.-I. Adi, T. N. E. Greville, [ *Generalized Inverses*]{} (Springer-Verlag, 2003). A. Klappenecker and M. Roetteler, [ *Mutually unbiased bases are complex projective 2-designs*]{}, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT 2005), 1740 (2005). M. Dall’Arno, [*Accessible Information and Informational Power of Quantum 2-designs*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 052311 (2014). C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, [*Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing*]{}, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing [**175**]{}, 8 (1984). D. P. DiVincenzo, M. Horodecki, D. W. Leung, J. A. Smolin, and B. M. Terhal, [*Locking classical information in quantum states*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 067902 (2004). Peter W. Shor, [*On the Number of Elements Needed in a POVM Attaining the Accessible Information*]{}, Quantum Communication, Computing, and Measurement [**3**]{}, 107, 2002. F. Buscemi and G. Gour, [*Quantum Relative Lorenz Curves*]{}, Physical Review A [**95**]{}, 012110 (9 January 2017). P. M. Alberti and A. Uhlmann, [*A problem relating to positive linear maps on matrix algebras*]{}, Reports on Mathematical Physics [**18**]{}, 163 (1980). K. Matsumoto, [*An example of a quantum statistical model which cannot be mapped to a less informative one by any trace preserving positive map*]{}, arXiv:1409.5658 (2014). M. Dall’Arno, F. Buscemi, in preparation. F. Buscemi, [*Comparison of quantum statistical models: equivalent conditions for sufficiency*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**310**]{}, 625-647 (2012).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Samples of Au clusters deposited by laser ablation on an amorphous-carbon substrate are investigated. After a few months storage at room temperature the initially statistically distributed clusters are found to be collected in agglomerates consisting of larger clusters embedded in an Au film typically covering areas of size 25$\times$70 nm$^2$. The Au film is determined to be probably 4 to 8 monolayers but at most 7 nm thick. Evidence is found that a number of clusters consisting of less then 50 atoms are pinned at intrusions of the substrate. These results were derived using high resolution transmission electron microscopy and off-axis holography measurements to characterize the agglomerates as well as the substrate. Monte-Carlo simulations were performed to model the film formation process. To this end the substrate-Au interaction was determined using density functional calculations (GGA) while the Au-Au interaction was modeled with effective many body Gupta potentials. The film formation can be understood as diffusion and fusion of clusters of intermediate ($50< N < 300$ atoms) size. Larger clusters are more stable at room temperature and remain adsorbed on the Au film.'
author:
- 'Ralph Werner,$^1$ Matthias Wanner,$^2$ Günter Schneider,$^1$ and Dagmar Gerthsen$^2$'
title: Island formation and dynamics of gold clusters on amorphous carbon films
---
Introduction
============
The dynamic behavior of clusters deposited on a substrate has been studied for several decades.[@WG75; @Will87; @MRC96; @PKW+01; @EHD02; @CPP03] A continuously growing number of potential applications in electronics[@FSCN04; @ADKL02] and catalysis[@PLK+03; @IAO+03] demands defined arrays of nanoparticles. However, such arrays tend to minimize their energy by minimizing the total surface via the growth of larger particles at the expense of smaller ones.[@WG75] An example for such a process is Ostwald ripening, where the larger cohesive energy in larger particles leads to matter transport away from small particles in the presence of a finite partial pressure of the constituent in the environment surrounding the clusters.[@Ostw00; @Wagn61] Therefore, investigations concerning the stability[@Utla80; @SPWB86] of deposited nanoparticles are of considerable interest with respect to potential nano-technological applications.
Moreover, the thermodynamic[@ESZ+00; @WDM+00] and chemical[@HSH+03] properties of small metal clusters themselves have enjoyed a large interest over the past years. Their properties differ from those of the bulk material raising the fundamental question about the statistical mechanics of finite systems.[@Gros01] Since the presence of a substrate alters these properties[@PLK+03; @FGH+04] detailed investigations of the substrate-adsorbate interaction[@VMG03] are required.
In this paper we present results from transmission electron microscopy (TEM) investigations[@Reim89; @LL02] concerning the time- and temperature-dependent behavior of Au clusters deposited by laser ablation technique on amorphous-carbon (a-C) films. The reasons to choose an amorphous substrate are threefold. Firstly, the non-crystalline structure of the substrate allows for the visualization of the crystal structure of the adsorbed clusters in high resolution TEM (HRTEM) experiments. Secondly, amorphous carbon is mechanically much more stable than highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) and consequently much more suited for technical applications. Thirdly, as opposed to the conductor HOPG, amorphous carbon is semi-conducting [@Robe86; @RFG04] and as such is expected to be less influential on the electronic properties of the adsorbate. Furthermore, our observations were made on samples that were stored under normal atmosphere for several months enhancing their relevance for possible technical applications.
The central observation reported in this paper is the formation of islands on a time scale of several months after the deposition of the Au adsorbate. Typical TEM images of the samples are shown in Fig. \[expfig1\]. Panel (a) is a sample one day after its preparation. The inset shows the size distribution of the clusters. Clusters smaller than 1 nm in diameter cannot be resolved unambiguously because of their low contrast on the amorphous substrate. Panel (b) shows a typical island formed after the sample has been aged for four months. The reproducibility of the results is assured since eight samples of different coverage prepared on different days stored in individual sealed containers show the same phenomenon.
![\[expfig1\] *TEM images of Au clusters deposited on an a-C substrate by laser ablation (3000 shots): (a) sample one day after its preparation. The inset shows the histogram of the size-distribution of the clusters. Clusters smaller than 1nm in diameter cannot be resolved unambiguously within the TEM images. (b) Typical island of higher contrast formed on a sample four months after its preparation. (c) Detail of the island displayed in panel (b). The areas circled show regions exhibiting crystalline structures with differently spaced lattice planes.* ](expfig1.eps){width="45.00000%"}
While the formation of small islands on short time scales has been observed previously for larger size-selected clusters for Co on microgrid substrates,[@PKW+01] for Au on amorphous carbon,[@EHD02] as well as for Ag on graphite,[@CPP03] the new features here are dark areas typically covering 25$\times$70 nm$^2$ underlying the larger clusters. As described in this paper in detail we were able to identify these areas as islands consisting of Au films of roughly 4 to 8 monolayers thickness with immersed larger Au clusters. The Au films show areas of crystalline structure with essentially two different lattice plane orientations as shown in the circled areas in Fig. \[expfig1\](c). A close analysis of the properties of the Au films including a holographic determination of its thickness is given is Sec. \[sectiondynamics\]. We arrive at the conclusion that the islands are formed by coalescing small clusters with diameters of $< 2$ nm.
Since the observed island formation was unexpected on the amorphous substrate, no monitoring of the dynamics of the formation of the islands—as desirable—was done. Awaiting the preparation of new samples, which are needed for the observation of the formation process, the present paper aims to give a state-of-the-art analysis of the system at hand. Based on these findings the time-analysis will be performed once new samples are available.
Outline of the paper {#outline-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
--------------------
In Sec. \[sectionmethods\] we describe the experimental \[sample preparation and TEM\] as well as theoretical \[density functional theory (DFT) and Monte-Carlo (MC) simulations\] methods applied.
Since the main trade-off of the amorphous substrate is its less well defined surface we devote Sec. \[sectionsurface\] to develop a model of the carbon film that is consistent with the experimental observations. To this end holographic images of the substrate film are analyzed (Sec. \[SubstrateHolography\]). First principle DFT calculations allow for the determination of the substrate-Au interaction (Sec. \[SubstrateDFT\]).
In Sec. \[sectiondynamics\] the observed islands are analyzed in detail. Their thickness is determined holographically (Sec.\[sectionFilmChar\]) and their stability tested in a heating experiment (Sec. \[sectionTemp\]).
In Sec. \[sectionMCfilm\] the formation of the islands and the shape of the Au clusters on their surface is modeled with MC simulations followed by the conclusion Sec. \[sectionConclusions\].
Methods {#sectionmethods}
=======
Experimental: substrate and sample preparation {#sectionsamples}
----------------------------------------------
The commercial a-C substrate films were produced by evaporation in a carbon arc by Arizona Carbon Foils and distributed by Plano GmbH as type S160. The films are mounted on a 200 nm mesh Cu grid for support. The film thickness is given by the manufacturer as $d_{\rm
subs} = 10 - 12.5$ nm with a density of $\rho_{\rm subs} \approx
2.0$ g/cm$^3$ corresponding to a mass of $2 - 2.5 \mu {\rm g}/{\rm
cm}^2$. The density of the substrate is closer to that of graphite ($\rho_{\rm graph} = 2.267$ g/cm$^3$) than to that of diamond ($\rho_{\rm dia} = 3.515$ g/cm$^3$) suggesting a structure that contains regions with trivalent coordination.[@Robe86] The similarities in the electronic structure between a-C and graphite are supported by electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) measurements,[@RFG04] which show spectra that differ significantly from those of diamond. Amorphous-carbon films produced with similar methods and of similar density have been found to be semi-conducting.[@Robe86; @TL04]
Note that, since $\rho_{\rm subs} < \rho_{\rm graph}$ and since in the amorphous material some tetravalent C with higher local density must be present, there must exist areas with very low density or even voids for compensation. This assumption is supported by the results presented in Sec. \[sectionsurface\].
The Au clusters were collected from the primary beam of a laser vaporization cluster source, which has been described elsewhere in detail.[@WWVK04; @WGGK02] In brief, the laser vaporization cluster source is a variant of the Smalley-deHeer-type [@MdH90; @DDPS81] setup optimized by Heiz [@HVTS97] for high yield. The source is equipped with a rotating gold disc target with a diameter of 50 mm which is sealed with a Teflon gasket against the source block. A pulsed laser (Neodym-YAG, Continuum, 532 nm, 30 Hz repetition rate) is focused through a nozzle onto the target. A pulsed valve (General Valve, 5 bar backing pressure of He) which is synchronized with the laser quenches the evaporated atoms into clusters which expand through the nozzle and a skimmer into an oil diffusion pumped vacuum chamber at 10$^{-5}$ mbar. Au clusters (and atoms) are deposited without further mass selection onto a TEM grid placed in the primary beam in a distance of about 40 cm from the nozzle.
The size distribution of the Au particles is shown in the inset of Fig. \[expfig1\](a). Since the only directed acceleration of the clusters is the expansion into the vacuum of the cluster source the impact energy can be considered small enough to avoid intercalation of adsorbate and substrate.
The investigations were conducted on a batch of 8 samples prepared on different days. Four samples were prepared with 300 ablation shots, four with 3000 ablation shots. They were stored individually under air in sealed containers. Experiments were carried out to assure the absence of contamination on the samples (Sec.\[sectiondynamics\]). All samples show the same island formation assuring the reproducibility of the results.
Experimental: transmission electron microscopy {#sectionTEM}
----------------------------------------------
The TEM was carried out with a Philips CM200 FEG/ST electron microscope at an energy of 200 keV equipped with a Noran Ge detector system for energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX). A Gatan 652 Double Tilt Heating Holder operated by a Gatan 901 SmartSet Hot Stage Controller was used to perform the in situ annealing experiments.
Transmission electron holography was carried out using a Möllenstedt biprism installed in the selected-area aperture holder of the microscope. The electrostatic potential of the biprism wire was close to 150 V. The images recorded were analyzed using the phase shift of the (000)-beam of the first hologram sideband. Data analysis was performed using the DALI program package,[@RKR+96] which was extended for the reconstruction of holograms. The details of the reconstruction of holograms are outlined by Lichte and Lehmann.[@LL02]
Figure \[SampleHologram\] shows the three-dimensional visualization of the phase shift[@Phasesign] with respect to the vacuum $\Delta\phi$ observed on a 28.2$\times$28.2 nm$^2$ surface segment of a typical sample. In the far right corner a part of an island as shown in Fig. \[expfig1\](b) is visible. In the front left corner the linear decrease of the thickness of the substrate near the substrate edge is visible. All holographic images were taken at substrate edges in order include a section of the vacuum for calibration.[@Reim89; @LL02] A closer analysis of the data is given in Sec. \[SubstrateHolography\] concerning the substrate and in Sec. \[sectionFilmChar\] concerning the Au adsorbate.
![\[SampleHologram\] *Holographic phase shift $\Delta\phi$ of a segment of the a-C substrate with part of an island as shown in Fig. \[expfig1\](b) in the far right corner. The image has the size of 28.2$\times$28.2 nm$^2$. The $z$-axis value is proportional to the observed phase shift. In the foreground the almost linear decrease of the a-C film thickness towards its edge is visible. (For alternative representations of the data see Figs. \[holoscans\] and \[holo20diag\].)* ](SampleHologram.eps){width="48.00000%"}
The relation between the change in phase shift $\Delta \phi$ observed in the holographic images and the corresponding thickness $d$ of the observed object can be derived from scattering theory[@Reim89] and is expressed via the standard formula $$\label{thick}
d = \frac{\Delta\phi}{V_0\ C_{\rm E}}\,,$$ where the interaction constant depends on the acceleration voltage resulting in $C_{\rm E} = 7.29 \times 10^{6}$ rad/(V m) in our case and where $V_0$ denotes the effective internal potential of the sample.
For bulk gold the theoretical values[@Buhl59; @Kell61] for $V_0$ are $V_{\rm Au,theo} = 28\pm2$ V, while experimental values[@GC99] are given as $V_{\rm Au,exp} = 22\pm1$ V. For small Au clusters on TiO$_2$ substrates a sharp increase of $V_0$ for clusters smaller than 4 nm was observed with values of up to $V_{\rm Au,cluster} \sim 50$ V for clusters smaller than 2 nm.[@IAO+03] We confirm these findings in Sec. \[sectionFilmChar\].
For the a-C substrate films the situation is less consistent. We observe phase shifts of the substrate film with respect to the vacuum of $\sim 1.9 - 2.8$ radians. Associating these phase shifts with the numbers of the manufacturer for the film thickness of 9.5 to 14 nm we obtain a potential of $V_{\rm subs} = 27.4$ V.
On the other hand, the experimental value for a-C films of the same density as ours has been given by Harscher and Lichte[@HL98] as $V_{\rm HL} = 10.7$ V. This number compares satisfactorily with the values for graphite summarized by Sánchez and Ochando[@SO85] of $V_{\rm graph,theo}\sim 12 - 15$ V (theory) and $V_{\rm graph,exp} \sim 11 - 13$ V (experiment) since the ratio of the potentials $V_{\rm HL} / V_{\rm graph} \approx \rho_{\rm
subs} / \rho_{\rm graph}$ corresponds roughly to that of the densities, i.e., the inner potential scales roughly with the density of the material. A similar argument holds for the values for diamond, where $V_{\rm dia,theo} \sim 16 - 23$ V (theory) and $V_{\rm dia,exp}
\sim 15 - 21$ V (experiment).
The obvious discrepancy between the values of $V_{\rm subs}$ and $V_{\rm HL}$ cannot be resolved here. Possible origins of the discrepancies are (i) the underestimation of the substrate thickness by the manufacturer[@RB98; @AWWB03] and (ii) an increase of the internal potential for thin films similar to the increase of the internal potential in small Au clusters.[@IAO+03] Note that the latter effects would not have been observed for the thicker films with $d \ge 35$ nm in the investigations by Harscher and Lichte.[@HL98] We will discuss the implications of the discrepancy for the present work where appropriate.
Theory: density functional theory calculations
----------------------------------------------
We have calculated the interaction between Au atoms and the carbon substrate using first principles DFT calculations in the generalized gradient approximation (GGA).[@WP91] For all calculations we used the highly accurate Projector Augmented Wave method [@Bloe94] as implemented in the VASP electronic structure program.[@KJ99]
For the carbon substrate we used both a graphite surface as well as a model a-C surface consisting of 150 carbon atoms.[@DFTquote] The Au-substrate interaction was calculated for a number of different positions of an Au atom relative to the substrate surface. For each position the Au-substrate interaction was mapped out by holding a Au atom fixed at different heights above the surface while the carbon atoms at and near the surface were allowed to fully relax. As a reference point a Au atom at a distance of 9.5 Å from the surface was used (Sec. \[SubstrateDFT\]). The resulting Au-substrate potentials were averaged and fitted to a modified Lennard-Jones potential and used as input in MC simulations described in the next section.
Theory: Monte-Carlo (MC) simulations {#sectionDefMC}
------------------------------------
In order to develop a microscopic understanding of the dynamics of the Au clusters on the substrate we simulate the system with the canonical Monte-Carlo method. A standard Metropolis algorithm is employed [@AT89; @WDS+01; @Wern05a] with an update after each random displacement of an Au atom within an interval $[0,d_{\rm max}]$ in all spatial dimensions. $d_{\rm max}$ is set to yield an MC acceptance rate of 50 to 60 %. The resulting temperature dependence is roughly $d_{\rm max} \propto \sqrt{T}$. The boundary conditions are imposed by a hard wall cube with linear dimension $L_x$, $L_y$, and $L_z$.
The Au-Au interaction is modeled via the many-body Gupta potential[@Gupt81] (GP): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gupta}
V(\{r_{ij}\}) &=& \sum_{i}^N
\sum^N_{j\neq i}A\ e^{-p(r_{ij}/r_0 - 1)}
\nonumber\\&&\hspace{6ex}-\
\sum_{i}^N
\sqrt{\sum_{j\neq i} \xi^2\ e^{-2q(r_{ij}/r_0 - 1)}}\ .\end{aligned}$$ The distances $r_{ij} = |{{\boldsymbol r}}_i - {{\boldsymbol r}}_j|$ are measured in units of the bulk first-neighbor distance $r_0 = 2.885$ Å. The indices $i,j \in
\{1,\ldots,N\}$ label the Au atoms at positions ${{\boldsymbol r}}_i$ and ${{\boldsymbol r}}_j$, respectively. The parameterizations for Au as found in the literature,[@CR93] i.e., $A = 0.2061$ eV, $\xi = 1.790$ eV, $p =
10.229$, and $q = 4.036$, has been determined to match the bulk elastic constants and the surface contraction.
The Au-substrate interaction is modeled by two-particle interactions in the form of generalized Lennard-Jones 6-12 and 3-6 potentials. Their derivation is discussed in detail in Sec.\[SubstrateDFT\].
Runs on the atomic level have been performed for up to 10$^{8}$ updates per atom for up to 600 atoms. Runs have been stopped when a metastable configuration is obtained that does not evolve anymore on a reasonably accessible time scale. Depending on the size of the system metastable configurations are attained after a few minutes ($N = 55$) or a couple of days (Au double layer formation with embedded clusters with $N=600$). Runs where performed up to three weeks to assure that the lifetime of the metastable configuration is at least an order of magnitude larger than its formation time. Run times for particular cases are given with the resutls in Sec. \[sectionMCfilm\].
In order to simulate larger systems with many clusters we derive in Sec. \[sectionClusterPot\] an effective cluster-cluster potential. Runs are then performed with a few hundred clusters to illustrate the cluster diffusion and fusion process in Sec.\[sectionMCislands\].
Substrate characterization {#sectionsurface}
==========================
The observed formation of the islands as shown in Fig. \[expfig1\] implies that the substrate surface is free of strong pinning centers. The same conclusion can be drawn from oval shapes of the islands with smooth boundaries. Moreover, the pattern formation of the Au film discussed in Sec. \[sectionIsland\] \[Fig.\[expfig1\](c)\] strongly suggest the presence of smooth areas on the substrate surface.
Since this observation is not ad hoc intuitive for an amorphous substrate we investigated the substrate with off-axis holography experiments. In order to obtain a qualitative understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the island formation we determine the substrate-adsorbate interactions via DFT calculations. The latter are used as input parameters for MC simulations which reproduce the experimental observations.
Holography {#SubstrateHolography}
----------
When imaging vacuum with TEM off-axis holography the phase shift observed is slightly fluctuating due to imperfections of the biprism wire, aperture, and noise induced by the CCD camera.[@LL02] We analyzed these vacuum fluctuations in order to distinguish them from the sample signal. The inset in Fig. \[SubstrateHologram\](a) shows a typical image of the vacuum phase shift $\phi_{\rm vac}$ after subtraction of its mean value. The main graph of Fig.\[SubstrateHologram\](a) shows the normalized distribution $w_{\rm
vac}(\Delta\phi_{\rm vac})$ of the vacuum fluctuations $\Delta\phi_{\rm vac} = \phi_{\rm vac}$. The full line is a Gaussian fit $$\label{Gauss}
w(\Delta\phi) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\
\exp\left\{-\frac{(\Delta\phi)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right\}$$ from which we obtain a width of the vacuum fluctuations of $\sigma =
\sigma_{\rm vac} = 0.052$ rad.
![\[SubstrateHologram\]*(Color online) Phase shift distributions as a measure of fluctuations of the phase. Panel (a) shows the result for the vacuum, panel (b) shows the substrate film without adsorbate, and panel (c) shows the distribution for the substrate film with Au adsorbate albeit at positions without islands. Please note the different scales of the $x$ axes. Histograms are obtained by binning and normalization of the shifted raw data, full lines are Gaussian fits to Eq. (\[Gauss\]). The insets show samples of the measured phase shifts. The data used to obtain the histograms amounts 5 to 10 times the date shown in the insets.*](FluctPaper.eps){width="47.50000%"}
The histogram in Fig. \[SubstrateHologram\](b) shows the normalized phase shift distribution of the a-C substrate film [ *without*]{} Au adsorbate. The Gaussian fit from Eq. \[Gauss\] as shown by the full line has a width of $\sigma_{\rm a-C} = 0.13$ rad. Since $\sigma_{\rm a-C} > 2 \sigma_{\rm vac}$ the fluctuations must reflect properties of the substrate. Using Eq. \[thick\] and the value of $V_{\rm subs} = 27.4$ V the change in thickness corresponds to $\Delta d_{\rm subs} = 2 \sigma_{\rm subs}/(C_{\rm
E}V_{\rm subs}) = 1.3$ nm, for $V_{\rm HL} = 10.7$ V even $\Delta
d_{\rm subs} = 3.3$ nm. The graph in the inset Fig.\[SubstrateHologram\](b) reveals that phase fluctuations of comparable depth occur on length scales of 0.3 nm. Such narrow intrusions with a depth of up to 1/5 of the substrate thickness would make the substrate very unstable. Moreover, the edges of the intrusions would inevitably lead to strong pinning centers similar to those of nanopits in HOPG,[@HBB+97; @Hoev01] which are inconsistent with the observed island formation.
Since the intrusions are only 2 to 4 C-C bond lengths wide, it appears likely that they are capped in the production process thus stabilizing the structure. The intrusions are then left as voids in the film. The effective potential is strongly reduced at the position of the voids leading to the observed phase modulation. At the same time the cap yields a rather smooth surface consistent with the observed island formation. The C atoms surrounding the voids have less nearest neighbor atoms,[@DD98] which is consistent with the measured EELS spectra[@RFG04] indicating largely trivalent coordination. In the absence of methods for a more precise determination of the local structure of the substrate we use this scenario as a working hypothesis.
Finally, the histogram in Fig. \[SubstrateHologram\](c) shows the normalized phase shift distribution of the a-C substrate film [ *with*]{} the Au adsorbate, albeit at positions without any of the observed islands. (The latter are discussed in Sec.\[sectionFilmChar\]). The Gaussian fit from Eq. \[Gauss\] as shown by the full line has a width of $\sigma_{\rm subs} = 0.164$ rad which is 25% larger than $\sigma_{\rm a-C}$. The difference is readily interpreted as induced by small Au clusters pinned at small intrusions of the substrate. Since the pinned clusters are smaller than the TEM resolution limit their diameters must be smaller 1 nm or $N<50$ atoms.[@Urba98]
Surface adsorbate interaction: DFT calculations {#SubstrateDFT}
-----------------------------------------------
A quantitative description of Au/a-C substrate interaction is needed for the MC simulations described in Sec. \[sectionMCfilm\]. To this end we studied the interaction of individual Au atoms with graphite and a model a-C surface using ab-initio DFT calculations.
For the calculation of the Au/graphite-surface interaction we used a supercell consisting of 2x2 graphite unit cells in the $x$-$y$ plane and four carbon layers in the $z$-direction. A large vaccuum distance of 19 Å was used.[@DFTquote] Calculations were performed for Au in the top, bridge, and hollow sites. Using as reference a Au atom at the center of the vacuum we calculated binding energies of 0.065 eV, 0.062 eV and 0.041 eV, respectively. The Au-graphite potential for Au in the top-site as a function of Au atom surface distance is shown by line “g” in Fig. \[Au-substrate-potentials\]. The result of the DFT calculations was fitted with a modified Lennard-Jones potential $$\label{LJfitgraphite}
V_{\rm LJ,graph} = V_{{\rm LJ},0}\left( \frac{0.31}{(z/r_0 - 0.1)^6} -
\frac{1.11}{(z/r_0 - 0.1)^3} \right),$$ where $V_{{\rm LJ},0}$ is the binding energy and $r_0 = 2.885$ [Å]{}.
![\[Au-substrate-potentials\]*(Color online) Au/graphite (squares) and Au/a-C substrate potentials (circles) as calculated within the DFT approach. The inset shows the corrugated surface layer of the a-C model with the locations of the calculated potentials (a)-(d) indicated by arrows. The fitted potentials used in the MC simulations are shown as solid lines for graphite (g) and the a-C model substrate. Dashed lines are guides to the eye.*](dft-fig.eps){width="47.50000%"}
For a more realistic description of the a-C substrate we have constructed a model a-C surface. To ensure that sp$^2$ bonding will be dominant[@RFG04] and to obtain a simple model consistent with the observed Au-film formation we use graphite as our starting point. We use a supercell consisting of 4x4 graphite unit cells in the x-y plane and four carbon layers in the z direction. Additional carbon atoms were added in localized regions but otherwise randomly inbetween the graphite planes so as to create voids consistent with the observed holographic phase fluctuations.[@DFTquote]
The resulting supercell of 150 carbon atoms was relaxed into a local minimum. Two main effects of the relaxation can be observed: The carbon structure expanded strongly in the z-direction and the graphite layers buckled due to the uneven distribution of interstitial carbon atoms. The density of the final a-C model structure is $\rho\sim2.0$ g/cm$^3$ in good agreement with the density of the a-C substrate as given by the manufacturer. The surface layer of the final structure is smooth but has a corrugation of $d = 0.9$ Å over a distance of a few C-C bondlengths (Fig. \[Au-substrate-potentials\]).
We have calculated the Au/a-C substrate potential at several positions roughly along a line through a depression in the surface. Since for the graphite surface the Au on top position is the preferred bonding site, only Au on top sites were considered in the a-C case. High lying C surface atoms retain their graphite character and are predominantly 3-fold coordinated. Accordingly we find the binding energy of an Au atom is still comparable to the binding energy on graphite (case a in Fig. \[Au-substrate-potentials\]). C atoms lying in a depression of the surface have additional bonds to the nearby C atoms below and are mostly fourfold coordinated. The calculated binding energies of an Au atom to C sites lying in such a depression are considerably larger as compared to the graphite surface (cases b,d in Fig. \[Au-substrate-potentials\]). An Au atom in the center of the depression can bind to several C atoms and the binding energy is smaller but of the same order as the Au-Au binding energy (case c in Fig. \[Au-substrate-potentials\]).
To model the binding energy of Au atoms in clusters with a contact area larger than the surface intrusions the resulting Au/a-C substrate potentials were averaged using approximate relative surface areas as weights and fitted to a modified Lennard-Jones potential $$\label{LJfitmean}
V_{\rm LJ,mean} = V_{{\rm LJ},0} \left( \frac{297}{(z/r_0-1.2)^{12}} -
\frac{34.5}{(z/r_0-1.2)^6} \right).$$ where $V_{{\rm LJ},0}$ is the binding energy and $r_0 = 2.885$ [Å]{}. Using weights of c:d:b:a=1:4:9:16 results in an average binding energy of $V_{{\rm LJ},0}=0.34$eV. The MC simulations in Sec.\[sectionMCfilm\] do not depend qualitatively and only little quantitatively on the specific value in a range of $0.2 <
V_{{\rm LJ},0}/{\rm eV} < 0.4$ and hence an average value of $V_{{\rm LJ},0} = 0.3$eV was adopted.
The value of $V_{{\rm LJ},0} \sim 0.3$ eV is only appropriate for sufficiently large clusters. Small clusters with contact areas smaller than the intrusion size have larger weight of the strongly binding intrusion center c and are easily pinned consistent with the observations discussed in Sec. \[SubstrateHolography\].
Long time-scale dynamics {#sectiondynamics}
========================
The long time-scale rearrangement of heavy atoms on a-C substrates has been observed previously.[@Utla80] Here we present a detailed investigation of pattern formation of Au on a-C substrates. Figure \[expfig1\](a) shows a typical TEM image of a sample prepared by deposition of 3000 shots of Au clusters on a 10 nm a-C film. The image displayed was recorded one day after the preparation of the sample. As expected, one observes a statistical particle distribution. The histogram included shows the size distribution. Au clusters smaller than 1 nm in diameter could not be discerned from the 10 nm carbon substrate background owing to their low contrast. However, ion mobility measurements have revealed[@GWF+02] that clusters in this range of sizes are widely present in cluster ion beams. This suggests that a significant number of small clusters is also present on the substrate, albeit unresolved in the TEM.
Island formation {#sectionIsland}
----------------
After the sample is kept at room temperature and in absence of inert conditions for four months, TEM studies yield images as displayed in Fig. \[expfig1\](b). The previously statistically distributed clusters are now collected in agglomerates referred to as islands. The vast majority of these islands is of similar size with typical areas of $A \sim 25 \times 70$ nm$^2$.
In all islands an underlying area of higher contrast is observed, which is bordered by the outer clusters of the islands. Using EDX-detection no elements except for Au and C are found in these islands. The binary alloy phase diagram of Au and C excludes the formation of Au-C alloys under the given conditions[@McLe69] and we conclude that the C signature stems from the substrate. The analysis given in Secs. \[sectionFilmChar\], \[sectionThick\], and \[sectionTemp\] consistently suggest that the islands are formed of 4 to 8 monolayers of Au on top of the substrate. This conclusion is supported by the MC simulations of the formation process of such an Au film in Sec. \[sectionMCfilm\].
HRTEM images of the islands as depicted in Fig. \[expfig1\](c) show regions, in which crystalline patterns occur with lattice spacings determined as 501 pm and 310 pm within an estimated error of $\pm
5$%. The angles between these two spacings differ up to 6$^\circ$ from a rectangular configuration. It cannot be excluded that much larger areas of the Au films are crystallized forming such patterns because a slight corrugation of the substrate may obscure its detection with HRTEM.
While the exact determination of the origin of the aforementioned patterns from the present data is not possible, it can be speculated that the Au film exhibits a similar reconstruction as has been observed for Au(111) surfaces by scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) measurements,[@HCZC95; @HCR+87] where superstructures with a similar modulation[@HKS+81] ($\sqrt{3} \times {\rm lattice\ constant}
\approx 500$ pm) have been observed. The presence of Au(111) surfaces is also consistent with the MC simulations (Sec.\[sectionMCfilm\]). Moreover, reconstruction pattern have been observed for small islands of Au monolayers on HOPG in ultra high vacuum (UHV) by STM measurements,[@GSC88] but a direct comparison is difficult because of the larger film thickness in our samples (Sec. \[sectionFilmChar\]).
We conclude that the higher contrast areas underlying the islands consist of a few monolayers of Au that form crystalline structures on at least parts of the substrate surface, which in turn must be sufficiently smooth.
Au-film characterization {#sectionFilmChar}
------------------------
In order to get information about the thickness of the observed films, we performed off-axis holography experiments. A three dimensional visualization of a segment of the substrate including a part of an Au island has been shown in Fig. \[SampleHologram\] in Sec.\[sectionTEM\]. Figure \[holoscans\] shows the same segment as an intensity plot, where lighter shades of gray correspond to larger phase shifts. The thick lines correspond to different scans investigated in detail. The circled areas indicate the positions of clusters adsorbed on the Au films that have been studied closely.
![\[holoscans\]*(Color online) Holographic phase reconstruction image from the same segment as shown in Fig. \[SampleHologram\] as an intensity plot. Lighter shades of gray correspond to larger phase shifts with respect to the vacuum. Lines show scans that underwent closer investigation, circles indicate the positions of selected adsorbed clusters.*](holoscansO.eps){width="47.50000%"}
The results for the three scans are qualitatively equivalent and for simplicity we focus the presentation on scan 1. Figure \[holo20diag\](a) shows the corresponding phase profile. Four regions are clearly distinguishable from right to left: the rise of the substrate edge, the plateau of the substrate film, the rise of the Au-film edge, and finally the Au-film. The dashed lines show the profile after averaging the phase fluctuations. The vacuum level was determined in a larger area a bit further away from the sample (not shown). For the substrate edge the dashed line is a quadratic fit, for the Au-film edge it is a linear fit. The substrate plateau is given by a horizontal line at the average value of phase in that region. Finally, the Au-film base line is obtained by adapting the average value of the fluctuation phase without the adsorbed clusters as outlined closer below.
![\[holo20diag\]*(Color online) Details of scan 1 in Fig. \[holoscans\]. Panel (a) shows the raw data of the phase shifts together with fitted values (dashed lines, see text), which average the fluctuations. Panel (b) shows the fluctuations $\Delta\phi$ obtained from the raw data after subtraction of the fits. Panels (c), (d), (e), and (f) show the binned data of the phase fluctuations form the Au film, the Au-film edge, the substrate, and the substrate edge, respectively. Solid lines are fits from Eqs. (\[doubleG\]) and (\[Gauss\]).*](holo20diag.eps){width="47.50000%"}
Panel (b) of Fig. \[holo20diag\] shows the fluctuation of the data after subtraction of the dashed lines shown in panel (a). The black bar labelled “C1” indicates the position of the corresponding cluster as shown in Fig. \[holoscans\].
The lower panels of Fig. \[holo20diag\] show the histograms of the phase distribution in panel (b) for the Au film (c), the Au-film edge (d), the substrate (e), and the substrate edge (f). The full lines are Gaussian fits from Eq. (\[Gauss\]) except for panel (c), where a double Gaussian of the form $$\label{doubleG}
w_{\rm tot}(\Delta\phi) = a_{\rm Au}\ w_{\rm film}(\Delta\phi)
+ (1-a_{\rm Au})\ w_{\rm clus}(\Delta\phi)$$ with Gaussian contributions from the film $w_{\rm film}$ and the adsorbed clusters $w_{\rm clus}$ was used. The width of the curve for the substrate of $\sigma_{\rm subs} = 0.18$ rad is consistent with the averaged value obtained for a number of samples $\sigma_{\rm subs} =
0.164$ as discussed in Sec. \[SubstrateHolography\]. The difference may be attributed to poorer statistics of the relatively small sample size in Fig. \[holoscans\] and possibly to an increased number of pinned Au clusters near the islands.
The substrate edge is expected to show growth process dependent steps which are yet too small to be resolved in the noise of the density and vacuum fluctuations. Since a simple polynomial fit cannot account for this non-monotonous increase in thickness at the substrate edge, a broader distribution of the phase fluctuations is expected in that region. Indeed, the distribution for the substrate edge $\sigma_{\rm
subs-edge} = 0.24$ \[Fig. \[holoscans\](f)\] is 30% broader than for the substrate plateau. Here a quadratic fit was applied to the substrate edge but linear or cubic fits give very similar results.
The width of the phase distribution of the Au-film edge $\sigma_{\rm
Au-edge} = 0.16$ in panel (d) is close to the average value of the substrate, no smoothing of the surface corrugation is measurable. This result is consistent with the previously discussed interpretation (Sec. \[SubstrateHolography\]), that the phase fluctuations of the substrate stem predominantly from intrinsic spatial density inhomogeneities.
Finally, the bimodal distribution of the Au film in panel (c) of Fig.\[holo20diag\] reflects the presence of adsorbed clusters on the substrate with an average height in this segment resulting in an additional phase shift of $\Delta\phi_{\rm clus} \approx 0.43$ rad as indicated by the arrow. The width of the film part of the distribution $\sigma_{\rm film} = 0.175$ rad is comparable to that of the substrate and stems from the intrinsic spatial density inhomogeneities of the latter. For completeness we note the values of the cluster distribution width $\sigma_{\rm clus} = 0.11$ rad and the weighing factor $a_{\rm Au} = 0.695$.
Au-film thickness {#sectionThick}
-----------------
In principle the thickness of the Au film can be obtained from Eq.(\[thick\]). As discussed in Sec. \[sectionTEM\] the parameter of the mean inner potential $V_0$ is not well defined as it appears to become thickness dependent for thin samples. To be specific, Ichikawa and coworkers[@IAO+03] found for Au clusters on a TiO$_2$ substrate with diameters smaller than 4 nm an increase of $V_0$ of up to a factor of 3. In order to have a reference point for our system we have investigated the observed phase shifts of the cluster labelled with “C2” in Fig. \[holoscans\] and compared the results with the shape of a cluster of the same size obtained in the MC simulations described in Sec. \[sectionAdsorbed\].
Panels (a) and (b) of Fig. \[C2xgraph\] shows the resulting phase shift profiles as obtained along the scans indicated in the inset. Dashed lines are linear fits. Panels (c) and (d) show the phase profiles of the cluster after subtraction of the linear contributions together with fitted ellipses (dashed lines). As a result of the strong fluctuations the fits are not unique. A width of $b_{\rm clus} =
2.3\pm0.2$ nm can be extracted while the phase shift is determined as $\Delta\phi_{\rm clus} = 0.5\pm0.02$ rad. Comparing these values to the aspect ratio of $h_{\rm clus}/b_{\rm clus} \approx 0.54$ as obtained in Sec. \[sectionAdsorbed\] a height of $h_{\rm clus} =
1.2\pm0.1$ nm is expected. Using Eq. \[thick\] we obtain a mean inner potential of $V_0 = 57\pm5$ V consistent with the results from Ichikawa [*et al.*]{}[@IAO+03]
![\[C2xgraph\]*(Color online) Phase shift for two scans (a) and (b) through cluster “C2” in Fig. \[holoscans\] along the directions indicated in the inset. Dashed lines are linear fits to the background. Panels (c) and (d) show the data of the cluster from panels (a) and (b), respectively, after background subtraction. Dashed lines in (c) and (d) are elliptical fits (see text).*](C2xgraph.eps){width="47.50000%"}
We have consequently confirmed the thickness dependence of the mean inner potential of Au clusters smaller than 4 nm in height. Unfortunately, when approximating the apparent strong increase of the inner potential with decreasing thickness[@IAO+03] in leading order as $V_0\sim d^{-1}$, the phase shift $\Delta\phi \propto
V_0\ d$ becomes [*independent*]{} of the thickness in leading order. From the phase shift induced by the Au film as measured in Fig. \[holo20diag\](a) of $\Delta \phi_{\rm film} = \phi_{\rm film}
- \phi_{\rm subs} \approx 1$ rad we can thus only determine an upper bound for the thickness of the Au film of $d_{\rm film} < 7$ nm. This upper bound is obtained from Eq. (\[thick\]) using the bulk value[@GC99] $V_{\rm Au,exp} \approx 22$ V, which is a lower bound for the inner potential. A more precise determination requires the detailed knowledge of the sub-leading contributions to $V_0(d)$.
The intensity profiles in Figs. \[expfig1\](b) and \[expfig2\](a) suggest that the film is thinner than the majority of the adsorbed clusters. This leads to an estimate of $d_{\rm film} \sim 4-8$ monolayers. The observation discussed in Sec. \[sectionMCfilm\] that clusters of size $N < 300$ (or $d_{\rm cluster} < 2$ nm) are not stable enough to retain their structure on the substrate at room temperature and should consequently largely contribute to the film formation is consistent with these numbers.
Heating effects {#sectionTemp}
---------------
The effects of heating on the shape of metal clusters has been studied early on.[@DMH81; @SPWB86] In order to obtain information about the stability of the islands we performed experiments heating the sample in situ. The sample was kept at 373 K for two hours. Figure \[expfig2\](a) displays the characteristics of a typical island before heating, whereas another island, which was not exposed to the electron beam during annealing, is shown in Fig.\[expfig2\](b). Comparing these two images, it is obvious that as a consequence of the heating (i) the amount of Au forming the film is diminished, (ii) the number of particles is reduced and (iii) the sizes of the remaining particles have increased.
=0.48
The effects (ii) and (iii) are typical characteristics of Ostwald-ripening processes.[@Ostw00] The islands are metastable with an activation energy low enough that the applied heating of 100 K above room temperature is sufficient to induce the transition on a time scale of a few hours. A more elaborate investigation of the dynamical behavior of the Au islands at elevated temperatures requires more experimental data and will be presented in a subsequent publication.
Monte-Carlo simulations {#sectionMCfilm}
=======================
In order to obtain a more microscopical understanding of the formation of the Au islands—which cannot be resolved experimentally—we performed MC simulations based on the Au-substrate interaction elaborated in Sec. \[sectionsurface\] and using the Gupta many-body effective potentials Eq. (\[Gupta\]) as described in Sec.\[sectionDefMC\].
Cluster fusion and effective cluster potential {#sectionClusterPot}
----------------------------------------------
As discussed in Sec. \[sectionIsland\] the observed Au film is likely to be composed of fused small Au clusters, which are present at the time of deposition but only unambiguously resolved in TEM for diameters larger than 1 nm (c.f. Fig. \[expfig1\]). The fusion process of adsorbed clusters has been observed experimentally for Co clusters[@PKW+01] of diameter 8.5 nm as well as for clusters[@EHD02] of Au$_{5000}$ and and has been modeled for free clusters with MD methods using embedded atom[@LJB97] and glue potentials[@ABPG04] for Au$_{225}$ to Au$_{3805}$. The objective here is to obtain an effective inter-cluster potential in the framework of the better suited many body Gupta potentials Eq.(\[Gupta\]), which we will use in Sec. \[sectionMCislands\] to simulate the island formation.
DFT results[@HCSR97] show that the icosahedral configuration has a lower cohesive energy than the octahedral or cuboctahedral structures for the atomic closed shell cluster sizes $N=13,55,147$. On the other hand, the Gupta potentials for Au exhibit a large number of local minima with amorphous structures and energies of $\Delta E_{55} \sim
0.01$ eV lower than the icosahedral configuration.[@GMB+98] Since $\Delta E_{55} \sim 0.01\ {\rm eV} < k_{\rm B} T_{\rm room} = 0.0256$ eV, we use icosahedral configurations for the investigations presented here because different isomers are realized through thermal fluctuations at room temperature.[@DW98b] Note that only quantitative details depend on the specific structure while our results are qualitatively quite general.
Figure \[clusterpot\] shows the inter-cluster cohesive energy as a function of the distance of the center of mass points $r$ of the two clusters. Panels (a) and (b) were obtained for two Au$_{55}$ and two Au$_{147}$ clusters, respectively. The gray points are obtained in free MC annealing runs at room temperature ($k_{\rm B} T = 0.0256$ eV) while the black circles were obtained at $k_{\rm B} T = 0.0001$ eV ($T
= 1.16$ K). The scattering of the gray data points reflects the thermal activation of the clusters. At low temperatures the fusion process is halted at larger distances than at room temperature because the potential energy barrier involved in the reconstruction cannot be overcome.
![\[clusterpot\]*(Color online) Fusion of Au$_N$ clusters for (a) $N=55$ and (b) $N=147$. Gray and black circles are obtained in MC annealing runs at $k_{\rm
B} T = 0.0256$ eV ($T = 297$ K) and $k_{\rm B} T = 0.0001$ eV ($T = 1.16$ K), respectively. The full lines are fits for the effective inter-cluster cohesive potentials Eq. (\[ClustercohesiveE\]). At low temperatures the fusion process comes to an early halt because the energy barrier involved in the atomic rearrangement cannot be overcome.*](FuseStudy.eps){width="47.50000%"}
The full lines in Figs. \[clusterpot\](a) and (b) are fits representing the effective inter-cluster cohesive energy and have the form $$\label{ClustercohesiveE}
E_{{\rm Au}N} = A_N \left\{\tanh\left[b_N(r-R_{0,N})\right] -1\right\}\,.$$ The parameters extracted are $A_{55} = 2.702$ eV, $b_{55} = 10.08$ nm$^{-1}$, $R_{0,55} = 0.524$ nm and $A_{147} = 4.941$ eV, $b_{147} =
7.149$ nm$^{-1}$, $R_{0,147} = 0.718$ nm. The fusion process stops at a temperature dependent minimal distance $R_{{\rm min},N}(T)$ which can be modeled in the potential as a step function with a high repulsive value for $r<R_{{\rm min},N}(T)$, i.e., $E_{\rm rep} =
A_{\rm rep} \theta[R_{{\rm min},N}(T) - r]$ with $A_{\rm rep} \gg
A_N$. The effective binding energy is then given by $E_{\rm eff} =
E_{{\rm Au}N} + E_{\rm rep}$. In the case of the investigated icosahedral structure the values are $R_{{\rm min},55}(T_{\rm room})
\approx 0.4$ nm and $R_{{\rm min},147}(T_{\rm room}) \approx 0.6$ nm. Note that larger clusters are structurally more stable than smaller clusters and consequently the fusion process at $k_{\rm B} T =
0.0001$ eV ($T = 1.16$ K) leaves the initial structure of the two Au$_{147}$ clusters more intact \[Fig. \[clusterpot\](b)\] than in the case of two Au$_{55}$ clusters \[Fig. \[clusterpot\](a)\].
Shape and adsorption energy of the adsorbed clusters {#sectionAdsorbed}
----------------------------------------------------
For the interpretation of the holographic analysis of the Au film and the Au clusters it is useful to have information about their shape. Moreover, from the simulations we obtain the effective attractive potential of the substrate exerted onto clusters of different size.
### Amorphous carbon substrate
Since the exact shape of the substrate surface is not known (c.f.discussion in Sec. \[sectionsurface\]) we simulate the shape of clusters for flat surfaces with different relevant effective mean substrate-adsorbate potentials derived in Sec.\[SubstrateDFT\]. Figure \[clustershape\] shows a side view the shape of adsorbed clusters (substrate at the bottom) in the presence of a flat substrate with an attractive potential as given by Eq.\[LJfitmean\] with a depth of $V_{{\rm LJ},0} = 0.3$ eV. The clusters of size (a) $N=55$, (b) $N=147$, and (c) $N=309$ were prepared in icosahedral configurations close to the surface and subsequently freely evolved in a simulation run at room temperature ($k_{\rm B}T = 0.0256$ eV) for 10$^7$ to 10$^8$ Monte-Carlo steps per atom.
![\[clustershape\]*(Color online) Side view of the shape of adsorbed clusters of size (a) $N=55$, (b) $N=147$, and (c) $N=309$. The initially icosahedral clusters are placed on a planar substrate in the $x$-$y$ plane modeled with a generalized Lennard-Jones potential Eq. with a depth of the minimum of $V_{{\rm LJ},0} = -0.3$ eV and simulated at room temperature ($k_{\rm B}T = 0.0256$ eV). The clusters are reconstructed in hcp (a), fcc (b), and distorted icosahedral (c) structures as a consequence of the boundary condition imposed by the substrate. (The images were taken after quenching to $T=1.16$ K in order to eliminate noise.)*](ClusterShapeT256S3.eps){width="47.50000%"}
As a result of the boundary condition imposed by the substrate the clusters reconstructed in the simulation process to hcp (a), fcc (b), and distorted icosahedral (c) structures. As expected, the larger $N=309$ cluster is more stable than the smaller ones and does not undergo a structural transition within reasonable run times. The energy gain due to the Au-substrate interaction is roughly the number of atoms at the surface times the potential depth $V_{{\rm LJ},0}$. To be specific, we find $\Delta E_{{\rm subs},55} = -6.31$ eV, $\Delta
E_{{\rm subs},147} = -10.85$ eV, and $\Delta E_{{\rm subs},309} =
-12.02$ eV for the configurations shown in Fig. \[clustershape\] as compared to the icosahedral structures.
When briefly tempering the clusters with $N=55$ and $N=147$ at $k_{\rm
B}T\sim 0.7$ eV and subsequent quenching we find that both hcp and fcc structures are realized. The energy differences of the hcp configuration with respect to the bulk-ground-state fcc structure is smaller than energy fluctuations due to boundary effects. This observation is consistent with the frequently observed[@CW97] stacking faults in fcc and hcp bulk crystals.
For completeness we have performed runs simulating a graphite substrate using Eq. (\[LJfitgraphite\]) with a potential depth of $V_{{\rm LJ},0} = 0.09$ eV. We find that Au$_{55}$ is amorphous at room temperature while Au$_{147}$ retains its initial icosahedral structure (not shown). The melting point[@Wern05a] of Au$_{55}$ in the absence of the substrate is close to room temperature,[@EAT91; @CLL99; @CB01; @KIS04; @WernUn] which accounts for its larger sensitivity to boundary effects.
### Gold film
When placing a number of randomly distributed Au atoms on the homogeneous substrate as described by Eq. (\[LJfitmean\]) a hexagonally coordinated double layer is found to be the metastable structure attained (see also Sec. \[sectionDrag\]) for a large parameter range of $0.1 < V_{{\rm LJ},0} / {\rm eV} < 0.6$. The surface of such an Au double layer corresponds to an Au(111) surface, albeit with 3.5% contracted nearest-neighbor bond-length due to surface effects.[@Gupt81] In order to model the shape of the Au clusters that are found on the Au film we placed an initially icosahedral cluster $N=309$ on the substrate surrounded by such an Au double layer formed of 291 atoms. The diameter of such a cluster of $d\approx2.1$ nm corresponds to that investigated in Sec.\[sectionThick\].
Figure \[ClusterShape309\] shows the resulting shape of the cluster from the side in panel (a) and from the top in panel (b). Since the Au-double-layer-cluster interaction is much stronger than the substrate-cluster interaction \[c.f. Fig. \[clustershape\](c)\], the cluster completely reconstructs to an fcc lattice to match the structure of the film.
![\[ClusterShape309\]*(Color online) Side (a) and top (b) view of an Au$_{309}$ cluster surrounded by an Au double layer bound to a substrate as modeled by Eq. (\[LJfitmean\]) with $V_{{\rm LJ},0} = 0.3$ eV at room temperature ($k_{\rm B}T = 0.0256$ eV). The Au$_{309}$ was initially icosahedral but reconstructed to a fcc lattice under the influence of the Au(111) double layer. (The images were taken after quenching to $T=1.16$ K in order to eliminate noise.)*](ClusterShape309.eps){width="47.50000%"}
Island formation {#sectionMCislands}
----------------
In order to model the formation of the islands on the a-C substrate we simulate the dynamics of clusters rather than individual atoms, which allows us to model sufficiently large systems. Moreover, we are able to reproduce experimental results[@PKW+01; @EHD02; @CPP03] for the diffusion and agglomeration of size selected clusters published previously.
In Sec. \[sectionThick\] we have shown from the experimental holographic data that the Au film in the islands is less than 7 nm. In Sec. \[sectionAdsorbed\] the MC simulations have shown that small adsorbed clusters of Au$_N$ for $N=55$ and $N=147$ do not retain their structure at room temperature and can easily fuse. Smaller clusters are more likely to be trapped by pinning centers on the corrugated a-C film as discussed in Secs. \[SubstrateHolography\] and \[SubstrateDFT\], while larger clusters are more stable and retain their structure instead of fusing with their environment as indicated in Secs. \[sectionClusterPot\] and \[sectionAdsorbed\]. These findings suggest that the Au films of the islands are formed by diffusing and coalescing clusters on the substrate in the size range around $50 < N < 300$ leading to a film thickness of 4 to 8 monolayers.
For simplicity we show here simulations of a system with an effective cluster cohesive potential of the form given by Eq.(\[ClustercohesiveE\]) with parameters as obtained for $N =
147$. Correspondingly, the cluster-substrate attractive potential is given by Eq. (\[LJfitmean\]), where we use a value of $V_{\rm LJ,0}
= 11$ eV as obtained from the quantitative analysis in Sec.\[sectionAdsorbed\]. Results obtained for parameters with $N = 55$ are qualitatively equivalent (not shown).
Figure \[Islands147\] shows a series of snapshots[@colors] from a simulation run of 200 initially randomly placed effective Au$_{147}$ clusters. Panel (a) shows that after 3000 MC steps per cluster small islands and chains of clusters have formed very similar to those observed on short time scales for monodisperse 4.8 nm diameter Au clusters on an a-C substrate,[@EHD02] Ag$_{5000}$ clusters on graphite,[@CPP03] and 8.5 nm diameter Co clusters on microgrid substrates.[@PKW+01] It is important to note that the time scales for the diffusion and fusion processes depend on the temperature, the substrate properties, and the cluster sizes so that these metastable structures can be observed only in a system specific time window.
![\[Islands147\]*(Color online) Simulation of 200 Au$_{147}$ clusters interacting as described by Eq. (\[ClustercohesiveE\]) on a substrate modeled by Eq. (\[LJfitmean\]) with $V_{\rm LJ,0} =
11$ eV after (a) 3000, (b) $4\times 10^{4}$, (c) $4\times
10^{5}$, and (d) $4.3\times 10^{7}$ MC steps per cluster. The radius of the dots representing the clusters has been chosen as $R_{{\rm min},147}(T_{\rm room}) = 0.6$ nm, i.e., touching clusters are fused as shown in Fig. \[clusterpot\](b). The side views in panels (a) and (b) show that all clusters are located in a plane touching the substrate.[@colors]*](Islands147.eps){width="47.50000%"}
At room temperature the Au$_{147}$ clusters can be considered as to be fused almost instantaneously compared with the diffusion time scales as shown in Fig. \[clusterpot\](b). Correspondingly the radius of the dots representing the Au$_{147}$ clusters in Fig.\[Islands147\] has been chosen as $R_{{\rm min},147}(T_{\rm room})
= 0.6$ nm. Larger clusters fuse on much longer time scales or at higher temperatures.[@PKW+01; @EHD02; @CPP03; @LJB97; @ABPG04] From the MC simulations a diffusion coefficient cannot be determined quantitatively because of the lack of a time constant in the MC procedure.
Panels (b), (c) and (d) of Fig. \[Islands147\] shows the system after $4\times 10^{4}$, $4\times 10^{5}$, and $4.3\times 10^{7}$ MC steps per cluster, respectively. Clusters and islands of clusters coalesce once they get close enough gaining cohesive energy. Structures with short border lines are favored over extended linear ones for the same reason. The (expected) tendency to form larger islands by diffusion and fusion is clearly visible. The present simulation of effective clusters underestimates the migration speed as well as the reorganization[@DMH81] of the islands to more circular structures because the diffusion of the individual atoms on the surface of the clusters is not accounted for. For larger clusters the latter is the dominant cluster migration process[@Grub67; @WG75] referred to as surface diffusion. Including this effects requires the investigation of much smaller systems such as shown in Sec. \[sectionDrag\]. In conclusion the cluster diffusion and fusion as modeled by the effective clusters and cluster interactions correctly accounts for the experimentally observed[@EHD02; @CPP03; @PKW+01] pattern formation \[Fig. \[Islands147\](a)\]. The fused clusters \[Fig.\[clusterpot\](b)\] form small islands \[Fig. \[Islands147\](d)\] with a thickness of roughly the cluster diameter, which corresponds in the case of Au$_{147}$ to 5 monolayers \[Fig.\[clustershape\](b)\]. The expected continued migration by surface diffusion[@Grub67; @WG75] and fusion of the small islands in Fig.\[Islands147\](d) is consistent with the experimentally observed island formation shown in Fig. \[expfig1\](b).
Cluster drag {#sectionDrag}
------------
All initially randomly distributed larger clusters are incorporated into the Au films in the islands as shown in Figs. \[expfig1\](b) and \[expfig2\](a). It is not possible to simulate this effect directly because of the size limitations of the method. It is possible though to place randomly distributed Au atoms on a substrate modeled by the generalized Lennard Jones potential Eq. (\[LJfitmean\]), where $V_{{\rm LJ},0} = 0.3$ eV, together with a $N=147$ and a $N=55$ Au cluster at room temperature ($k_{\rm B}T = 0.0256$ eV). The thus modeled system is significantly smaller than those observed in the experiments but the dynamical behavior is likely to be similar, albeit with rescaled diffusion constants and time scales.
Snapshots taken at three different run times are shown in Fig.\[ClusterDrag\]. Panel (a) shows the initially random distribution of 298 atoms as well as the Au$_{\rm 55}$ and Au$_{\rm 147}$ clusters after 93 MC steps per atom. Panel (b) shows the system after $6\times10^{4}$ MC steps per atom. The percolating regions coalesce. Panel (c) shows a side view of the same state of the system as in (b) and illustrates that the atoms have formed a Au double layer. This double layer is stable at room temperature in a substrate parameter range of $0.1 < V_{{\rm LJ},0}/{\rm eV} < 0.6$.
![\[ClusterDrag\]*(Color online) Time evolution of a system of 298 Au atoms placed randomly on the substrate \[Eq. (\[LJfitmean\])\], one Au$_{\rm 55}$ and one Au$_{\rm 147}$ cluster. Panel (a): 93 MC steps; panels (b) and (c): $6\times10^{4}$ MC steps; panels (d) and (e): $1.18\times10^{6}$ MC steps per atom. Panels (c) shows the formation of the double layer film, panel (e) the restructuring of the initially icosahedral clusters. (The images were taken after quenching to $T=1.16$ K in order to eleminate noise.)*](ClusterDrag.eps){width="47.50000%"}
Panel (d) of Fig. \[ClusterDrag\] shows the system after $1.18\times10^{6}$ MC steps per atom. The coalescing Au double layer has contracted thus minimizing it cohesive energy. In the cohesion process the less mobile Au$_{\rm 55}$ and Au$_{\rm 147}$ clusters have been pulled closer together. They are located closer to the border of the Au film consistent with the experiments indicating a slightly larger probability to find clusters near the boundaries of the islands than in their center. The separated island in the lower right hand corner of Fig. \[ClusterDrag\] is less mobile and fuses with the larger island only after comparably long run times (not shown).
Panel (e) of Fig. \[ClusterDrag\] shows a side view of the system after $1.18\times10^{6}$ MC steps per atom and illustrates the fcc restructuring of the initially icosahedral clusters in the presence of the Au double layer film.
Conclusions {#sectionConclusions}
===========
We presented experimental results showing the formation of Au islands on amorphous carbon substrates after laser deposition of non-size-selected clusters and subsequent aging of the samples in the absence of inert condition for three to four months. We characterized both the substrate and the Au films with electron transmission holography. A model potential for the substrate-Au interaction was derived with the help of density functional calculations. Subsequently a number of Monte-Carlo simulations were carried out describing the island formation process and the shape of the adsorbed clusters.
The following qualitative and quantitative results have been incurred from the investigations.
- The observed islands have a typical size of $A \sim 25 \times
70$ nm$^2$.
- The islands consist of an Au film of a few monolayers \[probably 4 to 8 but definitely less than 27 Au(111) layers\] thickness and adsorbed larger clusters.
- The islands are metastable and coalesce at elevated temperatures of $T \sim 400$ K.
- The islands are formed by diffusion and coalescence of clusters of size $50 < N < 300$.
- Larger clusters, which normally are less mobile, are dragged along by the percolating Au film formed by the smaller clusters.
- Smaller clusters are pinned at deeper substrate intrusions as indicated by the broadening of the phase distribution in the holographic images of the ablated samples.
- A number of observations suggest that the amorphous carbon substrate surface is much less corrugated than anticipated. Instead, the substrate appears to exhibit significant internal spatial density fluctuations.
- The Au-substrate interaction can be modeled by a generalized Lennard-Jones potential for graphite \[Eq. (\[LJfitgraphite\])\] and for amorphous carbon \[Eq. (\[LJfitmean\])\].
- An effective Au cluster-cluster interaction has been determined \[Eq. (\[ClustercohesiveE\])\].
The extensive investigation presented in this work contribute to a better understanding of some processes taking place in the so far little investigated field of the dynamic behavior of cluster arrays deposited on amorphous surfaces.
We thank S.-S. Jester and M. M. Kappes for the sample preparation, outlining the preparation process, and discussions. RW thanks P. Schmitteckert, M. Vojta, and P. Wölfle for instructive discussions. The work was supported by the Center for Functional Nanostructures of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within project area D1.
[10]{}
P. Wynblatt and N. A. Gjostein, Progr. Sol. State Chem. [**9**]{}, 21 (1975).
P. Williams, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**50**]{}, 1760 (1987).
K. Morgenstern, G. Rosenfeld, and G. Comsa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2113 (1996).
D. L. Penga, T. J. Konno, K. Wakoh, T. Hihara, and K. Sumiyama, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1535 (2001).
D. A. Eastham, B. Hamilton, and P. M. Denby, Nanotechnology [**13**]{}, 51 (2002).
M. Couillard, S. Pratontep, and R. E. Palmera, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**82**]{}, 2595 (2003).
M. Forshaw, R. Stadler, D. Crawley, and K. Nikolic, Nanotechnology [**15**]{}, 220 (2004).
G. Allan, C. Delerue, C. Krzeminski, and M. Lannooi, Nanostruct. Mat. 161 (2002).
A. Pestryakov, V. Lunin, A. Kharlanov, N. Bogdanchikova, and I. Tuzovskaya, Euro. Phys. J. D [**24**]{}, 307 (2003).
S. Ichikawa, T. Akita, M. Okumura, M. Kohyama, and K. Tanaka, JEOL News [ **38**]{}, 6 (2003).
W. Ostwald, Z. Phys. Chem. (Leipzig) [**34**]{}, 495 (1900).
C. Wagner, Z. Elektrochem. [**65**]{}, 581 (1961).
M. Utlaut, Phys. Rev. B [**22**]{}, 4650 (1980).
D. J. Smith, A. K. Petford-Long, L. R. Wallenberg, and J.-O. Bovin, Science [**233**]{}, 872 (1986).
M. Y. Efremov, F. Schiettekatte, M. Zhang, E. A. Olson, A. T. Kwan, R. S. Berry, and L. H. Allen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3560 (2000).
D. J. Wales, J. P. K. Doye, M. A. Miller, P. N. Mortenson, and T. R. Walsh, Adv. Chem. Phys. [**115**]{}, 1 (2000).
J. Hagen, L. Socaciu, U. Heiz, T. Bernhardt, and L. Wöste, Euro. Phys. J. D [**24**]{}, 327 (2003).
D. Gross, [*Microcanonical thermodynamics: Phase transitions in Small systems*]{}, [*volume 66 of Lecture Notes in Physics*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001).
K. Fauth, S. Gold, M. He[ß]{}ler, N. Schneider, and G. Schütz, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**392**]{}, 498 (2004).
W. Vervisch, C. Mottet, and J. Goniakowski, Euro. Phys. J. D [**24**]{}, 311 (2003).
L. Reimer, [*Transmission electron microscopy*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1989).
M. Lehmann and H. Lichte, Microsc. Microanal. [**8**]{}, 447 (2002).
J. Robertson, Adv. Phys. [**35**]{}, 317 (1986).
B. Reznik, M. Fotouhi, and D. Gerthsen, Carbon [**42**]{}, 1305 (2004).
J. T. Titantah and D. Lamoen, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 033101 (2004).
P. Weis, S. Gilb, P. Gerhardt, and M. M. Kappes, Int. J. Mass Spec. [**216**]{}, 59 (2002).
P. Weis, O. Welz, E. Vollmer, and M. M. Kappes, J. Chem. Phys. [**120**]{}, 677 (2004).
P. Milani and W. A. deHeer, Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**61**]{}, 1835 (1990).
T. G. Dietz, M. A. Duncan, D. E. Powers, and R. E. Smalley, J. Chem. Phys. [ **74**]{}, 6511 (1981).
U. Heiz, F. Vanolli, L. Trento, and W.-D. Schneider, Rev. Sci. Instrum. [ **68**]{}, 1986 (1997), and references therein.
A. Rosenauer, S. Kaiser, T. Reisinger, J. Zweck, W. Gebhardt, and D. Gerthsen, Optik [**102**]{}, 63 (1996).
Since the wavelength of the electronic wave-function is longer in the sample medium than in vacuum [@Reim89] the phase shift measured is actually negative. For a more intuitive representation, where larger values correspond to larger sample thickness, we have inverted the $\phi$ axes.
R. Buhl, Z. Phys. [**155**]{}, 395 (1959).
M. Keller, Z. Phys. [**164**]{}, 274 (1961).
M. Gajdardziska-Josifovska and A. H. Carim, in [*Introduction to Electron Holography*]{}, edited by E. Voelkl, L. F. Allard, and D. C. Joy (Plenum Press, New York and London, 1999), pp. 241–268.
A. Harscher and H. Lichte, in [*Proceedings of the 14th International Congress on Electron Microscopy*]{}, edited by H. Calderon-Benavides and M. J. Jose-Yacaman (IOP Publishing Ltd., London, 1998), Vol. 1, p. 553.
A. Sánchez and M. Ochando, J. Phys. C: Solid St. Phys. [**18**]{}, 33 (1985).
S. M. Ritzau and R. A. Baragiola, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 2529 (1998).
F. Allegrini, R. F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, P. Wurz, and P. Bochsler, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B [**211**]{}, 487 (2003).
Y. Wang and J. P. Perdew, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 13298 (1991).
P. E. Blöchl, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 17953 (1994).
G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 1758 (1999).
A planwave cutoff of E$_{\rm cut}$=275eV was used, with additional calculations at E$_{\rm cut}$=400eV to check convergence. K-point sampling on a $8\times
8$ ($2\times 2$) grid in the 2 dimensional Brillouin zone was used for the graphite (a-C) calculations, respectively. Total energies were converged to $10^{-5}$ eV to ensure accurate forces.
M. P. Allen and D. J. Tildesley, [*Computer Simulation of Liquids*]{}, [ *Oxford Science Publications*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989).
J. Wanga, F. Dinga, W. Shena, T. Lia, G. Wanga, and J. Zhaod, Solid State Commun. [**119**]{}, 13 (2001).
R. Werner, Eur. Phys. J. B in print (2005).
R. P. Gupta, Phys. Rev. B [**23**]{}, 6265 (1981).
F. Cleri and V. Rosato, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 22 (1993).
H. Hövel, T. Becker, A. Bettac, B. Reihl, M. Tschudy, and E. J. Williams, J. Appl. Phys. [**81**]{}, 154 (1997).
H. Hövel, Appl. Phys. A [**72**]{}, 295 (2001).
J. Dong and D. A. Drabold, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 15591 (1998).
J. Urban, Cryst. Res. Technol. [**33**]{}, 1009 (1998).
S. Gilb, P. Weis, F. Furche, R. Ahlrichs, and M. M. Kappes, J. Chem. Phys. [ **116**]{}, 4094 (2002).
R. B. McLellan, Scr. Metall. [**3**]{}, 389 (1969).
V. M. Hallmark, S. Chiang, J. F. Rabolt, J. D. Swalen, and R. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 2879 (1987).
L. Huang, J. Chevrier, P. Zeppenfeld, and G. Cosma, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**66**]{}, 935 (1995).
M. A. van Hove, R. J. Koestner, P. C. Stair, J. P. Biberian, L. L. Kesmodel, I. Bartos, and G. A. Somorjai, Surf. Sci. [**103**]{}, 189 (1981).
E. Ganz, K. Sattler, and J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 1856 (1988).
M. Drechsler, J. J. Métois, and J. C. Heyraud, Surf. Sci. [**108**]{}, 549 (1981).
L. J. Lewis, P. Jensen, and J.-L. Barrat, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 2248 (1997).
S. Arcidiacono, N. Bieri, D. Poulikakos, and C. Grigoropoulos, Int. J. Multiph. Flow [**30**]{}, 979 (2004).
O. D. Häberlen, S.-C. Chung, M. Stener, and N. Rösch, J. Chem. Phys. [ **106**]{}, 5189 (1997).
I. L. Garzón, K. Michaelian, M. R. Beltrán, A. Posada-Amarillas, P. Ordejón, E. Artacho, D. Sánchez-Portal, and J. M. Soler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1600 (1998).
J. P. K. Doye and D. J. Wales, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1357 (1998).
N. Chetty and M. Weinert, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 10844 (1997).
F. Ercolessi, W. Andreoni, and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 911 (1991).
Y. G. Chushak and L. S. Bartell, J. Phys. C [**105**]{}, 11605 (2001).
K. Koga, T. Ikeshoji, and K. I. Sugawara, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 115507 (2004).
C. L. Cleveland, W. D. Luedtke, and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 5065 (1999).
R. Werner, unpublished.
The color coding of Figs. 10 through 13 is such that the objects closest to the viewer are lighter and the most distant objects are dark. The color gradient is normalized to the maximum difference in distance of objects. As a result the different clusters shown in Fig. 12 appear in different shades even though they all are positioned in the same plane with very little difference in distance from the substrate, which becomes apparent in the side views in panel (a) and (b).
E. E. Gruber, J. Appl. Phys. [**38**]{}, 243 (1967).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Based on the hidden local symmetry (HLS) Lagrangian as an effective field theory of QCD, we find that the chiral symmetry restoration for hot QCD can be realized through the Vector Manifestation where the $\rho$ meson becomes massless degenerate with $\pi$ as the chiral partner. This is done by including, in addition to the hadronic thermal effects due to the $\pi$- and $\rho$-loops, the intrinsic temperature dependences of the parameters of the HLS Lagrangian through the matching of the HLS with the underlying QCD.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA'
- 'Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Nagoya, 464-8602, Japan.'
author:
- '[**Masayasu Harada**]{}[^1] and [**Chihiro Sasaki**]{}'
title: '**Vector Manifestation in Hot Matter**'
---
Introduction
============
Vector meson mass in hot and/or dense matter is one of the most interesting physical quantities in studying the hot and/or dense QCD where the chiral symmetry is expected to be restored (for reviews, see, e.g., Refs. [@restoration; @Brown-Rho:96; @Brown-Rho:01b; @Rapp-Wambach:00]). The BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) has started to measure several effects in hot and/or dense matter. Especially, the light vector meson mass is important for analysing the dilepton spectra in RHIC. In Refs. [@Brown-Rho:91; @Brown-Rho:96] it was proposed that the $\rho$-meson mass scales like the pion decay constant and vanishes at the chiral phase transition point in hot and/or dense matter.
To study the $\rho$ mass in hot matter it is useful to use models including the $\rho$ meson. Among several such models we use the model based on the hidden local symmetry (HLS) [@BKUYY=BKY:88] which successfully reproduces the phenomena of $\rho$-$\pi$ system at zero temperature. The HLS model is a natural extension of the nonlinear sigma model, and reduces to it in the low-energy region. It was shown [@equivalence] that the HLS model is equivalent to other models for vector mesons at tree level. We should stress here that, as first pointed by Georgi [@Georgi] and developed further in Refs. [@HY; @Tanabashi; @HY:matching; @HY:PR], [*thanks to the gauge symmetry in the HLS model, we can perform a systematic loop expansion including the vector mesons in addition to the pseudoscalar mesons*]{}.
Several groups [@Lee-Song-Yabu:95=Song-Koch:96; @Harada-Shibata; @Rapp-Wambach:00] studied the $\rho$ mass in hot matter using the HLS model. Most of them included only the thermal effect of $\pi$ and dropped that of $\rho$ itself. In Ref. [@Harada-Shibata], the first application of the systematic chiral perturbation with HLS [@Georgi; @HY; @Tanabashi; @HY:matching; @HY:PR] in hot matter was made. There hadronic thermal effects of $\rho$ and $\pi$ were included at one loop and the $\rho$ mass was shown to increase with temperature $T$ at low temperature.
In the analysis done in Ref. [@Harada-Shibata] the parameters of the Lagrangian at $T=0$ were used by assuming no temperature dependences of them. When we naively extrapolate the results in Ref. [@Harada-Shibata] to the critical temperature, the resultant axialvector and vector current correlators do not agree with each other. Disagreement between these correlators is obviously inconsistent with the chiral restoration in QCD. However, the parameters of the HLS Lagrangian should be determined by the underlying QCD. As was shown in Ref. [@HY:matching], [*the bare parameters of the (bare) HLS Lagrangian*]{} defined at the matching scale $\Lambda$ for $N_f = 3$ at $T=0$ [*are determined by matching the HLS with the underlying QCD*]{} at $\Lambda$ through the Wilsonian matching conditions: This was done by matching the current correlators in the HLS with those derived by the operator product expansion (OPE) in QCD. Since the current correlators by the OPE at non-zero temperature depend on the temperature (see, e.g., Refs. [@Adami-Brown; @Hatsuda-Koike-Lee]), the application of the Wilsonian matching to the hot matter calculation implies that the bare parameters of the HLS do depend on the temperature, which we call the [*intrinsic temperature dependences*]{} in contrast to the hadronic thermal effects. We stress here that the above disagreement between the current correlators is cured by including the intrinsic temperature dependences.
In Ref. [@HY:VM], on the other hand, [*the vector manifestation (VM)*]{} is proposed as a new pattern of the Wigner realization of chiral symmetry, in which the chiral symmetry is restored at the critical point by [*the massless degenerate pion (and its flavor partners) and the $\rho$ meson (and its flavor partners) as the chiral partner*]{}, in sharp contrast to the traditional manifestation à la linear sigma model where the symmetry is restored by the degenerate pion and the scalar meson. It was shown that VM actually takes place in the large $N_f$ QCD through the Wilsonian matching. Since the VM is a general property in the chiral restoration when the HLS can be matched with the underlying QCD at the critical point, it was then suggested [@HY:VM; @Brown-Rho:01a; @Brown-Rho:01b] that the VM may be applied to the chiral restoration in hot and/or dense matter.
In this paper, we demonstrate that [*the VM can in fact occur in the chiral symmetry restoration in hot matter*]{}, using the HLS as an effective field theory of QCD. Here we determine the intrinsic temperature dependences of the bare parameters of the HLS through the Wilsonian matching in hot matter, and convert them to the intrinsic temperature dependences of the on-shell parameters by including the quantum effects through the Wilsonian RGE’s for the HLS parameters [@HY:letter; @HY:matching]. Then, we separately include the hadronic thermal effects to obtain physical quantities by explicitly calculating the $\pi$- and $\rho$- thermal loops.
Hidden Local Symmetry
=====================
Let us first describe the HLS model based on the $G_{\rm global} \times H_{\rm local}$ symmetry, where $G = \mbox{SU($N_f$)}_{\rm L} \times
\mbox{SU($N_f$)}_{\rm R}$ is the global chiral symmetry and $H = \mbox{SU($N_f$)}_{\rm V}$ is the HLS. The basic quantities are the gauge boson $\rho_\mu$ and two variables $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\xi_{\rm L,R} = e^{i\sigma/F_\sigma} e^{\mp i\pi/F_\pi}
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi$ denotes the pseudoscalar Nambu-Goldstone (NG) boson and $\sigma$ [^2] the NG boson absorbed into $\rho_\mu$ (longitudinal $\rho$). $F_\pi$ and $F_\sigma$ are relevant decay constants, and the parameter $a$ is defined as $a \equiv F_\sigma^2/F_\pi^2$. The transformation property of $\xi_{\rm L,R}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\xi_{\rm L,R}(x) \rightarrow \xi_{\rm L,R}^{\prime}(x) =
h(x) \xi_{\rm L,R}(x) g^{\dag}_{\rm L,R}
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $h(x) \in H_{\rm local}$ and $g_{\rm L,R} \in G_{\rm global}$. The covariant derivatives of $\xi_{\rm L,R}$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&&
D_\mu \xi_{\rm L} =
\partial_\mu \xi_{\rm L} - i g \rho_\mu \xi_{\rm L}
+ i \xi_{\rm L} {\cal L}_\mu
\ ,
\nonumber\\
&&
D_\mu \xi_{\rm R} =
\partial_\mu \xi_{\rm R} - i g \rho_\mu \xi_{\rm R}
+ i \xi_{\rm R} {\cal R}_\mu
\ ,
\label{covder}\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is the HLS gauge coupling, and ${\cal L}_\mu$ and ${\cal R}_\mu$ denote the external gauge fields gauging the $G_{\rm global}$ symmetry.
The HLS Lagrangian is given by [@BKUYY=BKY:88] $${\cal L} = F_\pi^2 \, \mbox{tr}
\left[ \hat{\alpha}_{\perp\mu} \hat{\alpha}_{\perp}^\mu \right]
+ F_\sigma^2 \, \mbox{tr}
\left[
\hat{\alpha}_{\parallel\mu} \hat{\alpha}_{\parallel}^\mu
\right]
+ {\cal L}_{\rm kin}(\rho_\mu) \ ,
\label{Lagrangian}$$ where ${\cal L}_{\rm kin}(\rho_\mu)$ denotes the kinetic term of $\rho_\mu$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\hat{\alpha}_{\perp,\parallel}^\mu =
( D_\mu \xi_{\rm R} \cdot \xi_{\rm R}^\dag \mp
D_\mu \xi_{\rm L} \cdot \xi_{\rm L}^\dag
) / (2i)
\ .\end{aligned}$$ When the kinetic term ${\cal L}_{\rm kin}(\rho_\mu)$ is ignored in the low-energy region, the second term of Eq.(\[Lagrangian\]) vanishes by integrating out $\rho_\mu$ and only the first term remains. Then, the HLS model is reduced to the nonlinear sigma model based on $G/H$.
At zero temperature $T=0$, it was shown [@Georgi; @Tanabashi] that, thanks to the gauge symmetry in the HLS, we can perform the systematic loop expansion including the vector meson. Here the expansion parameter is a ratio of the $\rho$ meson mass to the chiral symmetry breaking scale $\Lambda_\chi$ [@Georgi] in addition to the ratio of the momentum $p$ to $\Lambda_\chi$ as used in the ordinary chiral perturbation theory. By assigning ${\cal O}(p)$ to the HLS gauge coupling $g$ [@Georgi; @Tanabashi], the Lagrangian in Eq. (\[Lagrangian\]) is counted as ${\cal O}(p^2)$, and one-loop quantum corrections obtained from the Lagrangian are counted as ${\cal O}(p^4)$.
Due to quantum corrections, three parameters $F_\pi$, $F_\sigma$ and $g$ are renormalized at one-loop level, and depend on the renormalization scale $\mu$ [@HY; @HY:letter; @HY:matching]. Furthermore, at non-zero temperature $T >0$, these parameters have the intrinsic temperature dependences. We write both dependences explicitly as $F_\pi(\mu;T)$, $a(\mu;T)$ and $g(\mu;T)$ [^3].
To avoid confusion, we use $f_\pi$ for the physical decay constant of $\pi$, and $F_\pi$ for the parameter of the Lagrangian. Similarly, $M_\rho$ denotes the parameter of the Lagrangian and $m_\rho$ the $\rho$ pole mass. For calculating the hadronic thermal corrections it is convenient to adopt the on-shell renormalization scheme at $T=0$ as in Ref. [@Harada-Shibata]. Below, we use the following abbreviated notations: $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
F_\pi = F_\pi(\mu=0;T) \ ,
}
\nonumber\\
\lefteqn{
g = g\mbox{\boldmath$\bigl($}
\mu = M_\rho(T);T
\mbox{\boldmath$\bigr)$}
\ ,
\quad
a = a\mbox{\boldmath$\bigl($}
\mu = M_\rho(T);T
\mbox{\boldmath$\bigr)$}
\ ,
}
\label{on-shell para T}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_\rho$ is determined from the on-shell condition: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
M_\rho^2 = M_\rho^2(T) =
a\mbox{\boldmath$\bigl($}
\mu = M_\rho(T);T
\mbox{\boldmath$\bigr)$}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\times
g^2\mbox{\boldmath$\bigl($}
\mu = M_\rho(T);T
\mbox{\boldmath$\bigr)$}
F_\pi^2\mbox{\boldmath$\bigl($}
\mu = M_\rho(T);T
\mbox{\boldmath$\bigr)$}
\ .\end{aligned}$$ Then, the parameter $M_\rho$ in this paper is renormalized in such a way that it becomes the pole mass at $T=0$.
Hadronic Thermal Corrections
============================
Here we summarize the hadronic thermal effects to the decay constant of $\pi$ and the $\rho$ mass shown in Ref. [@Harada-Shibata] where the temperature $T$ is assigned to be of ${\cal O}(p)$ following Ref. [@Gasser-Leutwyler:87].
The decay constant of $\pi$ is defined through the longitudinal component of the axialvector current correlator at the low energy limit [@Bochkarev-Kapusta]. The hadronic thermal corrections from $\pi$ and $\rho$ are summarized as [@Harada-Shibata] $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
f_\pi^2(T)=
F_\pi^{2} - \frac{N_f}{2\pi^2}
\left[
I_2 - a J_1^2
+\frac{a}{3M_\rho^2} \left( I_{4}-J_{1}^{4}\right)
\right]
\ ,
}
\nonumber\\
\label{eq: fpi}\end{aligned}$$ where $I_n$ and $J_m^n$ ($n$, $m$: integer) are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
I_{n}
\equiv
\int_0^\infty d{\rm k} \frac{{\rm k}^{n-1}}{e^{{\rm k}/T}-1}
\ ,
\nonumber\\
&&
J_m^n
\equiv
\int_0^\infty d{\rm k} \frac{1}{e^{\omega/T}-1}
\frac{{\rm k}^n}{\omega^m}
\ ,
\label{function 1}\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega \equiv \sqrt{{\rm k}^2 + M_\rho^2}$. When we consider the low temperature region $T \ll M_\rho$ in Eq. (\[eq: fpi\]), only the $I_2$ term remains: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
f_\pi^2(T) \approx
F_\pi^2 - (N_f/ 2\pi^2) I_2
\nonumber\\
&& \qquad\quad
= F_\pi^2 - N_f T^2 / 12
\ ,
\label{fpi: ChPT}\end{aligned}$$ which is consistent with the result in Ref. [@Gasser-Leutwyler:87].
We estimate the critical temperature by naively extrapolating the above result to the higher temperature without including the intrinsic temperature dependences. The critical temperature for $N_f=3$ is approximated as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
T_c^{\rm(had)} \approx \sqrt{ 12/N_f }\, f_\pi(T=0)
\nonumber\\
&& \qquad\quad
= 2 f_\pi(0)
\simeq 180\,\mbox{MeV}
\ .
\label{Tc had}\end{aligned}$$
In Ref. [@Harada-Shibata] $m_\rho$ is defined by the pole of the longitudinal $\rho$ propagator at rest frame: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
m_\rho^2(T) = M_\rho^2 -
\mbox{Re}\,\Pi_V^L( p_0=M_\rho , \vec{p}=0;T)
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mbox{Re}\,\Pi_V^L$ denotes the real part of the longitudinal component of the $\rho$ two-point function at one-loop level. Inside the one-loop correction $\mbox{Re}\,\Pi_V^L$ we replaced $m_\rho$ by $M_\rho$, since the difference is of higher order. The resultant thermal corrections are summarized as [@Harada-Shibata] $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
m_\rho^2(T)
= M_\rho^2
-
\frac{N_f g^2}{2\pi^2}
\Biggl[
\frac{a^2}{12} \bar{G}_2
- \frac{5}{4} J_1^2
- \frac{33}{16} M_\rho^2 \, \bar{F}_3^2
\Biggr]
\ ,
}
\nonumber\\
&&
\label{mrho at T}\end{aligned}$$ where $J_1^2$ is defined in Eq. (\[function 1\]), and $\bar{F}_3^n$ and $\bar{G}_n$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\bar{F}_3^n \equiv
\int_0^\infty d{\rm k} {\cal P}
\frac{1}{e^{\omega /T}-1}
\frac{4{\rm k}^{n}}{\omega (4\omega^2 - M_\rho^2)}
\ ,
\nonumber \\
&&
\bar{G}_n \equiv
\int_0^\infty d{\rm k} {\cal P}
\frac{{\rm k}^{n-1}}{e^{{\rm k}/T}-1}
\frac{4{\rm k}^2}{4{\rm k}^2 - M_\rho^2}
\ ,
\label{function 2}\end{aligned}$$ with ${\cal P}$ denoting the principal part. From this expression it was shown [@Harada-Shibata] that there is no $T^2$ term in the low temperature region consistently with the result in Ref. [@Dey-Eletsky-Ioffe].
Intrinsic Temperature Dependences
=================================
Let us now include the intrinsic temperature dependences of $F_\pi$, $a$ and $g$ (and $M_\rho^2 = a g^2 F_\pi^2$) appearing in Eqs. (\[eq: fpi\]) and (\[mrho at T\]). To do that, we first determine the bare parameters defined at the matching scale $\Lambda$ by extending the Wilsonian matching [@HY:matching], which was originally proposed for $T=0$, to non-zero temperature. We should note that, for the validity of the expansion in the HLS, the matching scale $\Lambda$ must be smaller than the chiral symmetry breaking scale $\Lambda_\chi$. We match the axialvector and vector current correlators in the HLS with those derived in the OPE for QCD at non-zero temperature (see, e.g., Refs. [@Adami-Brown; @Hatsuda-Koike-Lee]). The correlators in the HLS around the matching scale $\Lambda$ are well described by the same forms as those at $T=0$ [@HY:matching] with the bare parameters having the intrinsic temperature dependences: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_A^{\rm(HLS)}(Q^2) &=&
\frac{F_\pi^2(\Lambda;T)}{Q^2} - 2 z_2(\Lambda;T)
\ ,
\nonumber\\
\Pi_V^{\rm(HLS)}(Q^2) &=&
\frac{
F_\sigma^2(\Lambda;T)
\left[ 1 - 2 g^2(\Lambda;T) z_3(\Lambda;T) \right]
}{
M_\rho^2(\Lambda;T) + Q^2
}
\nonumber\\
&&
- 2 z_1(\Lambda;T)
\ ,
\label{Pi A V HLS}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_\rho^2(\Lambda;T) \equiv g^2(\Lambda;T) F_\sigma^2(\Lambda;T)$ is the bare $\rho$ mass, and $z_{1,2,3}(\Lambda;T)$ are the bare coefficient parameters of the relevant ${\cal O}(p^4)$ terms [@Tanabashi; @HY:matching; @HY:PR]. Matching the above correlators with those by the OPE in the same way as done for $T=0$ [@HY:matching], we determine the bare parameters including the intrinsic temperature dependences, which are then converted into those of the on-shell parameters through the Wilsonian RGE’s [@HY:letter; @HY:matching]. As a result, the parameters appearing in the hadronic thermal corrections have the intrinsic temperature dependences. In this way we include [*both the intrinsic and hadronic thermal effects*]{} together into the physical quantities.
Vector Manifestation
====================
Now, we study the chiral restoration in hot matter. Here we assume that the chiral broken phase is in the confining phase, i.e., the critical temperature $T_c$ for chiral phase transition is not larger than the critical temperature for confinement-deconfinement phase transition, and the hadronic picture is valid. When the symmetry is completely restored, the HLS is not applicable. We approach to the critical temperature from the broken phase where the HLS is applicable. At the moment we assume that the expansion parameter $M_\rho/\Lambda_\chi$ is small near $T_c$. It turns out that it is actually small since $M_\rho\rightarrow0$ when $T\rightarrow T_c$, as we will show below. We first consider the Wilsonian matching at the critical temperature $T_c$ for $N_f = 3$ with assuming that $\langle \bar{q} q \rangle$ approaches to $0$ continuously for $T \rightarrow T_c$ [^4]. In such a case, the axialvector and vector current correlators by the OPE approach to each other, and agree at $T_c$. Then through the Wilsonian matching we require that the correlators in Eq. (\[Pi A V HLS\]) agree with each other. As was shown in Ref. [@HY:VM] for large $N_f$ chiral restoration, this agreement is satisfied if the following conditions are met [^5]: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
g(\Lambda;T) \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{T \rightarrow T_c} 0 \ ,
\qquad
a(\Lambda;T) \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{T \rightarrow T_c} 1 \ ,
\nonumber\\
&&
z_1(\Lambda;T) - z_2(\Lambda;T)
\mathop{\longrightarrow}_{T \rightarrow T_c} 0 \ .
\label{g a z12:VMT}\end{aligned}$$
As we explained above, the conditions for the bare parameters $g(\Lambda;T_c) =0$ and $a(\Lambda;T_c) = 1$ are converted into the conditions for the on-shell parameters through the Wilsonian RGE’s. Since $g=0$ and $a=1$ are separately the fixed points of the RGE’s for $g$ and $a$ [@HY:letter], the on-shell parameters also satisfy $(g,a)=(0,1)$, and thus $M_\rho = 0$.
Let us include the hadronic thermal effects to obtain the $\rho$ pole mass. Here we extrapolate the result in Eq. (\[mrho at T\]) to the higher temperature [*with including the intrinsic temperature dependences of the parameters*]{}. Noting that $\bar{G}_2 \rightarrow \pi^2 T^2/6$, $J_1^2 \rightarrow \pi^2 T^2/6$ and $M_\rho^2 \bar{F}_3^2 \rightarrow 0$ for $M_\rho \rightarrow 0$, Eq. (\[mrho at T\]) for $M_\rho \ll T$ reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
&& m_\rho^2(T)
= M_\rho^2 +
g^2 \frac{N_f }{2\pi^2} \frac{15 - a^2}{12} \frac{\pi^2}{6} T^2
\ .
\label{mrho at T 2}\end{aligned}$$ Since $a \simeq 1$ near the restoration point, the second term is positive. Then the $\rho$ pole mass $m_\rho$ is bigger than the parameter $M_\rho$ due to the hadronic thermal corrections. Nevertheless, [*the intrinsic temperature dependence determined by the Wilsonian matching requires that the $\rho$ becomes massless at the critical temperature*]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
m_\rho^2(T)
\mathop{\longrightarrow}_{T \rightarrow T_c} 0 \ ,\end{aligned}$$ since the first term in Eq. (\[mrho at T 2\]) vanishes as $M_\rho\rightarrow 0$, and the second term also vanishes since $g\rightarrow 0$ for $T \rightarrow T_c$. This implies that, as was suggested in Refs. [@HY:VM; @Brown-Rho:01a; @Brown-Rho:01b], [*the vector manifestation (VM) actually occurs at the critical temperature*]{}. This is the main result of this paper, which is consistent with the picture shown in Refs. [@Brown-Rho:91; @Brown-Rho:96; @Brown-Rho:01a; @Brown-Rho:01b]. We should stress here that the above $m_\rho(T)$ is the $\rho$ pole mass, which is important for analyzing the dilepton spectra in RHIC experiment. It is noted [@HY:VM] that although conditions for $g(\Lambda;T)$ and $a(\Lambda;T)$ in Eq. (\[g a z12:VMT\]) coincide with the Georgi’s vector limit [@Georgi], the VM ($f_\pi \rightarrow 0$) should be distinguished from Georgi’s vector realization [@Georgi].
Critical Temperature
====================
Let us determine the critical temperature. For $T > 0$ the thermal averages of the Lorentz non-scalar operators such as $\bar{q} \gamma_\mu D_\nu q$ exist in the OPE [@Hatsuda-Koike-Lee]. Since these are smaller than the main term $1 + \alpha_s/\pi$, we expect that they give only small corrections to the value of $T_c$, and neglect them here. Then, the Wilsonian matching condition to determine the bare parameter $F_\pi(\Lambda;T_c)$ is obtained from that in Eq. (4.5) of Ref. [@HY:matching] by taking $\langle \bar{q} q \rangle=0$ and including a possible temperature dependence of the gluonic condensate: $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\frac{F_\pi^2(\Lambda;T_c)}{\Lambda^2}
= \frac{1}{8\pi^2}
\left[
1 + \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
+ \frac{2\pi^2}{3}
\frac{
\left\langle
\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} G_{\mu\nu} G^{\mu\nu}
\right\rangle_{T_c}
}{ \Lambda^4 }
\right]
\ .
}
\nonumber\\
\label{fp Tc WM}\end{aligned}$$ The on-shell parameter $F_\pi(0;T_c)$ is determined through the Wilsonian RGE [@HY:letter; @HY:matching] for $F_\pi$ with taking $(g,a)=(0,1)$. As for large $N_f$ [@HY:letter; @HY:VM], the result is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\frac{F_\pi^2(0;T_c)}{\Lambda^2} =
\frac{F_\pi^2\left(\Lambda;T_c\right)}{\Lambda^2}
- \frac{N_f}{2(4\pi)^2} \ .
\label{RGE for fpi2 at vector limit at Tc}\end{aligned}$$ We need to include the hadronic thermal effects to obtain the relation between the parameter $F_\pi(0;T_c)$ and the order parameter $f_\pi(T_c)$. Here we extrapolate the hadronic thermal effect shown in Eq. (\[eq: fpi\]) to higher temperature [*with including the intrinsic thermal effect*]{}. Then, taking $M_\rho \rightarrow 0$ and $a \rightarrow 1$ in Eq. (\[eq: fpi\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&
0 = f_\pi^2(T_c) =
F_\pi^2(0;T_c) - N_f T_c^2 /24
\ .
\label{Fp: WM}\end{aligned}$$ Here we should note that the coefficient of $T^2$ in the second term is a half of that in Eq. (\[fpi: ChPT\]) which is an approximate form for $T \ll M_\rho$ taken with assuming that the $\rho$ does not become light. On the other hand, here the factor $1/2$ appears from the contribution of $\sigma$ (longitudinal $\rho$) which becomes the real NG boson at $T=T_c$ due to the VM where the chiral restoration in QCD predicts $a \rightarrow 1$ and $g \rightarrow 0$ for $T \rightarrow T_c$. From Eq. (\[Fp: WM\]) together with Eqs. (\[fp Tc WM\]) and (\[RGE for fpi2 at vector limit at Tc\]), $T_c$ is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
T_c = \sqrt{ \frac{24}{N_f} } F_\pi(0;T_c)
=
\sqrt{ \frac{3 \Lambda^2}{N_f\pi^2} }
}
\nonumber\\
&&
\times
\left[
1 + \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
+ \frac{2\pi^2}{3}
\frac{
\left\langle
\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} G_{\mu\nu} G^{\mu\nu}
\right\rangle_{T_c}
}{ \Lambda^4 }
- \frac{N_f}{4}
\right]^{1/2}
\ .
\nonumber\\
\label{Tc VM}\end{aligned}$$
We estimate the value of $T_c$ for $N_f=3$. The value of the gluonic condensate near phase transition point becomes about half of that at $T=0$ [@Miller; @Brown-Rho:01b], so we use $\left\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} G_{\mu\nu} G^{\mu\nu}
\right\rangle_{T_c} = 0.006 \,\mbox{GeV}^4$ obtained by multiplying the value at $T=0$ shown in Ref. [@SVZ] by $1/2$. For the value of the QCD scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ we use $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} = 400 \, \mbox{MeV}$ [^6] as a typical example. For this value of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, it was shown [@HY:matching] that the choice of $\Lambda = 1.1 \,\mbox{GeV}$ provides the predictions in good agreement with experiment at $T=0$. However, the matching scale may have the temperature dependence. In the present analysis we use $\Lambda=0.8$, $0.9$, $1.0$ and $1.1$GeV, and determine $T_c$ from Eq. (\[Tc VM\]). We show the resultant values in Table \[tab:Tc\].
$\Lambda$ $0.8$ $0.9$ $1.0$ $1.1$
----------- -------- -------- -------- --------
$T_c$ $0.21$ $0.22$ $0.23$ $0.25$
: Estimated values of the critical temperature $T_c$ for several choices of the value of the matching scale $\Lambda$. Units of $\Lambda$ and $T_c$ are GeV. []{data-label="tab:Tc"}
We note that the estimated values of $T_c$ in Table \[tab:Tc\] are larger than that in Eq. (\[Tc had\]) which is obtained by naively extrapolating the temperature dependence from the hadronic thermal effects without including the intrinsic temperature dependences. This is because the extra factor $1/2$ appears in the second term in Eq. (\[Fp: WM\]) compared with that in Eq. (\[Tc had\]). As we stressed below Eq. (\[Fp: WM\]), the factor $1/2$ comes from the contribution of $\sigma$ (longitudinal $\rho$) which becomes massless at the chiral restoration point.
Summary and Discussions
=======================
To conclude, [*by imposing the Wilsonian matching of the HLS with the underlying QCD at the critical temperature, where the chiral symmetry restoration takes place, the vector manifestation (VM) necessarily occurs: The vector meson mass becomes zero*]{}. Accordingly, the light vector meson gives a large thermal correction to the pion decay constant, and the value of the critical temperature becomes larger than the value estimated by including only the $\pi$ thermal effect. The result that the vector meson becomes light near the critical temperature is consistent with the picture shown in Refs. [@Brown-Rho:91; @Brown-Rho:96; @Brown-Rho:01a; @Brown-Rho:01b].
Several comments are in order:
As shown in Ref. [@HY:VM], in the VM only the longitudinal $\rho$ couples to the vector current near the critical point, and the transverse $\rho$ is decoupled from it. The $A_1$ in the VM is resolved and/or decoupled from the axialvector current near $T_c$ since there is no contribution in the vector current correlator to be matched with the axialvector correlator. We expect that the scalar meson is also resolved and/or decoupled near $T_c$ since it in the VM is in the same representation as the $A_1$ is in. We also expect that excited mesons are also resolved and/or decoupled.
The estimated values of $T_c$ shown in Table \[tab:Tc\] as well as $T_c^{\rm(had)}$ in Eq. (\[Tc had\]) may be changed by higher order hadronic thermal effects, as in the chiral perturbation analysis [@Gerber-Leutwyler]. On the other hand, the VM at $T_c$ is governed by the fixed point and not changed by higher order effects.
The parameter $M_\rho^2$ in Eq. (\[mrho at T\]) presumably has an intrinsic temperature dependence proportional to $T^2$ through the Wilsonian matching. Since we studied the intrinsic dependences only at $T_c$, we cannot definitely argue how $m_\rho(T)$ falls in $T$. However, we think that $g^2(\Lambda;T)$ vanishes as $\langle \bar{q} q \rangle_T^2$ near $T_c$ in the VM. If $\langle \bar{q} q \rangle_T^2$ falls as $( 1 - T^2/T_c^2)$ near $T_c$, then the $\rho$ pole mass $m_\rho^2(T)$ as well as the parameter $M_\rho^2(T)$ vanishes as $( 1 - T^2/T_c^2)$ which seems to agree with the behavior of $f_\pi^2(T)$. In such a case the scaling property in the VM may be consistent with the Brown-Rho scaling $m_\rho(T)/m_\rho(0) \sim f_\pi(T)/f_\pi(0)$ [@Brown-Rho:91].
Although we concentrated on the hot matter calculation in this paper, the present approach can be applied to the general hot and/or dense matter calculation.
At present, there are no clear lattice data for the $\rho$ pole mass in hot matter. Our result here will be checked by lattice analyses in future. [@lattice]
In this paper we performed our analysis at the chiral limit. We need to include the explicit chiral symmetry breaking effect from the current quark masses when we apply the present analysis to the real QCD. In such a case, we need the Wilsonian matching conditions with including non-zero quark mass which have not yet been established. Here we expect that the qualitative structure obtained in the present analysis will not be changed by the inclusion of the current quark masses.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Professor Koichi Yamawaki for discussions and for critical reading of this manuscript. We are also grateful to Professor Mannque Rho for useful comments and encouragements. This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A)\#12740144 and USDOE Grant \#DE-FG02-88ER40388.
[99]{}
T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept. [**247**]{}, 221 (1994); R. D. Pisarski, hep-ph/9503330; T. Hatsuda, H. Shiomi and H. Kuwabara, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**95**]{}, 1009 (1996); F. Wilczek, hep-ph/0003183. G.E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rept. [**269**]{}, 333 (1996). G.E. Brown and M. Rho, hep-ph/0103102, to appear in Phys. Rept. R. Rapp and J. Wambach, Adv. Nucl. Phys. [**25**]{}, 1 (2000). G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 2720 (1991). M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 1215 (1985); M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. [**164**]{}, 217 (1988). See, e.g., K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. D [**35**]{}, 412 (1987); G. Ecker, J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett. B [**223**]{}, 425 (1989); M. Tanabashi, Phys. Lett. B [**384**]{}, 218 (1996); M. C. Birse, Z. Phys. A [**355**]{}, 231 (1996). H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1917 (1989); Nucl. Phys. B [**331**]{}, 311 (1990). M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Lett. B [**297**]{}, 151 (1992). M. Tanabashi, Phys. Lett. B [**316**]{}, 534 (1993). M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 014023 (2001). M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, to appear in Phys. Rept.
S. H. Lee, C. Song and H. Yabu, Phys. Lett. B [**341**]{}, 407 (1995); C. Song and V. Koch, Phys. Rev. C [**54**]{}, 3218 (1996). M. Harada and A. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 6716 (1997). C. Adami and G. E. Brown, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 478 (1992); Phys. Rept. [**234**]{}, 1 (1993). T. Hatsuda, Y. Koike and S. Lee, Nucl. Phys. B [**394**]{}, 221 (1993). M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 757 (2001). G.E. Brown and M. Rho, nucl-th/0101015. M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3374 (1999). J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B [**184**]{}, 83 (1987). A. Bochkarev and J. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 4066 (1996). M. Dey, V. L. Eletsky and B. L. Ioffe, Phys. Lett. B [**252**]{}, 620 (1990). V. A. Miransky and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 5051 (1997) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**56**]{}, 3768 (1997)\]. D. E. Miller, arXiv:hep-ph/0008031. M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainstein and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B [**147**]{} 385 (1979); Nucl. Phys. B [**147**]{} 448 (1979).
A. J. Buras, hep-ph/9806471. P. Gerber and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B [**321**]{}, 387 (1989).
See, e.g., M. Asakawa, T. Hatsuda and Y. Nakahara, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**46**]{}, 459 (2001); F. Karsch, hep-ph/0103314; and references cited therein.
[^1]: Present address: Department of Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul, 151-742, Korea.
[^2]: Note that this $\sigma$ is different with the scalar meson in the linear sigma model.
[^3]: The renormalization scale $\mu$ and the temperature $T$ are independent of each other in the present approach.
[^4]: It is known that there is no Ginzburg-Landau type phase transition for $N_f=3$ (see, e.g., Refs. [@restoration; @Brown-Rho:96]). There may still be a possibility of non-Ginzburg-Landau type continuous phase transition such as the conformal phase transition [@Miransky-Yamawaki]. When the Wilsonian matching can be applicable for $N_f=2$, the VM should occur.
[^5]: We should note that we can take $T \rightarrow T_c$ limit with $\Lambda$ fixed in Eq. (\[g a z12:VMT\]) since $\Lambda$ and $T$ in the bare parameters of the HLS are independent of each other.
[^6]: This value of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ is within the range of values estimated in Ref. [@Buras]; $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(3)} = 297 \sim 457$MeV.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Transitionless quantum driving, also known as counterdiabatic driving, is a unique shortcut technique to adiabaticity, enabling a fast-forward evolution to the same target quantum states as those in the adiabatic case. However, as nothing is free, the fast evolution is obtained at the cost of stronger driving fields. Here, given the system initially get prepared in equilibrium states, we construct relations between the dynamical evolution speed and the cost rate of transitionless quantum driving in two scenarios: one that preserves the transitionless evolution for a single energy eigenstate (individual driving), and the other that maintains all energy eigenstates evolving transitionlessly (collective driving). Remarkably, we find that individual driving may cost as much as collective driving, in contrast to the common belief that individual driving is more economical than collective driving in multilevel systems. We then present a potentially practical proposal to demonstrate the above phenomena in a three-level Landau-Zener model using the electronic spin system of a single nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond.'
author:
- 'Zhen-Yu Xu$^{1}$'
- 'Wen-Long You$^{1}$'
- 'Yu-Li Dong$^{1}$'
- 'Chengjie Zhang$^{1}$'
- 'W. L. Yang$^{2}$'
title: Generalized speed and cost rate in transitionless quantum driving
---
Introduction
============
The interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty relation experienced a long period of friendly debate after the birth of quantum mechanics. It has now widely accepted that this uncertainty relation is not a statement about simultaneous events but rather about the intrinsic time scale of a quantum system in a given process to evolve to a target state [@MT; @ML]. The minimum period of time for the dynamical process is usually specified as the quantum speed limit time (see recent reviews in Refs. [QSL-review0,QSL-Review]{}). Since any realistic quantum system is subject to environmental noise [@Book; @Open], the research on the energy-time uncertainty relation has recently been extended to general open systems [QSL-review0,QSL-Review,QSLopen1,QSLopen2,QSLopen3,QSLopen4,QSLopen5]{}. This uncertainty relation between energy and time has a large variety of applications in quantum physics, such as exploration of the ultimate speed of quantum computers [@QC-1; @QC-2], the mechanism for quantum dynamical speedup [speedup1,speedup2,speedup3,Xu1,speedup-exp,Xu2,speedup4,speedup5,speedup6]{}, the ultimate bound for parameter estimation in quantum metrology [metrology1,metrology2]{}, and the efficiency of charging power in quantum batteries [@QB].
In particular, the energy-time uncertainty relation plays a key role in understanding the principle of counterdiabatic driving [@Rice], or transitionless quantum driving [@Berry], in the realization of shortcuts to adiabaticity [@STA-review]. This nonadiabatic (fast) protocol, which reproduces the same target state as an adiabatic (slow) process, enjoys wide applications in quantum computation and quantum thermodynamics [STA-review,STA10,STA11,STA-exp1,STA21,STA31,shortcuts-NV,STA32,STA40,STA41,santos,STA50,STA60,song1,cost,STA61,NX,speedcost,work,santos2,song2,STA70]{}. However, there is no such thing as free speedup, e.g., the superadiabatic route to the implementation of universal quantum computation is founded to be bounded by the quantum speed limit [@santos]. Recently, a rigorous relation between the speed of quantum evolution ($v$) and the cost rate of the driving field ($\partial _{t}C$) has been constructed [@speedcost], indicating that instantaneous manipulation is impossible as it requires an infinite cost rate. In fact, this relation is roughly demonstrated by the energy-time uncertainty relation ($\Delta E\sim \hbar /\tau $) since the variance of energy $\Delta E$ is related to the cost rate of the driving field and $\hbar /\tau \propto v$. However, this relation is obtained in a particular case, where the driving is restricted to a particular eigenstate (individual driving). Then questions naturally arise: Will a similar relation still exist in a more general case where all energy eigenstates are simultaneously driven in a transitionless way (collective driving)? Does the cost rate of individual driving always take less consumption than the collective case? What is the relationship of the dynamical speed between individual and collective driving? The answer to these questions are of great importance and may provide deeper insight into the mechanisms of counterdiabatic driving for complex quantum systems [STA-review,STA21,STA32,STA40]{}.
In this work, given the system initially get prepared in equilibrium states, i.e., $\partial _{t}\rho |_{t=0}=0$ [@book-quantum], we construct general and concise relations (or inequality) for the speed of quantum evolution and the cost rate both in collective and individual driving cases. As a by-product, we find that the cost rate of individual driving may become as large as that of collective driving, which is contrary to the common belief that collective driving costs more than individual driving in multilevel systems. As an example, we analyze the presented theory with a three-level Landau-Zener (LZ) model and design a protocol to test the above phenomena in an electronic spin of a single nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center in diamond under current experimental conditions.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we present the generalized cost-cost (Sec. IIA), speed-speed (Sec. IIB), and speed-cost (Sec. IIC) relations under individual/collective counterdiabatic driving cases. Section III is dedicated to the three-level LZ model with the theory introduced in Section II. An experimental analysis is performed in Section IV with a NV center in diamond. Finally, we close with a discussion and summary in Section V.
Generalized speed and cost rate during transitionless driving
=============================================================
Consider a time-dependent Hamiltonian H$(t)$ with instantaneous eigenstates {$\left\vert n_{t}\right\rangle $} and eigenvalues {$E_{n}(t)$}. When $%
H(t)$ varies sufficiently slowly, the dynamics for the $n$th eigenstate $%
\left\vert n_{t}\right\rangle $ in the adiabatic approximation is $%
\left\vert \Psi _{n}(t)\right\rangle =\exp ${$-(i/\hbar
)\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime }E_{n}(t^{\prime })-\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime
}\left\langle n_{t^{\prime }}|\partial _{t^{\prime }}n_{t^{\prime
}}\right\rangle $}$\left\vert n_{t}\right\rangle $. The central goal of transitionless driving is to find an auxiliary Hamiltonian $H^{A}(t)$ such that $\left\vert \Psi _{n}(t)\right\rangle $ becomes the exact dynamical solution of the Schrödinger equation $i\hbar \partial _{t}\left\vert
\Psi _{n}(t)\right\rangle =\mathcal{H}(t)\left\vert \Psi
_{n}(t)\right\rangle $, where $\mathcal{H}(t)=H(t)+H^{A}(t)$. According to the transitionless tracking algorithm, $H^{A}(t)$ can be constructed as follows [@Berry], $$H^{A}(t)=i\hbar \sum_{n}\partial _{t}(\left\vert n_{t}\right\rangle
\left\langle n_{t}\right\vert )\cdot \left\vert n_{t}\right\rangle
\left\langle n_{t}\right\vert . \label{TQD}$$We remark that the driving in Eq. (\[TQD\]) guarantees that all energy eigenstates evolve transitionlessly. For convenience, we call Eq. (\[TQD\]) collective driving. However, this strong requirement can be relaxed when we focus on a single particular eigenstate, e.g., the $n$th eigenstate $%
\left\vert n_{t}\right\rangle $, to ensure that only this eigenstate is driven transitionlessly. In other words, we may decouple the $n$th eigenstate from the rest eigenstates, and the corresponding auxiliary driving Hamiltonian is modified as [@Rice; @cost; @speedcost] $$H_{n}^{A}(t)=i\hbar \left[ \partial _{t}(\left\vert n_{t}\right\rangle
\left\langle n_{t}\right\vert ),\left\vert n_{t}\right\rangle \left\langle
n_{t}\right\vert \right] , \label{TQD-single}$$which is hereinafter called individual driving for simplicity [@Note]. Here the notation $[\cdot ,\cdot ]$ denotes the commutator and the subscript $n$ represents the individual driving for the $n$th eigenstate.
Cost rate
---------
A series of cost functions for transitionless driving have recently been introduced, among which the simplest member, ignoring the set-up constant, possesses the following form [@speedcost; @cost]
$$C_{(n)}=\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime }\left\Vert H_{(n)}^{A}(t^{\prime
})\right\Vert ^{\alpha }, \label{cost}$$
where $\left\Vert X\right\Vert =\sqrt{\text{tr}\left( X^{\dag }X\right) }$ is the Frobenius norm of operator $X$, and the superscript $\alpha $ depends on the nature of the driving field. For simplicity, we focus on the cost rate of transitionless driving, i.e., $\partial _{t}C_{(n)}=\left\Vert
H_{(n)}^{A}(t)\right\Vert ^{\alpha }$. Through straightforward calculations with Eq. (\[cost\]), we obtain the cost rate for driving all energy eigenstates as
$$\partial _{t}C=\hbar ^{\alpha }\left[ \sum_{n}(\langle \partial
_{t}n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle +\langle n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle
^{2})\right] ^{\alpha /2} \label{cost-global}$$
and for driving a particular single eigenstate as
$$\partial _{t}C_{n}=\hbar ^{\alpha }\left[ 2\left( \langle \partial
_{t}n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle +\langle n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle
^{2}\right) \right] ^{\alpha /2}. \label{cost local}$$
Thus, it is easy to see that the relation between the collective cost rate and the individual cost rate is given by
$$\partial _{t}C=\left[ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n}(\partial _{t}C_{n})^{2/\alpha }%
\right] ^{\alpha /2}. \label{cost-relation}$$
This relation implies that the individual driving cost rate may become as large as the collective case. For instance, we have $\partial
_{t}C_{k}=\partial _{t}C$ when the condition $$\partial _{t}C_{k}=\left[ \sum_{n\neq k}\left( \partial _{t}C_{n}\right)
^{2/\alpha }\right] ^{\alpha /2} \label{condition}$$ is satisfied [@Note2]. Note that for $n=2$, the above condition $%
\partial _{t}C_{1}=\partial _{t}C_{2}$ is met automatically [@Note], i.e., the cost rate of individual driving is equivalent to the collective case ($\partial _{t}C=\partial _{t}C_{1}=\partial _{t}C_{2}$) for any two energy level systems.
Dynamical speed from the perspective of geometry
------------------------------------------------
Characterizing the dynamical speed from the perspective of geometry is intuitionistic. Before we introduce the geometric method to define the dynamical speed of quantum evolution, it is beneficial to recall the definition of the instantaneous speed $v$ of an object in three-dimensional Euclidean space with Cartesian coordinate system $v=\partial _{t}s$, where $%
s $ is the length of the trajectory with the line element $%
ds^{2}=dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}$. Analogous to the above definition, it is very natural to define the speed of quantum evolution in the space of quantum states (parameterized by $\{\sigma ^{\mu
}\}$) as $$v=\partial _{t}s=\sqrt{g_{\rho }},\text{ } \label{speed}$$where the line element $ds^{2}=g_{\mu \nu }d\sigma ^{\mu }d\sigma ^{\nu }$ and $g_{\rho }=g_{\mu \nu }\partial _{t}\sigma ^{\mu }\partial _{t}\sigma
^{\nu }$ [@book-dg; @book-gs]. The repeated Greek indices represent summation and $g_{\mu \nu }$ is the corresponding metric. In this paper, we adopt the quantum Fisher information metric [@Note3], which is related to the distance between quantum states $\rho _{t}$ and $\rho _{t+dt}$ measured by fidelity: $F\left( \rho _{t},\rho _{t+dt}\right) =$tr$\left[
\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho _{t}}\rho _{t+dt}\sqrt{\rho _{t}}}\right] \simeq
1-(1/2)g_{\rho }dt^{2}$ [@fidelity; @Caves]. By employing the spectral decomposition of quantum state $\rho _{t}=\sum_{j}p_{j}\left\vert
j\right\rangle \left\langle j\right\vert ,$ $g_{\rho }$ can be written in an explicit form [@book-gs; @fidelity; @Caves] $$g_{\rho }=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{j}\frac{(\partial _{t}p_{j})^{2}}{p_{j}}+\frac{1}{%
2}\sum_{j\neq l}\frac{(p_{j}-p_{l})^{2}}{p_{j}+p_{l}}\left\vert \left\langle
j_{t}|\partial _{t}l_{t}\right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}. \label{metric0}$$It is easy to check that if the state is pure, e.g., $\rho _{t}=\left\vert
\Phi _{t}\right\rangle \left\langle \Phi _{t}\right\vert ,$ Eq. ([metric0]{}) reduces to
$$g_{\Phi }=\frac{\left\vert \left\langle \partial _{t}\Phi _{\perp }|\partial
_{t}\Phi _{t}\right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}}{\left\langle \partial _{t}\Phi
_{\perp }|\partial _{t}\Phi _{\perp }\right\rangle }, \label{metric00}$$
where the unnormalized state $\left\vert \partial _{t}\Phi _{\perp
}\right\rangle =\left\vert \partial _{t}\Phi _{t}\right\rangle -\left\langle
\Phi _{t}|\partial _{t}\Phi _{t}\right\rangle \left\vert \Phi
_{t}\right\rangle $ is the component of $\left\vert \partial _{t}\Phi
_{t}\right\rangle $ orthogonal to $\left\vert \Phi _{t}\right\rangle $ [Caves,Xu]{}.
For simplicity, we consider the initial states get prepared in equilibrium, i.e., $\partial _{t}\rho |_{t=0}=0$ [@book-quantum]. Therefore, $\rho
_{0}$ and $H$ can be simultaneously diagonalized, thus providing the possibilities to establish a link between cost rate and speed of evolution. We first consider an initial state in the form of canonical ensemble $\rho
_{0}=\exp [-H(0)/(kT)]/Z=\sum_{n}p_{n}\left\vert n_{0}\right\rangle
\left\langle n_{0}\right\vert $, where $Z=$tr$[e^{-H(0)/(kT)}]$ is the partition function with temperature $T$, $k$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $%
p_{n}=\exp [-E_{n}(0)/(kT)]/Z$ [@book-quantum]. We remark that under transitionless driving, $p_{n}$ is time-independent, i.e., $\partial
_{t}p_{n}=0$. Therefore, Eq. (\[metric0\]) reduces to $$g_{\rho }=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m\neq n}\frac{\left( p_{m}-p_{n}\right) ^{2}}{%
p_{m}+p_{n}}|\left\langle m_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\right\rangle |^{2}.
\label{metric}$$As a special case when the system is initially in the $n$th eigenstate $%
\left\vert n_{0}\right\rangle $, according to Eq. (\[metric00\]), the quantum Fisher information metric continuously reduces to the well-known Fubini–Study metric as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
g_{n} &=&\frac{\left\vert \langle \partial _{t}n_{\perp }|\partial
_{t}n_{t}\rangle \right\vert ^{2}}{\langle \partial _{t}n_{\perp }|\partial
_{t}n_{\perp }\rangle }, \notag \\
&=&\langle \partial _{t}n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle +\langle
n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle ^{2}, \label{metric2}\end{aligned}$$where $\left\vert \partial _{t}n_{\perp }\right\rangle =\left\vert \partial
_{t}n_{t}\right\rangle -\left\langle n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\right\rangle
|n_{t}\rangle $.
Here, it is convenient to establish a relation of quantum speed between the collective and the individual driving. According to Eqs. (\[speed\]), ([metric]{}), and (\[metric2\]) we have$$\begin{aligned}
v &=&\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m\neq n}\frac{\left( p_{m}-p_{n}\right) ^{2}}{%
p_{m}+p_{n}}|\left\langle m_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\right\rangle |^{2}},
\notag \\
&\leq &\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m\neq n}(p_{m}+p_{n})|\left\langle
m_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\right\rangle |^{2}}, \notag \\
&=&\sqrt{\sum_{m\neq n}p_{n}|\left\langle m_{t}|\partial
_{t}n_{t}\right\rangle |^{2}}, \notag \\
&=&\sqrt{\sum_{n}p_{n}\left( \langle \partial _{t}n_{t}|\partial
_{t}n_{t}\rangle +\langle n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle ^{2}\right) },
\notag \\
&=&\sqrt{\sum_{n}p_{n}(v_{n})^{2}}, \label{speedX}\end{aligned}$$where $v_{n}=\sqrt{\langle \partial _{t}n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle
+\langle n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle ^{2}}$. Note that $\left(
p_{m}-p_{n}\right) ^{2}\leq \left( p_{m}+p_{n}\right) ^{2}$ is employed in the second line of Eq. (\[speedX\]), and the equality in the second line is achieved when the system is initially prepared in a single eigenstate.
Relationship between cost rate and dynamical speed
--------------------------------------------------
Clearly, with Eqs. (\[cost local\]), (\[speed\]), and (\[metric2\]), the cost rate and the dynamical speed of transitionless quantum driving for a single eigenstate $\left\vert n_{t}\right\rangle $ is obtained as$$v_{n}=\frac{\sqrt[\alpha ]{\partial _{t}C_{n}}}{\sqrt{2}\hbar }.
\label{speed-cost1}$$We note that the above relation bears resemblance to the speed and the cost rate relation first presented in Ref. [@speedcost] but in a more concise form. However, the relation between the cost rate and the dynamical speed by collective transitionless driving is not as concise as Eq. (\[speed-cost1\]). For the collective transitionless driving case ($n\geq 2$), with Eqs. (\[cost-global\]) and (\[speedX\]), we have$$\begin{aligned}
v &<&\sqrt{\sum_{n}(\langle \partial _{t}n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle
+\langle n_{t}|\partial _{t}n_{t}\rangle ^{2})} \notag \\
&=&\frac{\sqrt[\alpha ]{\partial _{t}C}}{\hbar }. \label{speed-cost2}\end{aligned}$$
Equations (\[cost-relation\]), (\[speedX\]), (\[speed-cost1\]), and (\[speed-cost2\]), which reflect the general relations between the dynamical speed and the cost rate in shortcuts to adiabaticity for both collective and individual transitionless driving, are the main contributions in this paper. The properties of these relations are explored in the following pedagogical nontrivial example.
Three-level Landau-Zener tunneling model
========================================
In this section, we consider the Landau-Zener tunneling model in the simplest multilevel system, i.e., the three-level system, with the following Hamiltonian $$H(t)=\gamma _{e}\mathbf{B}(t)\cdot \mathbf{S}, \label{LZ}$$where $\gamma _{e}$ is the electronic gyromagnetic ratio, $\mathbf{B}%
(t)=\{\Delta ,0,\lambda (t)\}/\gamma _{e}$ is the magnetic field applied along the $x$ and $z$ directions, and $\mathbf{S}=${$S_{x},S_{y},S_{z}$} is the $S=1$ electron spin operator [@spin]. Here $\Delta $ denotes the minimum energy separation and $\lambda (t)$ characterizes the strength of a controllable driving field. According to the method introduced in Ref. [@Berry], it is convenient to validate that the collective transitionless driving for Eq. (\[LZ\]) is given by $$H^{A}(t)=V(t)S_{y}, \label{LZ-A}$$with $V(t)=-\Delta \partial _{t}\lambda (t)/[\Delta ^{2}+\lambda ^{2}(t)]$, which is similar to the two-level case [@Berry; @shortcuts-NV]. The given control field is scanned linearly within $t\in \lbrack 0,\tau ],$ i.e., $%
\lambda (t)=\kappa (2t/\tau -1),$ where $\kappa $ is related to the strength of the driving field. Considering the nature of the applied fields, we adopt the parameter $\alpha =2$ [@cost] for evaluating the cost rate of transitionless driving.
![(Color online) (a) The cost rate (divided by $\hbar ^{2}\protect%
\tau ^{-2}$) of collective ($\partial _{t}C$) and individual ($\partial
_{t}C_{1},\partial _{t}C_{0},\partial _{t}C_{-1}$) transitionless quantum driving for the three-level LZ model evolved through the avoided crossing by $\protect\lambda (t)=\protect\kappa (2t/\protect\tau -1)$, and $\Delta /%
\protect\kappa =0.1$. The inset shows the energy eigenvalues (divided by $%
\hbar \protect\kappa $) of the LZ model of Eq. (\[LZ\]) with the above parameters. (b) The corresponding speed (divided by $\protect\tau %
^{-1} $) of states under collective and individual transitionless driving. For collective driving, we have set $\hbar \protect\kappa /(kT)=1/2$ for the initial canonical ensemble state as an example.](Fig1.eps){width="3.4in"}
We first employ the above driving protocol to analyze the collective and individual cost rates during transitionless quantum driving. The results are shown in Fig. 1(a) with $\Delta /\kappa =0.1$ as an example. In general, the peaks in Fig. 1(a) illustrate that more resources or higher cost rates are required to realize transitionless driving in the neighborhood of an avoided crossing. Obviously, the individual driving of eigenstates $E_{\pm 1}(t)$ costs less than the collective driving, which can easily be understood in terms of Eqs. (\[cost-global\]) and (\[cost local\]) as $\partial
_{t}C_{+1}=\partial _{t}C_{-1}=(1/2)\partial _{t}C_{0}<\partial _{t}C$. However, an interesting phenomenon occurs. The individual driving for eigenstate $E_{0}(t)$ (red circle) costs as much as the collective driving (black curve), in contrast to the common belief that the individual transitionless driving leads to less consumption for multilevel quantum systems. In fact, since $\partial _{t}C_{0}=2\partial _{t}C_{\pm 1}=\partial
_{t}C_{+1}+\partial _{t}C_{-1}$, which is just the condition of Eq. ([condition]{}) in the three level case. Therefore, we have $\partial
_{t}C=\partial _{t}C_{0}$. Physically, this can be interpreted by means of the configuration of eigenstates in Eq. (\[LZ\]) shown in the insets of Fig. 1(a). In order to achieve the individual driving of $E_{0}(t)$, transitions from $E_{0}(t)$ to both $E_{-1}(t)$ and $E_{1}(t)$ should be avoided. In turn, the eigenstates $E_{\pm }(t)$ will not transit to $E_{0}(t)
$, and their mutual transitions are prohibited, which is the principle of collective driving.
![(Color online) Time dependence of the dimensionless cost rate log$%
_{2}\protect\sqrt{\partial _{t}C/(\hbar ^{2}\protect\tau ^{-2})}$ and speed log$_{2}[v/(\protect\tau ^{-1})]$ during collective transitionless quantum driving for the three-level LZ model. (a) Different choices of time duration $\protect\tau $ with fixed energy splitting $\Delta /\protect\kappa =0.1$. (b) Various energy splitting $\Delta $ with fixed time duration $\protect%
\tau =0.1$ $(s)$. All other parameters are the same as in Fig. 1.](Fig2.eps){width="3.4in"}
In addition, the tendency between the cost rate and the speed can be seen by comparison with Fig. 1(b), where the instantaneous speed of states for the above two scenarios is depicted. We note that although the cost rates for the collective driving ($\partial _{t}C$) and the individual driving ($%
\partial _{t}C_{0}$) are equal in this model, the corresponding dynamical speed does not possess such a property, i.e., $v<v_{0}$ \[see in Fig. 1(b)\].
We then examine the instantaneous cost rate and the speed under transitionless driving with different driving time durations $\tau $ and energy splittings $\Delta $. For convenience, we focus on the collective driving, and the values are reported in the form of base-2 logarithm. As clearly shown in Fig. 2(a), if the energy splitting is fixed, e.g., $\Delta
/\kappa =0.1$, a higher cost rate is required to rapidly go through the avoided crossing with a faster dynamical speed to realize the transitionless driving, which is in agreement with Eq. (\[speed-cost2\]). When approaching the adiabatic limit, e.g., $\tau =100$ (s), almost no transitionless driving is needed ($\partial _{t}C\rightarrow 0$). On the other hand, if the energy splitting $\Delta $ is sufficiently large, e.g., $%
\Delta /\kappa =100$ in Fig. 2(b), only a little cost is required to achieve the transitionless driving.
Possible experimental realization using NV centers in diamond
=============================================================
![(Color online) (a) The energy-level diagram for the electronic spin ground triplet state of a single NV center with a zerofield splitting $D$. A polarized $\protect\pi -$MW pulse is performed on $\left\vert 0\right\rangle
$ and $\left\vert -1\right\rangle $ at $B_{z}=D/(3\protect\gamma _{e})$ to achieve the required Hamiltonian $H_{NV}(t)=\protect\omega _{0}S_{z}$ with $%
\protect\omega _{0}=2D/3$. (b) Diagram of the schematic experimental pulse sequences employed to realize the three level LZ model under tranistionless driving. The electronic spin state is initialized by 532 nm laser. The initial equilibrium states can be prepared by a serial of MW pulses. Then a microwave field $B_{x}(t)=\protect\delta (t)/\protect\gamma _{e}$ with $%
\protect\delta (t)=2[\Delta \cos \protect\varepsilon (t)-V(t)\sin \protect%
\varepsilon (t)]$ and $\partial _{t}\protect\varepsilon (t)=\protect\omega %
_{0}-$ $\protect\lambda (t)$, is performed along the $x$-axis of the NV center. Tomography is then performed if we would like to detect the instantaneous speed and cost rate ($\protect\tau $ is short enough). We may also roughly estimate the average speed $\bar{v}$ by only record the time duration $\protect\tau $ (relatively long) of the $B_{x}(t)$ performed on the electronic spin, since $\protect\tau \varpropto 1/\bar{v}$, where $\bar{v%
}=(1/\protect\tau )\protect\int_{0}^{\protect\tau }dt^{\prime }v.$](Fig3.eps){width="3.4in"}
The NV center spins in diamond possess long coherence time at room temperature and high sensitivity to external signals. These properties make the NV center a promising candidate for quantum computation [@NV-Review1] and quantum sensors [@NV-Review2]. Here, we first outline a possible implementation of detecting the collective cost rate of transitionless driving and the dynamical speed for the three-level LZ model by using the electron spin of a single NV center in diamond. The key procedures includes the preparation of initial states, the realization of the three-level LZ Hamiltonian under transitionless driving, i.e., Eqs. (\[LZ\]) and ([LZ-A]{}), and the detection of speed and cost rate.
We first apply a static magnetic field to the \[111\] axis (taken as the $z$-axis) of the NV center and employ the ground electronic spin state $%
\left\vert -1\right\rangle ,$ $\left\vert 0\right\rangle ,$ and $\left\vert
+1\right\rangle $ as the qutrit. According to Eq. (\[LZ\]), it is convenient to check that the energy eigenstates of the initial three-level LZ Hamiltonian are just $\left\vert -1\right\rangle ,$ $\left\vert
0\right\rangle ,$ and $\left\vert +1\right\rangle $. Therefore, preparation of an initial single energy eigenstate is achievable by microwave (MW) pulses [@LZS-NV; @LZS-NV2]. For an initial canonical ensemble, it can be prepared by waiting for a certain time for the dephasing from a superposition state [@ion]. On the other hand, the Hamiltonian describing the electronic spin of the NV center takes the form [NV-Review1,NV-Review2]{}$$H_{NV}(t)=DS_{z}^{2}/\hbar +\gamma _{e}B_{z}S_{z}, \label{H-NV0}$$where the zero-field splitting $D=2.870$ (GHz), and the electronic gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma _{e}=28.02$ (GHz/T). We select $B_{z}=D/(3\gamma
_{e})$ and apply a polarized $\pi -$MW pulse on $\left\vert 0\right\rangle $ and $\left\vert -1\right\rangle $ after biasing all three energy levels by $%
2\hbar D/3$. Then, Eq. (\[H-NV0\]) reduces to $H_{NV}(t)=\omega _{0}S_{z}$ with $\omega _{0}=2D/3$ \[see Fig. 3(a)\]. According to Eqs. (\[LZ\]) and (\[LZ-A\]), as long as we select appropriate $\lambda (t)$ and $V(t)$, the collective transitionless driving is immediately achievable. However, the LZ avoided crossing cannot be realized directly by electron spin resonance because it requires the microwave strength approaching $4D/(3\gamma
_{e})\simeq 0.137$ (T), far beyond the current experimental conditions [LZS-NV,LZS-NV2,shortcuts-NV]{}. In light of the method introduced in Refs. [@LZS-NV; @LZS-NV2; @shortcuts-NV], our collective transitionless driving for a three-level LZ model can also be realized in a rotating frame if we apply a microwave field $B_{x}(t)=\delta (t)/\gamma _{e}$, where $\delta
(t)=2[\Delta \cos \varepsilon (t)-V(t)\sin \varepsilon (t)]$ and $\partial
_{t}\varepsilon (t)=\omega _{0}-$ $\lambda (t)$, along the $x$-axis of the NV center. Thus, the total Hamiltonian in the laboratory frame is $\mathcal{H%
}(t)=\gamma _{e}B_{x}(t)S_{x}+\omega _{0}S_{z}$. By transferring to the rotating frame with $U=$exp$[i\varepsilon (t)S_{z}/\hbar ]$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{\tilde{H}}(t) &=&UH(t)U^{\dag }+i\hbar (\partial _{t}U)U^{\dag },
\notag \\
&=&\lambda (t)S_{z}+U\delta (t)S_{x}U^{\dag }, \notag \\
&\simeq &\Delta S_{x}+V(t)S_{y}+\lambda (t)S_{z}, \label{H-RF}\end{aligned}$$where a rotating wave approximation, ignoring the fast-oscillating items exp\[$\pm 2i\varepsilon (t)$\], is employed in the deduction of the third line. Clearly, the above equation yields the exact Hamiltonian presented in Eqs. (\[LZ\]) and (\[LZ-A\]). In this rotating frame, $\Delta $ and $\lambda
(t)$ are, respectively, controlled by the power and frequency of the microwave field in the $x$-axis, which in turn determines the corresponding counterdiabatic field $V(t)$. Thus, the cost rate of the transitionless quantum driving field and the speed of evolution can be completely controlled the microwave field $B_{x}(t)$. According to Eqs. ([cost-global]{}) and (\[speedX\]), the detection of the speed and cost rate in experiment is flexible, which can be realized by the tomography of instantaneous density matrix. In addition, even with no tomography, we can also roughly estimate the average speed of quantum evolution by detecting the duration of the evolved time $\tau $, since $\tau \varpropto 1/\bar{v}$, where $\bar{v}=(1/\tau )\int_{0}^{\tau }dt^{\prime }v$. A diagram of the above schematic experimental pulse sequences is depicted in Fig. 3(b).
Because the individual transitionless driving is equivalent to a collectively driving two-level system [@cost; @Note]; thus, the corresponding experimental methods can refer to the two-level case in Ref. [@shortcuts-NV]. Together with above analysis, the phenomenon that cost rate of individual driving may be as large as collective driving can also be verified with above three-level LZ model in NV centers.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
===========================
Though our present example mainly focuses on a three-level LZ model, the cost rate and speed relations of collective driving and individual driving presented in Sec. II are applicable to any multilevel systems. Therefore, further study on more complicated multilevel ($n\geq 4$) physical systems will be of great interest and importance in the field of shortcuts to adiabaticity. On the other hand, quantum thermodynamics processes of experimental implementation at the fundamental level of a single spin is now emerging, e.g., a single-spin test with a single ultracold $^{40}$Ca$^{+}$ trapped ion has been employed to verify the Jarzynski-Related information equality [@ion]. Therefore, in addition to NV centers, it would also be desirable and interesting to further investigate our theory with trapped ion systems in experiment.
In summary, general relations between the dynamical speed and the cost rate of individual/collective transitionless driving have been constructed, which provide a unified way to explore the cost-cost, speed-speed, and speed-cost relations under individual/collective counterdiabatic driving. In particular, the counterintuitive phenomenon that the cost rate of individual driving can be as large as the corresponding collective driving in multilevel systems has been discovered and illustrated in a three-level LZ model. We have also proposed a possible experimental verification of this phenomenon in the electron spin of a single NV center in diamond. We expect these studies to contribute to the identification of the physical mechanisms for the costs of shortcuts to adiabaticity and its experimental examination in simple/complex quantum systems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 11674238, 11474211, 11204196, 11504253 and 11574353.
[99]{} L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, J. Phys. (USSR) **9**, 249 (1945).
N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, Phys. D **120**, 188(1998).
M. R. Frey, Quantum Inf. Process. **15**, 3919 (2016).
S. Deffner and S. Campbell, J. Phys. A, **50**, 453001 (2017).
H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, *The Theory of Open Quantum Systems* (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007).
M. M. Taddei, B. M. Escher, L. Davidovich, and R. L. de Matos-Filho, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 050402 (2013).
A. del Campo, I. L. Egusquiza, M. B. Plenio, and S. F. Huelga, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 050403 (2013).
S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 010402 (2013).
I. Marvian and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 210402 (2015).
D. P. Pires, M. Cianciaruso, L. C. Céleri, G. Adesso, D. O. Soares-Pinto, Phys. Rev. X **6**, 021031 (2016).
S. Lloyd, Nature (London) **406**, 1047 (2000).
I. L. Markov, Nature (London) **512**, 147 (2014).
V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. A **67**, 052109 (2003).
J. Batle, M. Casas, A. Plastino, and A. R. Plastino, Phys. Rev. A **72**, 032337 (2005).
A. Borras, M. Casas, A. R. Plastino, and A. Plastino, Phys Rev. A **74**, 022326 (2006).
Z.-Y. Xu, S. Luo, W. L. Yang, C. Liu, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A **89**, 012307 (2014).
A. D. Cimmarusti, Z. Yan, B. D. Patterson, L. P. Corcos, L. A. Orozco, and S. Deffner, Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 233602 (2015).
C. Liu, Z.-Y. Xu, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A **91**, 022102 (2015).
Y.-J. Zhang, W. Han, Y.-J. Xia, J.-P. Cao, and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. A **91**, 032112 (2015).
H.-B. Liu, W. L. Yang, J.-H. An, and Z.-Y. Xu, Phys. Rev. A **93**, 020105(R) (2016).
X. Cai and Y. Zheng, Phys. Rev. A **95**, 052104 (2017).
V. Giovanetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nat. Photon. **5**, 222 (2011).
A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 233601 (2012).
F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. Céleri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 150601 (2017).
M. Demirplack and S. A. Rice, J. Chem. Phys. **129**, 154111 (2008).
M. Berry, J. Phys. A **42**, 365303 (2009).
E. Torrontegui, S. S. Ibáñez,, S. Martínez-Garaot, M. Modugno, A. del Campo, D. Guéry-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, X. Chen, and J. G. Muga, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. **62**, 117 (2013).
X. Chen, I. Lizuain, A. Ruschhaupt, D. Guéry-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 123003 (2010).
J. G. Muga, X. Chen, S. Ibáñez, I. Lizuain, and A. Ruschhaupt, J. Phys. B **43**, 085509 (2010).
M. G. Bason, M. Viteau, N. Malossi, P. Huillery, E. Arimondo, D. Ciampini, R. Fazio, V. Giovannetti, R. Mannella, and O. Morsch, Nat. Phys. **8**, 147 (2011).
A. del Campo, M. M. Rams, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 115703 (2012).
C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. A **88**, 040101(R) (2013).
J. Zhang, J. H. Shim, I. Niemeyer, T. Taniguchi, T. Teraji, H. Abe, S. Onoda, T. Yamamoto, T. Ohshima, J. Isoya, and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 240501 (2013).
A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 100502 (2013).
S. Deffner, C. Jarzynski, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. X **4**, 021013 (2014).
G. Vacanti, R. Fazio, S. Montangero, G. M. Palma, M. Paternostro, and V. Vedral, New J. Phys. **16**, 053017 (2014).
A. C. Santos and M. S. Sarandy, Sci. Rep. **5**, 15775 (2015).
S. Deffner, New J. Phys. **18**, 012001 (2015).
S. An, D. Lv, A. del Campo, and K. Kim, Nat. Commun. **7**, 12999 (2016).
A. C. Santos, R. D. Silva, and M. S. Sarandy, Phys. Rev. A **93**, 012311 (2016).
X.-K. Song, Q. Ai, J. Qiu, and F.-G. Deng, Phys. Rev. A **93**, 052324 (2016).
Y. Zheng, S. Campbell, G. De Chiara, and D. Poletti, Phys. Rev. A **94**, 042132 (2016).
Y.-H. Chen, Y. Xia, Q.-C. Wu, B.-H. Huang, and J. Song, Phys. Rev. A **93**, 052109 (2016).
B. B. Zhou, A. Baksic, H. Ribeiro, C. G. Yale, F. J. Heremans, P. C. Jerger, A. Auer, G. Burkard, A. A. Clerk, and D. D. Awschalom, Nat. Phys. **13**, 330 (2017).
S. Campbell and S. Deffner, Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 100601 (2017).
K. Funo, J.-N. Zhang, C. Chatou, K. Kim, M. Ueda, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 100602 (2017).
X.-K. Song, F.-G. Deng, L. Lamata, and J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. A **95**, 022332 (2017).
E. Torrontegui, I. Lizuain, S. González-Resines, A. Tobalina, A. Ruschhaupt, R. Kosloff, J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. A **96**, 022133 (2017).
J. J. Sakurai and J. J. Napolitano, *Modern Quantum Mechanics* (New York, Addison-Wesley, 2010).
Note that the individual driving is equivalent to the collective driving, i.e., $H^{A}(t)=H_{a}^{A}(t)=H_{b}^{A}(t)$, for a quantum system with only two energy eigenstates {$\left\vert
a_{t}\right\rangle ,\left\vert b_{t}\right\rangle $}. The proof is straightforward by using $\left\vert a_{t}\right\rangle \left\langle
a_{t}\right\vert +\left\vert b_{t}\right\rangle \left\langle
b_{t}\right\vert =1$.
The proof is straightforward with Eqs. (\[cost-relation\]) and (\[condition\]): $\partial _{t}C=[(1/2)\sum_{n}\left( \partial
_{t}C_{n}\right) ^{2/\alpha }]^{\alpha /2}=[(1/2)\left( \partial
_{t}C_{k}\right) ^{2/\alpha }+(1/2)\sum_{n\neq k}\left( \partial
_{t}C_{n}\right) ^{2/\alpha }]^{\alpha /2}=[(1/2)\left( \partial
_{t}C_{k}\right) ^{2/\alpha }+(1/2)\left( \partial _{t}C_{k}\right)
^{2/\alpha }]^{\alpha /2}=\partial _{t}C_{k}.$
M. Fecko, *Differential Geometry and Lie Groups for Physicists*, (Cambridge University Press, 2006).
I. Bengtsson and K. Życzkowski, *Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction of Entanglement*, (Cambridge University Press, 2017).
There exist many monotone Riemannian metrics for mixed states [@book-gs]. However, only quantum Fisher information metric can exactly reproduce the Fubini–Study metric in pure state case [@book-gs]. In our paper, we will consider both canonical ensemble state (mixed state) and single energy eigenstate (pure state) as the initial states, therefore, the quantum Fisher information metric becomes the most appropriate choice.
M. Hübner, Phys. Lett. A **163**, 239 (1992).
S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 3439 (1994).
Z.-Y. Xu, New J. Phys. **18**, 073005 (2016).
In this paper, we adopt $S_{x}=\frac{\hbar }{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0%
\end{array}%
\right) $, $S_{y}=\frac{\hbar }{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -i & 0 \\
i & 0 & -i \\
0 & i & 0%
\end{array}%
\right) $, and $S_{z}=\hbar \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1%
\end{array}%
\right) $ as the components of the spin-$1$ operator.
M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaneyc, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, L. Hollenberg, Phys. Rep. **528**, 1 (2013).
D. Suter and F. Jelezko, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. **98-99**, 50 (2017).
P. Huang, J. Zhou, F. Fang, X. Kong, X. Xu, C. Ju, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. X **1**, 011003 (2011).
J. Zhou, P. Huang, Q. Zhang, Z. Wang, T. Tan, X. Xu, F. Shi, X. Rong, S. Ashhab, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 010503 (2014).
T.P. Xiong, L.L. Yan, F. Zhou, K. Rehan, D.F. Liang, L. Chen, W.L. Yang, Z.H. Ma, M. Feng, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett. **120**, 010601 (2018).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The distinguishing number of a graph $H$ is a symmetry related graph invariant whose study started two decades ago. The distinguishing number $D(H)$ is the least integer $d$ such that $H$ has a $d$-distinguishing coloring. A $d$-distinguishing coloring is a coloring $c:V(H)\rightarrow\{1,\dots,d\}$ invariant only under the trivial automorphism. In this paper, we continue the study of a game variant of this parameter, recently introduced. The distinguishing game is a game with two players, Gentle and Rascal, with antagonist goals. This game is played on a graph $H$ with a fixed set of $d\in{\mathbb{N}}^*$ colors. Alternately, the two players choose a vertex of $H$ and color it with one of the $d$ colors. The game ends when all the vertices have been colored. Then Gentle wins if the coloring is $d$-distinguishing and Rascal wins otherwise. This game defines two new invariants, which are the minimum numbers of colors needed to ensure that Gentle has a winning strategy, depending who starts the game. The invariant could eventually be infinite. In this paper, we focus on cartesian product, a graph operation well studied in the classical case. We give sufficient conditions on the order of two connected factors $H$ and $F$ relatively prime, which ensure that one of the game distinguishing numbers of the cartesian product $H\square F$ is finite. If $H$ is a so-called involutive graph, we give an upper bound of order $D^2(H)$ for one the game distinguishing numbers of $H\square F$. Finally, using in part the previous result, we compute the exact value of these invariants for cartesian products of relatively prime cycles. It turns out that the value is either infinite or equal to $2$, depending on the parity of the product order.'
author:
- 'Sylvain Gravier $^{a,b}$'
- 'Kahina Meslem $^{b,c}$'
- 'Simon Schmidt $^{a,b}$'
- 'Souad Slimani $^{a,b,c}$'
title: Game Distinguishing Numbers of Cartesian Products of Graphs
---
$^a$ Institut Fourier, UMR 5582, Université Grenoble Alpes\
100, rue des maths BP74\
38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères Cedex, France\
$^b$ S.F.R. Maths à Modeler\
100, rue des maths BP74\
38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères Cedex, France\
$^c$ LaROMaD, Faculty of Mathematics, U.S.T.H.B.\
El Alia BP 32 Bab Ezzouar\
16111 Alger, Algeria\
[[email protected]]([email protected])\
[[email protected]]([email protected])\
[[email protected]]([email protected])\
[[email protected]]([email protected])\
[**Keywords:**]{} distinguishing number; graph automorphism; combinatorial game
[**Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{} 05C57, 05C69, 91A43
Introduction
============
In this paper, we consider only simple graphs. For a graph $H$, $V(H)$ and $E(H)$ respectively denote the vertex set and the edge set of $H$. For an integer $n\geq 3$, $C_n$ is the cycle of order $n$ and for $n\geq 2$, $K_n$ and $P_n$ are respectively the clique and the path of order $n$. The distinguishing number $D(H)$ of a graph $H$ is a symmetry related graph invariant whose study starts two decades ago [@albertson]. More precisely, $D(H)$ is the least integer $d$ such that $H$ has a $d$-distinguishing coloring. A $d$-distinguishing coloring is a vertex-coloring $c:V(H)\rightarrow\{1,\dots,d\}$ invariant only under the trivial automorphism. More generally, we say that an automorphism $\sigma$ of $H$ preserves the coloring $c$ or is a colors preserving automorphism, if for all $u\in V(H)$, $c(u)=c(\sigma(u))$. The automorphisms group of $H$ will be denoted by $Aut(H)$. Clearly, for each coloring $c$ of the vertex set of $H$, the set $Aut_c(H)=\{\sigma \in Aut(H): c\circ\sigma= c\}$ is a subgroup of $Aut(H)$. A coloring $c$ is distinguishing if $Aut_c(H)$ is trivial. The ten last years have seen a flourishing number of works on this subject and cartesian products of graphs were thoroughly investigated in [@bogstad; @klav_power; @Imrich_cartes_power; @klav.cart.clik; @fisher]. In particular, the exact value of $D(K_n\square K_m$) is given in [@Imrich_cartes_power; @fisher]. Another interesting result for our purpose is that if $k\geq 2$, then $D(C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_k})=2$, save for $C_3\square C_3$. In that case $D(C_3\square C_3)=3$. This result is an easy consequence of more general results in [@Imrich_cartes_power]. Recently a game variant of the distinguishing number has been introduced in [@schmidt]. Defining game invariants for graphs is not a new idea. The two most known game invariants are the game chromatic number, introduced by Brahms in 1981 [@faigle], and the game domination numbers introduced more recently by Brešar, Klažar and Rall [@domgame].
The distinguishing game is a game with two players, Gentle and Rascal, with antagonist goals. This game is played on a graph $H$ with a fixed set of $d\in{\mathbb{N}}^*$ colors. Alternately, the two players choose a vertex of $H$ and color it with one of the $d$ colors. The game ends when all the vertices have been colored. If the coloring is $d$-distinguishing then Gentle wins. Otherwise Rascal wins.
This game defines two invariants for a graph $H$. The [*$G$-game distinguishing number*]{} ${D_\mathcal{G}}(H)$ is the minimum of colors needed to ensure that Gentle has a winning strategy for the game on $H$, assuming he is playing first. If Rascal is sure to win whatever the number of colors we allow, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(H)=\infty$. Similarly, the [*$R$-game distinguishing number*]{} ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H)$ is the minimum of colors needed to ensure that Gentle has a winning strategy, assuming Rascal is playing first. Characterizing graphs with infinite game distinguishing number seems to be a challenging open question. In [@schmidt], the authors give sufficient conditions to have one infinite game distinguishing number.
\[prop:ordertwo\][@schmidt] Let $H$ be a graph and $\sigma$ a non trivial automorphism of $H$ such that $\sigma \circ \sigma=id_{H}$.
1. If $|V(H)|$ is even, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(H)=\infty$.
2. If $|V(H)|$ is odd, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H)=\infty$.
Also in [@schmidt], the exact values of those invariants have been computed for almost all cycles and hypercubes. And for a large class of graphs, the so-called involutive graphs, a quadratic upper bound involving the classical distinguishing number has been provided (see Section \[sect:inv\] for a definition). We give here the precise statement of the results used in this paper.
\[theo:cycle\][@schmidt] Let $C_n$ be a cycle of order $n\geq 3$.
1. If $n$ is even (resp. odd), then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_n)=\infty$ (resp. ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_n)=\infty$).
2. If $n$ is even and $n\geq 8$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_n)=2$.
3. If $n$ is odd, not prime and $n\geq 9$, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_n)=2$.
4. If $n$ is prime and $n\geq 5$, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_n)\leq 3$.
Moreover ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_4)={D_\mathcal{R}}(C_6)=3$, ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_3)=\infty$ and ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_5)={D_\mathcal{G}}(C_7)=3$.
[@schmidt]\[theo:finite-inv\] If $H$ is an involutive graph with $D(H)\geq2$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H)\leq D^2(H)+D(H)-2$.
In this paper, we deal with cartesian products of connected graphs relatively prime. In Section \[sec:complete\], we prove the following theorem which gives sufficient conditions on the order of the two factors to have a finite distinguishing number.
\[theo:main-cart\] Let $H$ and $F$ be two non trivial connected graphs relatively prime, with respective order $n$ and $m$.
1. If $n$ is even and $m\geq n-1$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H\square F)\leq m+1$.
2. If $n$ is odd, $m$ is even and $m\geq 2n-2$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H\square F)\leq m+1$.
3. If $n$ and $m$ are odd and $m\geq 2n-1$, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(H\square F)\leq m+1$.
In Section \[sect:inv\], we investigate the case where one factor is an involutive graph. In that case, if the classical distinguishing number of the other factor is not too big, we have a quadratic upper bound involving the classical distinguishing number of the involutive factor.
\[theo:main-inv\] Let $H$ be a connected involutive graph of order $n$, with $D(H)\geq 2$ and $F$ a connected graph relatively prime to $H$. If $\displaystyle D(F)\leq \left(\begin{array}{c}
\frac{n+d^2+d}2-1\\
\frac{d^2+d}2-1
\end{array}\right)$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H\square F)\leq d^2+d-2$, where $d=D(H)$.
Finally, in Section \[sec:tore\], we compute the exact value of the two invariants for cartesian products of relatively prime cycles. Since even cycles are involutive graphs, a part of this result arises as a corollary of the above theorem.
\[theo:main-tore\] Let $n_1,...,n_k$, with $k\geq2$, be $k$ distinct natural numbers greater or equal to $3$.
1. If $\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^k n_i$ is even, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_k})=\infty$ and ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_k})=2$.
2. If $\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^k n_i$ is odd, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_k})=\infty$ and ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_k})=2$.
All these three results highly involve the so-called fiber-strategy for Gentle. Section \[sect:strat\] is devoted to the definition and the properties of this strategy.
Cartesian products of graphs and the fiber-strategy {#sect:strat}
===================================================
In this section, we give the minimal background needed on cartesian products and define an efficient strategy for Gentle, the so-called fiber-strategy, based on the fibers structure of cartesian products of graphs. For more informations on cartesian product see [@sandibook].
Cartesian products of graphs
----------------------------
Let $H$ and $F$ be two connected simple graphs relatively prime. The vertices of $H\square F$ will be denoted by $(u,v)$, where $u\in V(H)$ and $v\in V(F)$. A $H$-fiber is a subgraph of $H\square F$ induced by all the vertices having the same second coordinate. We write $H^v$, where $v\in V(F)$, for the $H$-fiber induced by $\{(u,v)|u\in V(H)\}$. Similarly, we define $F^u$, with $u\in V(H)$. The $H$-fibers and the $F$-fibers are respectively isomorphic to $H$ and $F$. The automorphisms group of $H\square F$ is isomorphic to $Aut(H)\times Aut(F)$. If $\sigma$ is an automorphism of $H\square F$, it can be seen as a couple $(\psi,\phi)$, where $\psi\in Aut(H)$ and $\phi\in Aut(F)$. In that case, $\sigma((u,v))=(\psi(u),\phi(v))$. Another important fact is that $\sigma$ must send a $H$-fiber to another $H$-fiber and the same for the $F$-fibers. More precisely, $\sigma(H^v)=H^{\phi(v)}$ and $\sigma (F^u)=F^{\psi (u)}$. To show that a colors preserving automorphism has to be the identity of $Aut(H\square F)$, we will mostly proceed as follows. First, we show that an $H$-fiber cannot be sent to another one, which means that $\phi$ is the identity and $\sigma$ fixes the $H$-fibers set wise. Using these informations, we prove that $\psi$ is also the identity.
Fiber-strategy
--------------
Now, we state some technical results about the fiber-strategy, a strategy that Gentle will follow in mainly all the proofs of our main results. In a game on $H\square F$, with $H$ non trivial, we say that Gentle follows the *$H$-fiber-strategy* if we are in one of the following two cases.
*Case 0:*
- $|V(H)|$ is even and Rascal starts.
- When Rascal plays in a $H$-fiber, Gentle plays in the same $H$-fiber.
*Case 1:*
- $|V(H)|$ is odd.
- $|V(F)|$ is even and Rascal starts or $|V(F)|$ is odd and Gentle starts.
- When Rascal colors the first vertex of a totally uncolored $H$-fiber, Gentle colors the first vertex of another such $H$-fiber.
- When Rascal colors a vertex in a $H$-fiber which already has a colored vertex, Gentle colors a vertex in the same $H$-fiber.
The $H$-fiber strategy is always valid. In Case 0, the parity of each $H$-fiber ensures that Rascal will always be the first to run out of moves in a $H$-fiber. Hence Rascal is always the first to play in each $H$-fiber. In Case 1, after Gentle’s move, there is always an even number of remaining totally uncolored $H$-fibers. Hence Rascal will always be the first to run out of new totally uncolored $H$-fibers to play in.
The following properties are easy and given without proof. There are however fundamental to prove the results in the further sections.
\[prop:strat\] Assume that Gentle plays according to the $H$-fiber-strategy.
1. He will color the last vertex of each $H$-fiber.
2. In Case 0, Rascal will be the first to play in all the $H$-fibers. Then Gentle will play all the second moves in each $H$-fiber, Rascal will play all the third moves and so on.
3. In Case 1, Gentle will play the first in exactly $\left\lceil \frac {|V(H)|} 2\right\rceil$ different $H$-fibers. Then Rascal will play all the second moves in each $H$-fiber, Gentle will play all the third moves and so on.
In Case 0, the moves in a $H$-fiber alternate exactly as in the game played only on $H$, when Rascal starts (see Fig. \[fig:Hstrat\], where $R_i$ and $G_i$ respectively denote the $i^e$ move of Rascal and Gentle). This property will be often used by Gentle to play in a $H$-fiber following a winning strategy for the game on $H$.
iin [0,1,2,3]{} [ (-/2, i-/2) rectangle +( 1.2,); ]{} iin [0,1,2,3,4]{}
( i-/2+0.7,- 1.5) rectangle +(,);
(-/2+ 1.5,- 1.5) node\[below\][$H$]{}; (-/2,0) node\[left\][$F$]{}; (-/2+0.7,0) node\[right\] [$R_1$]{}; (-/2+0.7, 2-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$G_1$]{}; ( 3-/2+0.7,-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$R_2$]{}; (3-/2+0.7,-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$G_2$]{}; ( 3-/2+0.7,2-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$R_3$]{}; (3-/2+0.7, 3-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$G_3$]{}; ( 1-/2+0.7,2-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$R_4$]{}; (1-/2+0.7, 1 -/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$G_4$]{}; ( -/2+0.7,3-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$R_5$]{}; ( -/2+0.7, 1 -/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$G_5$]{};
In Case 1, in a $H$-fiber where Gentle plays first, the moves alternate as in the game played only on $H$, when Gentle starts. In a $H$-fiber where Rascal plays first, the only difference is that he is going to play the two first moves in a row (See Fig. \[fig:Hstrat1\], where $R_i$ and $G_i$ have the same meaning as before).
iin [0,1,2]{} [ (-/2, i-/2) rectangle +( 1.2,); ]{} iin [0,1,2,3,4]{}
( i-/2+0.7,- 1.5) rectangle +(, 0.8);
(-/2+ 1.5,- 1.5) node\[below\][$H$]{}; (-/2,0) node\[left\][$F$]{}; (-/2+0.7,0) node\[right\] [$G_1$]{}; (-/2+0.7, 2-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$G_3$]{}; ( 3-/2+0.7, 0-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$R_1$]{}; (4-/2+0.7,-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$G_2$]{}; ( 3-/2+0.7,2-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$R_4$]{}; (3-/2+0.7, 1-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$G_5$]{}; ( 1-/2+0.7,2-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$R_3$]{}; (2-/2+0.7, 1 -/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$G_4$]{};
( -/2+0.7, 1 -/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$R_2$]{};
In that case the lemma beside could be useful. It says that for vertex transitive graphs, if you can win the game playing first, then you can be a real gentleman and let your opponent play this first move.
\[lem:transitive\] Assume $H$ is vertex transitive. Then either all the first moves are winning for the first player or they are all losing.
[[**Proof. **]{}]{} Assume there is $u_0\in V(H)$ such that coloring $u_0$ with $1$ is a winning move for the first player. We have to prove that for any $v\in V(H)$, coloring $v$ with $1$ is also a winning move. Let $G$ be the game in which the first player has played the winning move $u_0$ and let $G'$ be the game in which his first move has been to color another vertex $v_0$ with $1$. Let $c$ and $c'$ be respectively the coloring built during the game $G$ and $G'$. Since $H$ is vertex transitive, there exists $\sigma \in Aut(H)$ such that $\sigma(v_0)=u_0$. The winning strategy for the first player in $G'$ is defined by his winning strategy in $G$. When his opponent colors a vertex $w$ in the game $G'$, the first player imagines that his opponent has colored $\sigma(w)$ in $G$ with the same color. There is a vertex $w'$ such that coloring $w'$ is a winning answer for the first player in $G$. In the game $G'$, the first player’s answer will be to color $\sigma^{-1}(w')$ such that $c'(\sigma^{-1}(w'))=c(w')$.
By assumption, the coloring $c$ is a winning one for the first player. Moreover, for any $v\in V(H)$, $c(v)=c'(\sigma(v))$. Hence, an automorphism $\psi$ preserves the coloring $c$ if and only if $\sigma\circ\psi\circ\sigma^{-1}$ preserves the coloring $c'$. This shows that $c'$ is also a winning coloring for the first player. In conclusion, if there is a winning move for the first player, then any first move is a winning move for him. [$\square$ ]{}
Cartesian products of complete graphs. {#sec:complete}
======================================
Our goal in this section is to prove Theorem \[theo:main-cart\] which asserts, under certain conditions on their orders, that for two non trivial connected graphs $H$ and $F$ relatively prime, and of respective order $n$ and $m$, at least one game distinguishing number of $H\square F$ is finite. Except when both cardinals are equal, it comes directly from the following theorem involving cartesian products of complete graphs. Indeed, a distinguishing coloring of $K_{n}\square K_{m}$ is always a distinguishing coloring of $H \square F$. In the first item of Theorem \[theo:main-cart\], when both factors have the same even cardinal, the corresponding product of complete graphs is not covered by the below result. But, we are in fact going to prove that Gentle’s strategy breaks all automorphisms of the subgroup of $Aut(K_{n}\square K_{m})$ isomorphic to $Aut(K_{n})\times Aut(K_{m})$. A coloring which distinguishes this subgroup will always be a distinguishing coloring of $H\square F$, when the factors are relatively prime.
\[theo:complete\] Let $n$ and $m$ be two distinct natural numbers greater or equal to $2$.
1. If $n\times m$ is even (resp. odd), then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(K_n\square K_m)=\infty$ (resp. ${D_\mathcal{R}}(K_n\square K_m$)).
2. If $n$ is even, $m\neq n$ and $m\geq n-1$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(K_n\square K_m)\leq m+1$.
3. If $n$ is odd, $m$ is even and $m\geq 2n-2$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(K_n\square K_m)\leq m+1$.
4. If $n$ and $m$ are odd and $m\geq 2n-1$, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(K_n\square K_m)\leq m+1$.
[[**Proof. **]{}]{}The first item is a straightforward application of Proposition \[prop:ordertwo\]. For the last items, note that $n\neq m$. Hence, the two factors $K_n$ and $K_m$ are relatively prime. The vertices of $K_n\square K_m$ are denoted by $(i,j)$, with $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ and $j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$. The meta-color of a $K_n$-fiber is the list $(c_1,\dots,c_{m+1})$, where $c_l$, with $l\in\{1,\dots,m+1\}$, is the number of vertices in this fiber which are colored with the color $l$ at the end of the game. An important remark is that a colors preserving automorphism also preserves the meta-coloring of the $K_n$-fibers.
We are going to prove the second statement. We have to give a winning strategy for Gentle playing second with $m+1$ colors. A proper edge coloring of $K_n$, with $n-1$ colors gives $n-1$ perfect matchings, whose union covers all the edges of $K_n$. We denote these matchings by $M_1,\dots, M_{n-1}$. Gentle’s winning strategy is as follows. First of all, he plays according to the $K_n$-fiber-strategy. If Rascal plays in one of the fibers $K_n^j$, with $j\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$, Gentle plays with respect to the matching $M_j$. It means that if Rascal colors the vertex $(i,j)$, then Gentle colors the unique vertex $(k,j)$ in $K_n^j$, such that $ik$ is an edge in the matching $M_j$. Otherwise, he plays as he wants with respect to the $K_n$-fiber-strategy. See Fig. \[fig:match\], where $R_i$ and $G_i$ respectively denote the $i^e$ move of Rascal and Gentle. Gentle chooses the colors as follows. First, he always plays a color different from the one used by Rascal just before. Second, if he has to color the last vertex of a $K_n$-fiber, he chooses the color in a way that the meta-color of this fiber is distinct from all the meta-colors of the already totally colored $K_n$-fibers. He has at most $m-1$ meta-colors to avoid. It is always possible because he can choose among the $m$ colors not used by Rascal just before.
iin [0,1,2,3]{} [ (-/2, i-/2) rectangle +( 1.2,); ]{} iin [0,1,2,3,4]{}
( i-/2+0.7,- 1.5) rectangle +(,);
(-/2+ 1.5,- 1.5) node\[below\][$K_4$]{}; (-/2,0) node\[left\][$K_5$]{}; (-/2+0.7,0) coordinate (R1) node\[right\] [$R_1$]{}; (-/2+0.7, 2-/2+0.38) coordinate (G1) node\[right\] [$G_1$]{}; ( 2-/2+0.7,-/2+0.38) coordinate (R2) node\[right\] [$R_2$]{}; (2-/2+0.7,-/2+0.38) coordinate (G2) node\[right\] [$G_2$]{}; ( 2-/2+0.7,2-/2+0.38) coordinate (R3) node\[right\] [$R_3$]{}; (2-/2+0.7, 3-/2+0.38) coordinate (G3) node\[right\][$G_3$]{}; ( 4-/2+0.7,2-/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$R_4$]{}; (4-/2+0.7, 1 -/2+0.38) node\[right\] [$G_4$]{}; ( -/2+0.7,3-/2+0.38) coordinate(R5) node\[right\][$R_5$]{}; ( -/2+0.7, 1 -/2+0.38) coordinate (G5) node\[right\][$G_5$]{}; ( -/2+0.7,3-/2+0.38) coordinate(R6) node\[right\][$R_6$]{}; ( -/2+0.7, 0 -/2+0.38) coordinate (G6) node\[right\][$G_6$]{}; ( 3-/2+0.7,3-/2+0.38) node\[right\][$R_7$]{}; ( 3-/2+0.7, 1 -/2+0.38) node\[right\][$G_7$]{}; ( -/2+0.7,1-/2+0.38) coordinate(R8) node\[right\][$R_8$]{}; ( -/2+0.7, 2 -/2+0.38) coordinate (G8) node\[right\][$G_8$]{};
(G1) to\[bend right\] (R1); (G5) to\[bend left\] (R5); (G2) to\[bend left\] (R2); (G3) to\[bend right\] (R3); (G6) to\[bend left\] (R6); (G8) to\[bend right\] (R8);
Let us prove now that this strategy yields a distinguishing coloring $c$. Applying the above strategy, Gentle will color the last vertex of each $K_n$-fiber (see Proposition \[prop:strat\]). Hence, he controls the meta-color of all the $K_n$-fibers. They will all have a distinct meta-color at the end of the game. Therefore, a colors preserving automorphism $\sigma$ cannot switch these fibers. It means that $\sigma=(\psi,Id_{K_m})$, where $\psi\in Aut(K_n)$. Assume that $\psi$ is not the identity. There exists $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, such that $\psi(i)\neq i$. The edge $\psi(i)i$ belongs to a matching $M_j$, with $j\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$. Since Gentle has colored either $(i,j)$ or $(\psi(i),j)$, these two vertices have not the same color. It shows that the automorphism $(\psi,Id_{K_m})$ does not preserve the coloring $c$. In conclusion $c$ is a distinguishing coloring.
We prove now the third item. The general ideas are similar as above, but since the $K_n$-fibers have odd order, a matching does not cover all the vertices of $K_n$. Hence, if Rascal is the first to play in a $K_n$-fiber, Gentle cannot immediately play with respect to a matching. Since $n$ is odd, we need $n$ matchings to have that their union covers all the edges of $K_n$. Each matching does not cover exactly one vertex and this uncovered vertex is distinct for each of them. We denote by $M_j$, with $j\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, the matching which does not cover the vertex $j$. Without lost of generality, we assume that Rascal’s first move is to color the vertex $(1,1)$ in $K_n^1$. Gentle will again follow a $K_n$-fiber strategy. Hence, he will be the first to color a vertex in exactly $\frac m 2$ different $K_n$-fibers, say $K_n^2,\dots,K_n^{\frac m 2+1}$. When Gentle colors a vertex of $K_n^j$, with $j\in\{1,\dots,\frac{m}{2}+1\}$, if it is the first vertex of $K_n^j$ to be colored, he chooses the vertex $(j,j)$. Otherwise, he plays with respect to the matching $M_j$. When the fiber-strategy leads him to play in other $K_n$-fibers, he plays wherever he wants with respect to the $K_n$-fiber strategy. For the choice of the colors, he plays as in the previous strategy. The proof that the coloring built during the game is distinguishing is exactly the same. Just note that by hypothesis, $\frac m 2+1\geq n$. Hence, Gentle has enough $K_n$-fibers to use the $n$ matchings needed to cover all the edges of $K_n$.
The proof of the last item is the same as for the previous one. Because Gentle starts, he will be the first to play in $\frac{m+1}{2}$ different $K_n$-fibers, which is by hypothesis greater or equal to $n$. [$\square$ ]{}
For $K_2\square K_m$, we can compute the exact value of ${D_\mathcal{R}}$. In [@schmidt], it is shown that ${D_\mathcal{R}}(K_2\square K_m)=3$, for $m\in \{2,3,4\}$. For $m\geq 5$, we are going to prove that we need exactly $m$ colors. Then, the bound obtained above is not far to be tight. Let $c$ be a coloring of $K_2\square K_m$, with $m\geq 5$. We say that two distinct $K_2$-fibers, $K_2^i$ and $K_2^j$ are colored the same if $c(K_2^i)=c(K_2^j)$. If we have also $c((i,1))=c((j,1))$, we say that the two fibers are strictly colored the same.
\[prop:Kn<=\] If $m\geq 5 $, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(K_2\square K_m)= m$.
[[**Proof. **]{}]{}First, we show that with $m$ distinct colors Gentle has a winning strategy. Recall that Rascal starts. When Rascal plays in a $K_2$-fiber, Gentle answers by coloring the second vertex of this $K_2$-fiber. That means he plays according to a $K_2$-fiber strategy. He colors in a way that the new colored $K_2$-fiber is not colored the same as another $K_2$-fiber already colored before. This is always possible, because there are at most $m-1$ different $K_2$-fibers colored before and Gentle can use $m$ colors. Moreover, he can ensure that at least one $K_2$-fiber is not monochromatic. Let us prove now that this strategy yields a distinguishing coloring. Assume $\sigma$ is a colors preserving automorphism. Then $\sigma(K_2^i)=K_2^i$, for all $i\in\{1,\dots,m\}$. But, there is at least one bi-chromatic $K_2$-fiber. Hence, $\sigma$ must also fix this $K_2$-fiber point wise. Therefore, $\sigma$ has to fix all the $K_2$-fibers point wise. In conclusion, $\sigma$ is the identity.
It remains to prove that Rascal has a winning strategy, if strictly less than $m$ colors are allowed during the game. Remark that, if two distinct $K_2$-fibers, $K_2^i$ and $K_2^j$ are strictly colored the same at any moment in the game, then Rascal wins. Indeed, there is an automorphism $\sigma$ such that $\sigma((i,1))=(j,1)$, $\sigma((i,2))=(j,2)$ and $\sigma$ fixes all the other vertices.
Rascal starts by coloring $(1,1)$ with $1$. There are two cases.\
**Case 1:** Gentle colors the vertex $(1,2)$.
Rascal answers by coloring $(2,1)$ with $1$. If Gentle colors a vertex different than $(2,2)$, Rascal wins at his next turn by coloring $(2,2)$ with the same color as $(1,2)$. So, we can suppose that Gentle colors $(2,2)$. Turn by turn, this shows that Rascal can color all the vertices of the form $(i,1)$ with the color $1$, and that Gentle is forced to color only the vertices of the form $(i,2)$. Since Gentle has strictly less than $m$ colors at his disposal, there are two vertices $(i_0,2)$, $(j_0,2)$, which receive the same color. Hence, the two $K_2$-fibers, $K_2^{i_0}$ and $K_2^{j_0}$ will be strictly colored the same and Rascal will win.
**Case 2:** Gentle first move is to color the vertex $(2,x)$, with $x\in\{1,2\}$.
Rascal answers by coloring with $1$ the vertex $(3,1)$. Now, if Gentle plays in $K_2^1$ or $K_2^3$, Rascal wins because he can play such that $K_2^1$ and $K_2^3$ are strictly colored the same. Suppose that Gentle plays a vertex which is not in $K_2^1$ or $K_2^3$. Since $m\geq 5$, at least one vertex in the fiber $K_m^1$ is still uncolored, say $(5,1)$. Rascal replies by coloring this vertex with $1$. The vertices $(1,2)$, $(3,2)$ and $(5,2)$ are still uncolored. Rascal can ensure that at least two of the three $K_2$-fibers, $K_2^1$, $K_2^3$ and $K_2^5$ are strictly colored the same. Indeed, if Gentle is the first to color one of these three uncolored vertices, Rascal copies this color in one of the two remaining vertices. Otherwise, he will be able to decide the coloring of two of them. In conclusion, Rascal will also win in this second case. [$\square$ ]{} Of course, Theorem \[theo:complete\] does not cover all possibilities. We did not manage to prove that in the remaining cases the invariants are finite. But we know that the $K_n$-fiber strategy used above by Gentle will fail in these cases. More precisely, we have the following proposition.
Let $n$ and $m$ be two distinct natural numbers greater or equal to $2$. Whatever the number of colors allowed, if Gentle follows a $K_n$-fiber strategy on $K_n\square K_m$, he looses in both following cases:
- Rascal starts, $n$ is odd, $m$ is even and $m<2n-2$,
- Gentle starts, $n$ and $m$ are odd and $m<2n-1$.
[[**Proof. **]{}]{} We prove the first statement. The second can be proved in exactly the same way. Rascal winning strategy is to create two $K_m$-fibers, say $K_m^1$ and $K_m^n$, which are strictly colored the same. More precisely, if $u\in K_m^1$ and $v\in K_m^n$ are in the same $K_n$-fiber then they share the same color. In that case, the automorphism which only permutes $K_m^1$ and $K_m^n$ is a colors preserving automorphism.
Rascal proceeds as follows. He plays his $\frac m 2$ first moves in the same $K_m$-fiber, say $K_m^1$. Since Gentle plays according to a $K_n$-fiber strategy, at the end of the $(\frac m 2)^\text{th}$ turn of Gentle each $K_n$-fiber has exactly one colored vertex. These $m$ first moves are called the first phase of the game. Let $k$ be the number of uncolored vertices in $K_m^1$ at the end of this first phase. We have: $0\leq k\leq \frac m 2$ ($k$ could be equal to $0$, if Gentle has only played in $K_m^1$ during the first phase). The forthcoming $k$ moves of Rascal and $k$ moves of Gentle will be called the second phase of the game. In this phase, when Rascal plays in a $K_n$-fiber, Gentle has to answer by a move in this same $K_n$-fiber. Hence, Rascal can play all the $k$ remaining uncolored vertices of $K_m^1$. Let $u$ be such a vertex. There is a unique vertex $v$ in the same $K_n$-fiber than $u$, which is already colored (this vertex has been colored by Gentle during the first phase). Rascal copies the color of $v$ to color $u$. During this second part of the game, Gentle has played in at most $k$ distinct $K_m$-fibers. Since $m<2n-2$, then $k<n-1$. Hence, there exists a $K_m$-fiber, say $K_m^n$, in which Gentle has not played during this second phase. In $K_m^n$, there is at most one colored vertex, say $w$. In that case, $w$ has been colored by Gentle during the first phase of the game. This vertex $w$ shares the same color as the vertex of $K_m^1$, which is in the same $K_n$-fiber (this vertex has been colored by Rascal during the second phase). Therefore, Rascal can now color all the uncolored vertices of $K_m^n$, such that $K_m^1$ and $K_m^n$ are strictly colored the same. [$\square$ ]{}
Cartesian products of involutive graphs. {#sect:inv}
========================================
In this section, we study the game distinguishing numbers of cartesian products of involutive graphs and prove Theorem \[theo:main-inv\]. The class of involutive graphs has been introduced in [@schmidt]. It contains graphs like even cycles, hypercubes or more generally diametrical graphs and even graphs (see [@Gobel]). Let us recall the definition. An [*involutive graph*]{} $H$ is a graph together with an involution, $bar:V(H)\rightarrow V(H)$, which commutes with all automorphisms and has no fixed point. In other words:
- $\forall u\in V(H)$, $ \overline{\overline u}=u$ and $\overline u\neq u$,\
- $\forall \sigma\in Aut(H)\; \forall u\in V(H)$, $\sigma(\overline u)=\overline{\sigma(u)}$.\
The set $\{u,\overline u\}$ will be called a [*block*]{}. An important remark is that an automorphism of an involutive graph has to map a block to a block. In other words, there is a natural action of the automorphism group on the set of blocks. We introduce the following concepts, which are going to play a similar role as the meta-colors used in Section \[sec:complete\].
If $H$ is an involutive graph and $c$ is a vertex-coloring with $d$ colors, then the [*type*]{} $t$ of a block $\{u,\overline u\}$ is defined by:
t({u,u})=
c(u)-c(u) d & c(u)-c(u)d{0,…,d 2}\
c(u)-c(u)d &
The [*block-list*]{} of $H$, $L_c(H)$ is the list $(n_0,\dots,n_{\lfloor\frac d 2\rfloor})$ of length $\lfloor\frac d 2\rfloor+1$, where $n_i$, with $i\in\{0,...\lfloor\frac d 2\rfloor\}$, is the number of blocks of type $i$, according to the coloring $c$. Note that, if $\sigma$ is an automorphism of $H$, then $t(\sigma(\{u,\bar u\}))=t(\{u,\bar u\})$ and $L_c(H)=L_{c}(\sigma(H))$.
Assume now that $H$ is a connected involutive graph and $F$ is a connected graph relatively prime to $H$. The following proposition asserts that if the classical distinguishing number of $F$ is not too big, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H\square F)$ is bounded above by ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H)$. Theorem \[theo:main-inv\] will be a straightforward application of this result.
\[theo:inv\] Let $H$ be a connected involutive graph. Assume that Gentle has a winning strategy playing second on $H$, with $d\geq{D_\mathcal{R}}(H)$ colors. Moreover, this strategy yields colorings, whose block-list is in a fixed set $\mathcal L$ . If $F$ is a connected graph relatively prime to $H$, with $D(F)\leq \left(\begin{array}{c}
\frac{|V(H)|}2+\lfloor\frac d 2\rfloor\\\
\lfloor\frac d 2\rfloor\
\end{array}\right)-|\mathcal{L}|+1$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H\square F)\leq d$.
[[**Proof. **]{}]{} We have to give a Gentle winning strategy with $d$ colors, assuming Rascal starts. The coloring obtained at the end of the game will be denoted by $c$.
First of all Gentle will follow a $H$-fiber strategy. Note that $|V(H)|$ is even. Hence, we are in Case $0$ of this strategy. Let $(u_1,v_1)$ be the first vertex of $H\square F$ colored by Rascal. Gentle imagines a distinguishing coloring $c'$ of $F$, with $D(F)$ colors. When Gentle has to play in the fiber $H^{v_1}$, he chooses the vertex and the color according to a winning strategy in $H$. This is possible, because Gentle’s moves and Rascal’s moves in $H^{v_1}$ alternate like the moves in a game played only on $H$, when Rascal starts (see Proposition \[prop:strat\]). Moreover, $d\geq {D_\mathcal{R}}(H)$ by hypothesis. In the other $H$-fibers, when Rascal plays the vertex $(u,v)$, Gentle answers by coloring the vertex $(\overline u,v)$. In this way, Gentle will be able to control the block-list of these fibers. More precisely, he chooses the colors such that: $$(\dag)~~\forall v,w\in V(F),~L_c(H^v)=L_c(H^w) \text{ only if } c'(v)=c'(w).$$ This is possible if there exists at least $(D(F)-1)+|\mathcal {L}|$ distinct possible block-lists. Indeed, Gentle cannot control in advance the block-list of the fiber $H^{v_1}$. By hypothesis, we only know that this block-list will belong to $\mathcal L$. Hence, $|\mathcal L|$ kinds of block-list are used to stand for the imaginary color $c'(v_1)$. Finally, with $(D(F)-1)+|\mathcal {L}|$ possible block-lists, Gentle has enough possibilities to associate distinct block-lists to distinct colors of the coloring $c'$. The number of block-lists is the number of weak compositions of $\frac {|V(H)|}2$ (the number of blocks) into $\lfloor\frac d 2\rfloor+1$ natural numbers (the number of block types). So, there are $\left(\begin{array}{c}
\frac{|V(H)|}2+\lfloor\frac d 2\rfloor\\\
\lfloor\frac d 2\rfloor\
\end{array}\right)$ kinds of block-lists, which is by hypothesis greater or equal to $(D(F)-1)+|\mathcal L|$.
Now, we prove that the coloring obtained with this strategy is distinguishing. Assume $\sigma$ is a colors preserving automorphism. We have $\sigma=(\psi,\phi)$, where $\psi\in Aut(H)$ and $\phi\in Aut(F)$. This automorphism maps blocks in $H^{v}$ to blocks in $H^{\phi(v)}$, for any $v\in V(F)$. Hence, the automorphism $\phi$ preserves the block-lists of the $H$-fibers: $L_c(H^v)=L_c(H^{\phi(v)})$, for all $v\in V(F)$. By condition $(\dag)$, this automorphism preserves also the distinguishing coloring $c'$ of $F$. Hence, $\phi$ is the identity of $Aut(F)$. This implies that $\sigma(H^{v_1})=H^{v_1}$. But the coloring of this $H$-fiber is obtained by following a winning strategy for Gentle in the game on $H$. Therefore, $\psi$ is the identity of $H$. In conclusion, $\sigma$ is trivial and the coloring $c$ is distinguishing. [$\square$ ]{}
Theorem \[theo:main-inv\] is a straightforward application of the above result for two reasons. First, we know that for an involutive graph $H$, ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H)\leq D^2(H)+D(H)-2$ (see Theorem \[theo:finite-inv\]). Moreover, with $D^2(H)+D(H)-2$ colors, Gentle has a winning strategy such that he knows exactly the block-list he will get at the end of the game (see the proof of Theorem 1.6 in [@schmidt]). It means, with the notation of the above theorem, that $\mathcal L$ is just a singleton.
Cartesian products of cycles {#sec:tore}
============================
In this final section, we give a proof of Theorem \[theo:main-tore\]. Note that proving the statement about the infinity of the invariants is a straightforward application of Proposition \[prop:ordertwo\]. For the cycle $C_n$ of order $n\geq 3$, we set $V(C_n)=\{1,\dots,n\}$ and $E(C_n)=\{ij\;|\;|i-j|=1\bmod n,\;i,j\in V(C_n)\}$. We begin with toroidal grids of even order. Since even cycles are involutive graphs the first proposition is a direct corollary of Theorem \[theo:inv\].
\[prop:even\] Let $n$ and $m$ be two distinct natural numbers greater or equal to $3$. If $n$ is even and $n\geq 8$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_n\square C_m)=2$.
[[**Proof. **]{}]{} In [@schmidt Proposition 4.1], the winning strategy used by Gentle with two colors leads to exactly three bi-chromatic blocks, when $n\geq 12$. To show that ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_8)={D_\mathcal{R}}(C_{10})=2$, they used an exhaustive computer check. This computing also gives that there is a Gentle’s winning strategy which leads to one or three bi-chromatic blocks if $n=8$, and to one or four bi-chromatic blocks if $n=10$. Therefore, with the same notations as in Theorem \[theo:inv\], we have that $|\mathcal L|\leq 2$. For all $m\geq 3$, $D(C_m)\leq 3$. Thus, we have $D(C_m)\leq \left(\begin{array}{c}
\frac{n+2}2\\
1
\end{array}\right)-2+1$, and we can directly applied Theorem \[theo:inv\] to get that ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_n\square C_m)=2$. [$\square$ ]{}
\[prop:C4C6\] Let $n$ be in $\{4,6\}$ and $F$ a connected graph relatively prime to $C_n$, with at least three vertices. If $D(F)\leq 3$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_n\square F)=2$.
[[**Proof. **]{}]{}Let $n\in\{4,6\}$. We denote by $c$ the coloring built during the game. We have to give a winning strategy for Gentle with $2$ colors. Gentle plays according to a $C_n$-fiber strategy and uses the block-lists as meta-colors. Here, the problem is that ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_n)=3$. Gentle fancies a distinguishing coloring $c'$ of $F$, where the three colors are really used. As in Theorem \[theo:inv\], Gentle can control the block-list of the $C_n$-fibers such that: $$\forall v\in V(F),~L_c(C_n^v)=\begin{cases}
(n,0)&\text{ if } c'(v)=1,\\
(n-1,1)&\text{ if } c'(v)=2,\\
(n-2,2)&\text{ if } c'(v)=3.\\
\end{cases}$$ Moreover, for $v\in V(F)$, if $L_c(C_n^v)$ must be equal to $(n-1,1)$ or $(n-2,2)$, he plays such that the block $\{(1,v),(n/2,v\}$ is of type $1$.
Now, we prove that the coloring $c$ is distinguishing. Assume $\sigma$ is a colors preserving automorphism. We have $\sigma=(\psi,\phi)$, where $\psi\in Aut(C_n)$ and $\phi\in Aut(F)$. For all $v\in V(F)$, $L_c(C_n^v)=L_c(C_n^{\phi(v)})$. Hence, for all $v\in V(F)$, $c'(v)=c'(\phi(v))$. Since $c'$ is a distinguishing coloring of $F$, we get that $\phi$ is trivial. Hence, $\sigma$ fixes the $C_n$-fibers set wise. Since there is at least one $C_n$-fiber with block-list $(n-1,1)$, $\psi$ must be the symmetry $\Delta$ of axes $(1,\frac n 2)$ or the identity. But $\Delta$ does not preserve the coloring in the $C_n$-fibers, whose block-list is $(n-2,2)$. Indeed, in such a fiber, one of the block of type $1$ is stable under $\Delta$. The other block of type $1$ is sent by $\Delta$ to a block of type $0$ or switched to itself. In both cases, it breaks the coloring. In conclusion $\psi$ is the identity and so is $\sigma$. [$\square$ ]{}
This result directly implies the following corollary.
\[cor:C4C6\] Let $m$ be an integer greater or equal to $3$.
1. If $m\neq 6$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_6\square C_m)=2$.
2. If $m\neq 4$, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_4\square C_m)=2$.
The following proposition gives a general upper bound, when one factor has distinguishing number less or equal to $2$. It has as corollary, the case where both factors have odd cardinal and a least one is not prime.
\[prop:cart2\] Let $H$ and $F$ be two connected graphs relatively prime. Assume $H$ is vertex transitive, $D(H)\geq 2$ and $D(F)\leq2$.
1. If $|V(H)|$ and $|V(F)|$ are odd, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(H\square F)\leq{D_\mathcal{G}}(H)$.
2. If $|V(H)|$ is odd and $|V(F)|$ is even, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H\square F)\leq{D_\mathcal{G}}(H)$.
3. If $|V(H)|$ is even, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(H\square F)\leq{D_\mathcal{R}}(H)$
[[**Proof. **]{}]{}We prove the first statement. Let $c$ be the coloring built during the game. For each $H$-fiber $H^v$, with $v\in V(F)$, we define: $$p(H^v)=\begin{cases}
1&\text{ if } |\{u\in H^v|c((u,v))=1\}| \text{ is odd}\\
2&\text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ We have to define a Gentle’s winning strategy with ${D_\mathcal{G}}(H)$ colors. Gentle is going to play according to a $H$-fiber strategy. Note that we are in Case 1 of this strategy. In the $H$-fibers, where Gentle is the first to play, the moves alternate exactly as in a game played only on $H$, with Gentle playing first (see Proposition \[prop:strat\]). In the other $H$-fibers, it is also the case, except for the first move which is played by Rascal. In other words, Rascal will play the two first moves in a row in these $H$-fibers. Since $H$ is vertex transitive, we assume, by Lemma \[lem:transitive\], that Gentle has played first also in these $H$-fibers. Therefore, Gentle can play following a winning strategy for $H$ in each $H$-fiber. He plays like this as long as one $H$-fiber is totally colored, say $H^{v_0}$. Now, he fancies a distinguishing coloring $c'$ of $F$ such that $c'(v_0)=p(H^{v_0})$. For the later moves, he plays such that: $$(\ddagger)\;\; \forall v\in V(F),\; c'(v)=p(H^v).$$ Since he follows a $H$-fiber strategy, we recall that he is going to play the last move in each $H$-fiber. Hence, he is able to decide the parity of the number of vertices colored with $1$ in each of them.
Let us prove now that the coloring $c$ is distinguishing. Let $\sigma$ be a colors preserving automorphism. For all $v\in V(F)$, we have $p(\sigma(H^v))=p(H^v)$. Since $c'$ is a distinguishing coloring of $F$, it implies, by $(\ddagger)$, that $\sigma$ fixes the $H$-fibers set wise. Therefore, $\sigma(H^{v_0})=H^{v_0}$. But the coloring on this $H$-fiber is obtained by following a winning strategy on $H$. Then, $H^{v_0}$ must be fixed point wise by $\sigma$. In conclusion, $\sigma$ is the identity.
For the two remaining statements, the proof is almost the same. The only difference is that for the third item, we are in Case 0 of the $H$-fiber strategy. [$\square$ ]{}
\[cor:odd\] Let $n$ and $m$ be two odd distinct natural numbers greater or equal to $3$. If $n$ is not prime and $m\geq7$, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_n\square C_m)=2$.
[[**Proof. **]{}]{} Under the hypothesis of the corollary, we have ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_n)=2$ and $D(C_m)=2$. Thus, this is a straightforward application of Proposition \[prop:cart2\]. [$\square$ ]{}
With the previous results, we are able to compute the distinguishing numbers of the toroidal grid $C_n\square C_m$, except for the following cases:
- $C_3\square C_m$, with $m\neq 3$ and $m$ odd,
- $C_5\square C_m$, with $m\neq 5$ and $m$ odd,
- $C_n\square C_m$, with $n\neq m$, $n$ and $m$ odd and prime.
To settle this remaining cases, we state the following proposition.
\[prop:prime\] Let $n$ and $m$ be two distinct odd numbers greater or equal to $3$. If $n$ is prime and $m\geq 7$, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_n\square C_m)=2$
[[**Proof. **]{}]{} Let $c$ be the coloring built during the game. For each $C_n$-fiber $C_n^j$, with $j\in\{1,...m\}$, we define: $$p(C_n^j)=\begin{cases}
1&\text{ if } |\{i\in C_n^j|c((i,j))=1\}| \text{ is odd}\\
2&\text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Let $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_3$ be three maximum matchings of $C_n$, whose union covers $E(C_n)$. Let $v_1$, $v_2$ and $v_3$ be the only vertices of $C_n$, which are respectively not covered by $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_3$. Let $c'$ be a distinguishing coloring of $C_m$, with $2$ colors. Such a coloring exists because $m>5$.
We have to outline a Gentle’s winning strategy with $2$ colors. He is going to follow a $C_n$-fiber strategy. Since $m\geq7$, there are at least three distinct $C_n$-fibers, $C_n^{j_1},C_n^{j_2},C_n^{j_3}$, with $j_1,j_2,j_3\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, where Gentle is the first to play. The first vertex that Gentle is going to color in $C_n^{j_k}$, with $k\in\{1,2,3\}$ is $(v_k,j_k)$. He colors it such that $c((v_k,j_k))=c'(j_k)$. In the other $C_n$-fibers, where he is the first to play, the first vertex he chooses and the color he uses do not matter. For the later moves in $C_n^{j_k}$, he will choose the vertices with respect to the matching $M_k$. Moreover, he uses the other color than the one used by Rascal just before. In this way, the parity of the number of vertices in $C_n^{j_k}$ colored with $1$ only depends on $c((v_k,j_k))$. Hence $p(C_n^{j_k})=c((v_k,j_k))=c'(j_k)$, for $k\in\{1,2,3\}$. For the moves in $C_n^j$, with $j\not\in\{j_1,j_2,j_3\}$, Gentle plays whatever he wants, except when he colors the last vertex of the $C_n$-fiber. In that case, he chooses the color such that $p(C_n^j)=c'(j)$.
We prove now that $c$ is distinguishing. Let $\sigma$ be a colors preserving automorphism. For all the $C_n$-fibers, we have $p(C_n^j)=c'(j)$. Since $c'$ is a distinguishing coloring of $C_m$, $\sigma$ fixes the $C_n$-fibers set wise. Thus, we have $\sigma=(\psi,Id)$, with $\psi\in Aut(C_n)$. Since $n$ is prime, any non trivial rotation acts transitively on a $C_n$-fiber. As at least one such fiber is not monochromatic, $\psi$ could not be a non trivial rotation. In the other hand, if $\psi$ is an axial symmetry, since $n$ is odd, there is an edge $e\in E(C_n)$ such that $\psi(e)=e$. This edge belongs to one of the three matchings, say $M_1$. Gentle has played such that in $C_n^{j_1}$, the edge corresponding to $e$ is not monochromatic. Therefore $\psi$ cannot preserve the coloring. In conclusion, $\psi$ must be the identity and so is $\sigma$. [$\square$ ]{}
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[theo:main-tore\].
**Proof of Theorem \[theo:main-tore\].** Let $n_1,\dots,n_k$, with $k\geq2$, be $k$ distinct numbers greater or equal to $3$. If $\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^k n_i$ is even (resp. odd), we have to prove that ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_k})=2$ (resp. ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_k})=2$). If $k=2$, this is a consequence of Propositions \[prop:even\] and\[prop:prime\] and Corollaries \[cor:C4C6\] and \[cor:odd\], except for $C_3\square C_5$. An exhaustive computer check prove that in that case two colors are also enough. For $k\geq 3$, we proceed by induction. If we are not dealing with $C_3\square C_4\square C_5$, we can assume that $n_k\geq 6$. Hence, $D(C_{n_k})=2$ and by induction ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_{k-1}})=2$ or ${D_\mathcal{G}}(C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_{k-1}})=2$, depending on the parity. Finally, we apply Proposition \[prop:cart2\], with $H=C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_{k-1}}$ and $F=C_{n_k}$, to get the expected results. For $C_3\square C_4\square C_5$, we apply Proposition \[prop:C4C6\] to show that ${D_\mathcal{R}}(C_3\square C_4\square C_5)=2$. [$\square$ ]{}
Let $n_1,\dots,n_k$ be $k$ distinct natural numbers greater or equal to $2$.
1. If $\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^k n_i$ is even, then ${D_\mathcal{G}}(P_{n_1}\square\cdots\square P_{n_k})=\infty$ and ${D_\mathcal{R}}(P_{n_1}\square\cdots\square P_{n_k})=2$.
2. If $\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^k n_i$ is odd, then ${D_\mathcal{R}}(P_{n_1}\square\cdots\square P_{n_k})=\infty$ and ${D_\mathcal{G}}(P_{n_1}\square\cdots\square P_{n_k})=2$.
[[**Proof. **]{}]{}If $k=1$, we easily have ${D_\mathcal{R}}(P_n)=2$, when $n$ is even and ${D_\mathcal{G}}(P_n)=2$, when $n$ is odd (see [@schmidt]). If $k\geq 2$ and $n_i\geq 3$, for all $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$, then it is a straightforward consequence of Theorem \[theo:main-tore\]. Indeed, in this case, a distinguishing coloring of $C_{n_1}\square\cdots\square C_{n_k}$ is also a distinguishing coloring of $P_{n_1}\square\cdots\square P_{n_k}$. If one factor, say $P_{n_1}$ is isomorphic to $P_2$, then we can apply Proposition \[prop:cart2\], with $H=P_{n_1}$ and $F=P_{n_2}\square\cdots\square P_{n_k}$. We have actually that $D(P_{n_2}\square\cdots\square P_{n_k})=2$ (the only cartesian products of paths for which it is not true are $P_2\square P_2$ and $P_2\square P_2\square P_2$ , with $D(P_2\square P_2)=D(P_2\square P_2\square P_2)=3$). [$\square$ ]{}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The research was in part financed by the ANR-14-CE25-0006 project of the French National Research Agency.
M.O. Albertson and K.L. Collins, Symmetry breaking in graphs, Electron. J. Comb. 3 (1996), \#R18.
B. Bogstad and L. Cowen, The distinguishing number of hypercubes, Discrete Math. 383 (2004) 29–35.
U. Faigle, U. Kern, H. Kierstead and W.T. Trotter, On the game chromatic number of some classes of graphs, Ars Combinatoria 35 (1993) 143–150.
M.J. Fisher and G. Isaak, Distinguishing colorings of cartesian products of complete graphs, Discrete Math. 308 (2008) 2240–2246
F. Göbel and H.J. Veldman, Even graphs, J. Graph Theor. 10 (1986) 225–239.
W. Imrich, J. Jerebic and S. Klavžar, The distinguishing number of cartesian products of complete graphs, Eur. J. Comb. 45 (2009) 175–188.
W. Imrich and S. Klavžar, Distinguishing cartesian powers of graphs, J. Graph Theor. 53 (2006) 250–260.
W. Imrich and S. Klavžar, Product graphs: struture and recognition, Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization (2000).
S. Klavžar, T.L. Wong and X. Zhu, Distinguishing labelings of group action on vector spaces and graphs, J. Algebra 15 Issue 2 (2006) 626–641.
S. Klavžar and X. Zhu, Cartesian powers of graphs can be distinguished by two labels, Eur. J. Comb. 28 (2007) 303–310.
S. Gravier, K. Meslem, S. Schmidt and S. Slimani, A New game invariant of graphs: the game distinguishing number, Preprint arXiv:1410.3359v4 \[math.CO\] (2015).
B. Brešar, S. Klažar and D.F. Rall, Domination game and an imagination strategy, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 24 (2010) 979–991.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this note, we prove that every automorphism of a rational manifold which is obtained from ${\Bbb{P}^k}$ by a finite sequence blow-ups along smooth centers of dimension at most $r$ with $k>2r+2$ has zero topological entropy.'
address: 'Mathematics Department, Johns Hopkins University 21218 Maryland, USA'
author:
- Turgay Bayraktar
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: On the automorphism group of rational manifolds
---
Introduction
============
A holomorphic automorphism of a compact Kähler manifold has positive topological entropy if and of if absolute value of one of the eigenvalues of $f^*$ on the cohomology $H^*(X,\Bbb{C})$ is larger than one. It follows from the results of Cantat [@C1; @C2] that a compact complex surface admit an automorphism with positive entropy if it is Kähler and bimeromorphic to one of the following: a rational surface, a torus, a $K3$ surface or an Enriques surface. In particular, if $X$ is a rational surface admitting an automorphism with positive entropy then $X$ is obtained from $\Bbb{P}^2$ by blowing up a finite sequence of at least ten points [@Nagata]. Examples of rational surface automorphisms with positive entropy were given by [@BK2; @BKauto; @McMullen]. On the other hand, in higher dimensions the question if one can obtain automorphisms with interesting dynamics by blowing up certain subvarieties of ${\Bbb{P}^k}$ remained open. Our first result partially addresses this question:
\[rational\] Let $X$ be a rational manifold such that $X=X_m$ and $\pi_i:X_{i+1}\to X_i$ is obtained by blowing up a smooth irreducible subvariety of dimension at most $r$ with $k>2r+2$ in $X_i$ where $X_0={\Bbb{P}^k}.$ If $f:X\to X$ is a holomorphic automorphism then $f$ has zero topological entropy.
In particular, if $X$ is obtained from ${\Bbb{P}^k}$ with $k\geq 3$ by blowing up a finite sequence of points then every holomorphic automorphism of $X$ has zero topological entropy. This was observed in [@tuyen] when $k=3$.\
A cohomology class $\alpha \in {H^{1,1}(X,\mathbb{R})}$ is called *numerically effective* (nef in short) if $\alpha$ lies in the closure of classes of Kähler forms. Following [@Kawamata] we define *numerical dimension* of a nef class as $$\nu(\alpha):=\max\{p\in\Bbb{N}: \alpha^p:=\alpha\wedge \dots \wedge \alpha\neq 0\ \text{in} \ H^{p,p}(X,\Bbb{R})\}.$$ Next, we prove that if an automorphism of a compact Kähler manifold preserves a numerically-effective class $\alpha \in {H^{1,1}(X,\mathbb{R})}$ with large numerical dimension then it has zero entropy.
\[numerical\] Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold with and $f\in Aut(X).$ If there exists a nef class $\alpha\in {H^{1,1}(X,\mathbb{R})}$ such that $\nu(\alpha)\geq \dim X-1$ and $f^*\alpha= \alpha$ then $f$ has zero topological entropy.
In some sense Theorem \[numerical\] can be considered a generalization of Liberman’s result [@Lieberman] (see also [@Zhang] for big and nef case) which asserts that if $X$ is a compact Kähler manifold and $f\in Aut(X)$ preserves a Kähler class then an iterate of $f$ belongs to $Aut_0(X),$ the connected component of the identity, and hence $f$ has zero topological entropy.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Mattias Jonsson and Tuyen Truong for their valuable comments on an earlier draft. I am also grateful to Brian Lehmann for stimulating correspondence.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold. We denote the de Rham (respectively Dolbeault) cohomology groups by $H^{2p}(X,\Bbb{R})$ (respectively $H^{p,p}(X,\Bbb{C}))$ and define $$H^{p,p}(X,\Bbb{R}):=H^{p,p}(X,\Bbb{C})\cap H^{2p}(X,\Bbb{R}).$$ Note that $H^{2p}(X,\Bbb{R}),\ H^{p,p}(X,\Bbb{C})$ are finite dimensional and one can identify $H^{p,p}(X,\Bbb{R})$ with a real subspace of $H^{p,p}(X,\Bbb{C}).$ In the sequel, we implicitly use the fact that the cohomology classes can be defined in terms of smooth forms or currents. We refer the reader to [@GH] for basic results in Hodge theory. A cohomology class $\alpha \in {H^{1,1}(X,\mathbb{R})}$ is called *numerically effective* (nef in short) if $\alpha$ lies in the closure of classes of Kähler forms. The set of nef classes ${H^{1,1}_{nef}(X,\mathbb{R})}$ forms a closed convex cone which is strict that is ${H^{1,1}_{nef}(X,\mathbb{R})}\cap -{H^{1,1}_{nef}(X,\mathbb{R})}=\{0\}.$
We let $Pic(X)$ denote the Picard gourp of $X$ that is isomorphism classes of line bundles with the group operation tensor product and denote the Chern map by $$c_1:Pic(X) \to H^2(X,\Bbb{Z}).$$ By a slight abuse of notation we will write $c_1(L)\in H^2(X,\Bbb{R})$ where we consider the image of $c_1(L)$ under the inclusion $i:H^2(X,\Bbb{Z})\to H^2(X,\Bbb{R}).$ The Neron-Severi group of $X$ is defined by $NS(X)=c_1(Pic(X))\subset H^2(X,\Bbb{R})$ that is the Chern classes of line bundles on $X.$ It follows from Lefschetz theorem on $(1,1)$ classes that $$NS(X)=H^2(X,\Bbb{Z})\cap H^{1,1}(X,\Bbb{R}).$$ We also let $NS_{\Bbb{R}}(X)$ be the real vector space $NS_{\Bbb{R}}(X)=NS(X) \otimes \Bbb{R}\subset H^2(X,\Bbb{R}).$\
A holomorphic line bundle $L$ is called *numerically effective* (nef) if $$L\cdot C=\int_Cc_1(L)\geq 0$$ for every curve $C\subset X$. It follows from [@DemS] that $L$ is nef if and only if $c_1(L)\in {H^{1,1}_{nef}(X,\mathbb{R})}$. A line bundle $L$ is said to be *big* if $\kappa(L)=\dim X$ where $\kappa(L)$ denotes the Kodaira-Iitaka dimension of $L.$ It is well-known that a nef line bundle $L$ is big if and only if $L^k:=\int_Xc_1(L)^k>0.$\
Dynamics of automorphisms of compact Kähler manifolds
-----------------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold of dimension $k$ and $\omega$ be a fixed Kähler form on $X$. We let $Aut(X)$ denote the set of holomorphic automorphisms of $X$. Every $f\in Aut(X)$ induces a linear action $$f^*:H^{p,p}(X,\Bbb{R}) \to H^{p,p}(X,\Bbb{R})$$ $$f^*\{\theta\}:=\{f^*\theta\}$$ where $\{\theta\}$ denotes the class of the smooth $(p,p)$ form $\theta$ in $H^{p,p}(X,\Bbb{R}).$\
For $f\in Aut(X)$ the $i^{th}$ *dynamical degree* of $f$ is defined by $$\lambda_i(f):=\limsup_{m\to \infty}(\int_X(f^n)^*\omega^i\wedge \omega^{k-i} )^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$ Since $X$ is compact this definition is independent of $\omega.$ The following properties of dynamical degrees are well known [@DS04]:
\[degree\] Let $f:X\to X$ be an automorphism. Then
- $1\leq \lambda_i$ is the spectral radius of $f^*_{|_{H^{i,i}(X,\Bbb{R})}}.$
- $i \to \log\lambda_i(f)$ is concave on $\{0,1,\dots, k\}.$
- $\lambda_1(f)^i \geq \lambda_i(f)$ and $\lambda_i(f)^i\geq \lambda_1(f)$ for $1\leq i\leq k-1$.
- $\lambda_i(f)=\lambda_{k-i}(f^{-1})$ for $i\in\{0,1,\dots,k\}.$
\[GY\] Let $f\in Aut(X)$ then the topological entropy of $f$ is given by $$h_{top}(f)=\max_{0\leq i \leq k}\log\lambda_i(f).$$
The next proposition will be useful in the proof of Theorem \[numerical\]:
[@DSauto]\[DS\] Let $\alpha,\alpha',\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_r \in {H^{1,1}(X,\mathbb{R})}$ be nef classes where $r\leq k-2.$
- If $\alpha\wedge \alpha'=0$ then $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ are colinear.
- If $\alpha\wedge \alpha' \wedge \alpha_1 \dots \wedge \alpha_r=0\ \text{in}\ H^{r+2,r+2}(X,\Bbb{R})$ then there exists real numbers $(a,b)\not=(0,0)$ such that $$(a\alpha+b\alpha')\wedge \alpha_1\dots \wedge \alpha_r=0.$$ Furthermore, if $\alpha'\wedge \alpha_1\dots\wedge \alpha_r\not=0$ then the pair $(a,b)$ is unique up to a multiplicative constant.
Proofs of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2
=====================================
Let $X=X_m$ be a rational manifold where $\pi_i:X_{i+1}\to X_i$ is obtained by blowing up a smooth irreducible subvariety $Y_i \subset X_i$ of dimension at most $r$ and $X_0={\Bbb{P}^k}$ with $k> 2r+2.$\
By Lemma \[degree\] we have $\lambda_1(f)^{k-r-1}\geq \lambda_{k-r-1}(f).$ First, we will show that $$\lambda_1^{k-r-1}(f)=\lambda_{k-r-1}(f).$$ Indeed, assuming otherwise $\lambda_1^{k-r-1}(f)>\lambda_{k-r-1}(f)$ we will derive a contradiction. Since $f^*$ preserves the nef cone it follows from a version of Perron-Frobenius theorem [@Bir] that there exists a nef class $\alpha \in NS_{\Bbb{R}}(X)$ such that $f^*\alpha=\lambda_1(f)\alpha.$ Now, as $f^*$ preserves the intersection product and $\lambda_1(f)^{k-r-1}>\lambda_{k-r-1}(f)$ we see that $\alpha^{k-r-1}=0$ in $H^{k-r-1,k-r-1}(X,\Bbb{R})$. Therefore, $\nu(\alpha)\leq k-r-2.$ Thus, the assertion follows from the next lemma:
Let $X=X_m$ be a rational manifold where $\pi_i:X_{i+1}\to X_i$ is obtained by blowing up a smooth irreducible subvariety $Y_i \subset X_i$ of dimension at most $r$ and $X_0={\Bbb{P}^k}$ with $k\geq r+2.$ If $\alpha \in {H^{1,1}_{nef}(X,\mathbb{R})}$ is non-zero then $\nu(\alpha)\geq k-r-1.$
It follows from [@Kawamata] that $$\nu(\alpha)=\max\{p:\alpha^p\cdot A^{k-p}\neq 0\}$$ where $A$ is any ample divisor. Therefore, it is enough to show that there exists a divisor $D$ such that $\alpha^{k-r-1}\cdot D^{r+1}\neq0.$\
It is classical that [@GH] the Picard group $Pic(X)$ is generated by the classes $ H_X,E_1,\dots,E_m$ where $$\pi=\pi_{m-1}\circ\pi_{m-2}\circ \dots \circ \pi_1:X\to X_0={\Bbb{P}^k}$$ $$H_X:=\pi^*(H)$$ $H$ is the class of a generic hyperplane in ${\Bbb{P}^k}$ and $E_i$ is the exceptional divisor of the blow up $\pi_i:X_{i+1}\to X_i$ and $$E_{i-1}:= \overline{\pi_{i}^{-1}(E_{i-1}-Y_i)}$$ is the class of the proper transform in $X_i$ of the exceptional divisor $E_{i-1}.$ Then we can represent the class $\alpha$ as $$\alpha=aH_X+\sum_ic_iE_i.$$ where $a,c_i\in\Bbb{R}$. Since $\pi(E_i) \subset {\Bbb{P}^k}$ has codimension at least 2, a generic line in ${\Bbb{P}^k}$ does not intersect $\pi(E_i).$ Then by the projection formula [@Fulton] we have $$E_i\cdot H_X^{k-1}=0.$$ Since $\alpha$ is nef and nonzero this implies that $\alpha \cdot H_X^{k-1}=a>0.$\
Now, since the dimension of $Y_i$ is at most $r,$ a generic subvariety of ${\Bbb{P}^k}$ of codimension $r+1$ does not intersect $\pi(E_i).$ This in turn implies that $E_i^{k-r-1}\cdot H_X^{r+1}=0$ hence, $$\alpha^{k-r-1}\cdot H_X^{r+1}=a^{k-r-1}>0.$$
Hence, we deduce that $\alpha^j\neq0$ in $H^{j,j}(X,\Bbb{R})$ and $\lambda_1(f)^j=\lambda_j(f)$ for all $1\leq j\leq k-r-1.$ Therefore, applying the same argument to $f^{-1}$ and using Lemma \[degree\] we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_1(f)^{(k-r-1)^2}&=&\lambda_{k-r-1}(f)^{k-r-1}=\lambda_{r+1}(f^{-1})^{k-r-1}=\lambda_1(f^{-1})^{(k-r-1)(r+1)}\\
&=&\lambda_{k-r-1}(f^{-1})^{r+1}=\lambda_{r+1}(f)^{r+1}= \lambda_1(f)^{(r+1)^2}\end{aligned}$$ since $k>2+2r$ this contradicts $\lambda_1(f)>1.$
Let $f\in Aut(X)$ and assume that the first dynamical degree, $\lambda_1>1$ we will derive a contradiction. Since $f^*$ preserves the nef cone there exists a class $\beta \in {H^{1,1}_{nef}(X,\mathbb{R})}$ such that $f^*\beta=\lambda_1 \beta$.\
Now, $\nu(\alpha)\geq k-1$ implies that $\alpha^{k-2}\not=0$ in $H^{k-2,k-2}(X,\Bbb{R}).$ On the other hand, since $f$ is an automorphism it preserves the cup product hence $$f^*(\alpha^{k-1}\wedge \beta)=\lambda_1 \alpha^{k-1}\wedge \beta.$$ Since the topological degree $\lambda_{k}=1$ we must have $$\alpha^{k-1}\wedge \beta=0.$$ Then, by Proposition \[DS\] there exists (up to a scaler multiple) unique real numbers $(a,b)\not=(0,0)$ such that $$(a\beta+b\alpha)\wedge \alpha^{k-2}=0.$$ Pulling-back this equation by $f,$ we obtain $$(a\lambda_1\beta+b\alpha)\wedge \alpha^{k-2}=0.$$ Since $\lambda_1>1$, we see that $b=0.$ Thus, $$\beta \wedge \alpha^{k-2}=0.$$ Applying the same argument repeatedly we obtain that $$\beta\wedge \alpha=0.$$ Then Proposition \[DS\] implies that $\beta=c\alpha$ for some $c\in \Bbb{R}_+$ but this contradicts $\lambda_1>1.$
The following result is an immediate corollary of Theorem \[numerical\] and [@Kawamata Proposition 2.2]:
\[itaka\] Let $X$ be a projective manifold and $f\in Aut(X).$ If there exists a nef $\Bbb{R}$-divisor $L$ such that $\kappa(L)\geq k-1$ and $f^*L\cong L$ then $h_{top}(f)=0.$
Recall that a compact complex manifold is called *Fano* if the anti-canonical bundle $-K_X$ is ample. It follows from Kodaira embedding theorem that a Fano manifold is projective. More generally, a compact complex manifold is called *weak Fano* if the anti-canonical bundle $-K_X$ is big and nef. The following immediate corollary is well-known [@Zhang]:
\[fano\] Let $X$ be a projective weak Fano manifold and $f\in Aut(X)$ then $h_{top}(f)=0$.
Note the $f$ preserves the divisor class $-K_X$ which is big and nef by definition of $X.$ Thus, the assertion follows from the Corollary \[itaka\].
Blanc and Lamy [@BL] recently proved that blow up of the complex projective space $\Bbb{P}^3$ along a curve $C$ of degree $d$ and genus $g$ lying on a smooth quadric gives a weak Fano manifold if $4d-30\leq g \leq 14$ or $(g,d)=(19,12)$ or there is no 5-secant line, 9-secant conic, nor 13-secant twisted cubic to $C.$ In particular, Corollary \[fano\] implies that blowing up $\Bbb{P}^3$ along such curves does not give rise to a rational manifold admitting an automorphism with positive entropy. More generally, it was observed in [@tuyen] that if a rational manifold is obtained from $\Bbb{P}^3$ by blowing up finitely many curves with no common intersection then any automorphism of $X$ is of zero entropy.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present schemes for a type of one-parameter bipartite quantum states to probe the quantum entanglement, the quantum discord, the classical correlation and the quantum state based on the cavity QED. It is shown that our detection does not influence all these measured quantities. We also discuss how the spontaneous emission introduced by our probe atom influences our detection.'
author:
- 'Zhen-ni Li'
- 'Jia-sen Jin'
- 'Chang-shui Yu'
title: 'Probing quantum entanglement, quantum discord, classical correlation and quantum state without disturbing them'
---
introduction
============
In quantum dynamics, it is important to study whether a given bipartite quantum state is entangled, separable, quantum correlated, or classically correlated. Until now many efforts has been taken in this region. As we know, quantum entanglement is a very useful physical resource in quantum information processing. In recent years, the quantification of entanglement has attracted much more attention \[1-8\], in particular, entanglement of bipartite pure states and two-qubit mixed states has been obtained good understanding \[1-5,8\]. However, quantum entanglement is not the only quantum correlation in quantum dynamics. Quantum discord \[9,10\], first introduced by Ollivier and Zurek \[10\], can effectively capture the quantum correlation of quantum system. It has been shown that quantum discord can lead to a speedup in some quantum information tasks \[11-14\]. It is especially worth noting that quantum discord is not consistent with quantum entanglement in general cases \[15\]. Quantum discord captures quantum correlation even more general than entanglement. Specially separable mixed states, which have no entanglement, have proven to include nonzero quantum discord. Quantum discord is not always larger than quantum entanglement.
However, most interests of quantifying entanglement and quantum discord are focused in a pure mathematical frame \[16,17,18\]. For example, since quantum entanglement is not an observable in the strict quantum mechanical frame, no directly measurable observable has been found until now, to describe the entanglement of a given arbitrary quantum state, owing to the unphysical quantum operations in the usual entanglement measure, such as the complex conjugation of concurrence \[2\] and the partial transpose of negativity \[1\]. In recent years, some interesting methods have been proposed to construct direct observables related to entanglement \[19-22\], which can be used to precisely measure the entanglement in contrast to entanglement witness \[23\] and have less observables compared with quantum state tomography \[24,25\]. However, they require the simultaneous multiple copies of given quantum states, which brings new difficulties to the experiment. Quantum discord as a measure of quantum correlation can only be analytically calculated for some special states \[15,16\], unless the invariational definition of quantum discord is considered \[26\]. The key difficulty lies in the analytical calculation of the classical correlation, since quantum discord is defined as the difference between the total correlation (i.e. quantum mutual information) and the classical correlation \[9,10\]. Although the dynamical behavior and some operational understanding of quantum discord in quantum state evolution has attracted increasing interests recently \[27-29\], there still exist an open question how one can construct several directly measurable observables related to quantum discord.
In this paper, we propose a scheme to probe the entanglement, discord, and the classical correlation of a type of one-parameter bipartite quantum states based on the cavity QED \[30-33\]. Although the entanglement of one-parameter quantum state such as Werner state \[34\], isotropic state and so on \[35,36\] can be measured based on simple von Neumann measurements without the requirement of simultaneous copies of the state, these measurements usually cover projections on two qubits. However, our measurement is only performed on the probe qubit. In addition, the distinguished advantage of our scheme is that one can probe quantum entanglement, quantum discord and the classical correlation by introducing a probe qubit to interact with the measured systems, but the entanglement, the discord and the classical correlation of the system are not disturbed. In particular, in some cases, one can even realize the non-demolition measurement of the quantum state \[37,38\]. That is to say, we can probe the quantum information of the quantum state, but the state is not disturbed. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present a scheme to probe the quantum entanglement, the quantum discord and the classical correlation, but they are not disturbed in the probe procedure. In Sec. III, we give our another model to demonstrate the non-demolition measurement of our given quantum state. The conclusion is drawn finally.
Probing concurrence, quantum and classical correlations without disturbing them
===============================================================================
Suppose two qubits are prepared in the unknown one-parameter quantum state$$\rho _{0}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{x}{2} & 1-\frac{3x}{2} & 0 \\
0 & 1-\frac{3x}{2} & \frac{x}{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1-x%
\end{array}%
\right) ,$$where $x\in \lbrack \frac{1}{2},1]$. We introduce a third qubit as a probe qubit to interact with the two given qubit in $\rho _{0}$. It will be shown that one can read the entanglement, the quantum correlation and the classical correlation of $\rho _{0}$ by measuring the third qubit, but the entanglement, quantum correlation and the classical correlation after the interaction are not disturbed.
![(a) Schematic illustration of our probing quantum entanglement, quantum discord and classical correlation. A two-level atom is surrounded by two optical cavities. (b) Schematic illustration of non-demolition measurement of quantum state. Two identical atoms are trapped in an optical cavity, respectively. Another two-level atom as a probe qubit interacts with the two optical cavity modes simultaneously.[]{data-label="1"}](fig1.eps){width="2\columnwidth"}
Now we will discuss our scheme in the frame of cavity QED. Our system includes one two-level atom labeled by C surrounded by two identical optical cavities labeled by $A$ and $B,$see Fig. 1 (a). We suppose the initial state of the two cavity modes is $\rho _{0}$ that will be detected and the atom C serves as the probe qubit with an excited state $|e\rangle _{C}$ and a ground state $|g\rangle _{C}$. The Hamiltonian of the joint system is given by (setting $\hbar =1$) $$H=\omega _{a}\sigma ^{+}\sigma ^{-}+\sum_{i=A,B}\omega _{c}a_{i}^{\dagger
}a_{i}+\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_{i=A,B}(\sigma ^{+}a_{i}+a_{i}^{\dagger
}\sigma ^{-}),$$where $\omega _{a}$ and $\omega _{c}$ are the frequencies of the atomic transition and the cavity modes respectively; $\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}$ is the coupling constant of the atom and cavity mode and the $\sqrt{2}$ is for the calculatable convenience; $\sigma ^{+}=|e\rangle \langle g|$ and $\sigma
^{-}=|g\rangle \langle e|$ are the raising and lowering operators of the atom; $a_{i}$ is the annihilation operator of the $i$th cavity.
Under the resonant case, i.e. $\omega _{a}=\omega _{c}$, one can obtain the Hamiltonian in the interaction picture as, $$H_{I}=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}[\sigma ^{+}a_{A}+\sigma ^{-}a_{A}^{\dagger }+\sigma
^{+}a_{B}+\sigma ^{-}a_{B}^{\dagger }].$$If the initial state of atom C is prepared in $|g\rangle _{C}$, the evolution of the joint system of the two cavities and the atom can be given by$$\rho (t)=\exp (-iH_{I}t)\left( \rho _{0}\otimes |g\rangle _{C}\left\langle
g\right\vert \right) \exp (iH_{I}t).$$After a simple calculation, one can find that $$\rho _{AB}(t)=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\left( 1-x\right) \cos ^{2}(gt) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{x}{2} & \frac{2-3x}{2} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{2-3x}{2} & \frac{x}{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \left( 1-x\right) \sin ^{2}(gt)%
\end{array}%
\right) ,$$and $$\rho _{C}(t)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2\left( 1-x\right) \sin ^{2}(gt) & 0 \\
0 & 2\left( 1-x\right) \cos ^{2}(gt)+2x-1%
\end{array}%
\right) .$$ Next, we will employ Wootters’ concurrence \[2\] as entanglement measure, the quantum discord \[9,10\] as the measure of quantum correlation to discuss their invariability after our detection. Concurrence of a bipartite quantum state $\rho _{AB}$ is defined as $$C(\rho _{AB})=\max \{0,\lambda _{1}-\lambda _{2}-\lambda _{3}-\lambda _{4}\},$$where the $\lambda _{i}$ are the square roots of the eigenvalues of the non-Hermitian matrix $\rho _{AB}\tilde{\rho}_{AB}$ with $\tilde{\rho}%
_{AB}=(\sigma _{y}\otimes \sigma _{y})\rho _{AB}^{\ast }(\sigma _{y}\otimes
\sigma _{y})$ in decreasing order. Substitute $\rho _{AB}(t)$ and $\rho _{0}$ into eq. (7), one can easily obtain $$C(\rho _{AB}(t))=\max \{0,\left\vert 2-3x\right\vert -\left( 1-x\right)
\left\vert \sin (2gt)\right\vert \}$$and$$C(\rho _{0})=\left\vert 2-3x\right\vert .$$It is obvious that $C(\rho _{AB}(t_{n}))=C(\rho _{0})$ when $t_{n}=\frac{%
n\pi }{2g},n=0,1,2,\cdots $. At the same time, if one measures $\sigma
_{z}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1%
\end{array}%
\right) $ on $\rho _{C}(t_{n})$, one will get $$C(\rho _{0})=\frac{\left\vert 3\left\langle \sigma _{z}(t_{n})\right\rangle
-1\right\vert }{4},$$where $\left\langle \sigma _{z}(t_{n})\right\rangle =$Tr$\left[ \rho
_{C}(t_{n})\sigma _{z}\right] .$ That is to say, in the current ideal case (there is no noise), so long as we measure $\sigma _{z}$ on $\rho
_{C}(t_{n}) $ at $t_{n}=\frac{n\pi }{2g}$, we can probe the concurrence of $%
\rho _{0}$ without disturbing the concurrence of $\rho _{AB}$. However, when in the realistic scenario, one has to select $t_{1}=\frac{\pi }{2g}$, by which one can reduce the time of interaction of the whole system with the unavoidable noise.
Next, we will show that the quantum and the classical correlations can not be disturbed by our detection. Quantum discord is used to measure the quantum correlation between two subsystems. For a bipartite quantum system $%
\rho ^{ab}$ with $\rho ^{a}$ ($\rho ^{b}$) denoting the reduced density matrix of subsystem $a$ ($b$), then the quantum discord between subsystems $%
a $ and $b$ can be defined as follows $$\mathcal{Q}(\rho ^{ab})=\mathcal{I}(\rho ^{ab})-\mathcal{C}(\rho ^{ab}),$$where $$\mathcal{I}(\rho ^{ab})=S(\rho ^{a})+S(\rho ^{b})-S(\rho ^{ab})$$is the quantum mutual information and $\mathcal{C}(\rho ^{ab})$ is the classical correlation between the two subsystems. In particular, the classical correlation is given by $$\mathcal{C}(\rho )=\mathrm{max}_{\{B_{k}\}}[S(\rho ^{a})-S(\rho |\{B_{k}\})],$$where $\{B_{k}\}$ is a set of von Neumann measurements performed on subsystem $b$ locally, $S(\rho |\{B_{k}\})=\sum_{k}p_{k}S(\rho _{k})$ is the quantum conditional entropy, $\rho _{k}=(\mathbb{I}\otimes B_{k})\rho (%
\mathbb{I}\otimes B_{k})/\mathrm{Tr}(\mathbb{I}\otimes B_{k})\rho (\mathbb{I}%
\otimes B_{k})$ is the conditional density operator corresponding to the outcome labeled by $k$, and $p_{k}=\mathrm{Tr}(\mathbb{I}\otimes B_{k})\rho (%
\mathbb{I}\otimes B_{k})$. Here $\mathbb{I}$ is the identity operator performed on subsystem $a$.
For the bipartite quantum state $\rho _{0}$ and $\rho _{AB}(t_{n})$, one can analytically calculate the quantum and the classical correlations according to Ref. \[15\]. In order to explicitly show the invariability of quantum discord and classical correlation after our detection, we would like to first consider the density matrix $$\rho =\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\rho _{11} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \rho _{22} & \rho _{23} & 0 \\
0 & \rho _{32} & \rho _{33} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \rho _{44}%
\end{array}%
\right) ,$$where all the entries are real. Based on eq. (12), one can get $$\mathcal{I}(\rho _{AB}(t))=S(\rho _{AB}^{A})+S(\rho
_{AB}^{B})+\sum_{j=1}^{4}\lambda _{j}\log _{2}\lambda _{j},$$where $$\begin{aligned}
{S}(\rho _{AB}^{A}) &=&-[(\rho _{11}+\rho _{22})\log _{2}{(\rho _{11}+\rho
_{22})} \\
&&+(\rho _{33}+\rho _{44})\log _{2}{(\rho _{33}+\rho _{44})}], \notag \\
S(\rho _{AB}^{B}) &=&-[(\rho _{11}+\rho _{33})\log _{2}{(\rho _{11}+\rho
_{33})} \\
&&+(\rho _{22}+\rho _{44})\log _{2}{(\rho _{22}+\rho _{44})}], \notag\end{aligned}$$and $$\lambda _{1}=\rho _{11},\lambda _{2}=\rho _{22}-\rho _{23},\lambda _{3}=\rho
_{22}+\rho _{23},\lambda _{4}=\rho _{44}\newline
.$$The classical correlation $\mathcal{C}(\rho _{AB}(t))$ can be given by $$\mathcal{C}(\rho _{AB}(t))=S(\rho _{AB}^{A})-\mathtt{min}_{{Bi}}[S(\rho
_{AB}(t)|\{B_{i}\})],$$where
$$\mathtt{min}_{{Bi}}[S(\rho _{AB}(t)|\{B_{i}\})]=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
(\rho _{22}+\rho _{33})\log _{2}(\rho _{22}+\rho _{33})-\rho _{22}\log
_{2}\rho _{22}-\rho _{33}\log _{2}\rho _{33}, & \rho _{44}\leq 0.4716 \\
1-\frac{1}{2}[(1-\theta )\log _{2}(1-\theta )+(1+\theta )\log _{2}(1+\theta
)], & \rho _{44}>0.4716%
\end{array}%
\right.$$
with $\theta =\sqrt{(\rho _{11}-\rho _{44})^{2}+4\rho _{23}{}^{2}}$.
From the above calculation, one can find that $\rho _{11}$ and $\rho _{44}$ are symmetric in eqs. (15-18,20) if $\rho _{22}=\rho _{33}$. In particular, one can also find that the difference between $\rho _{0}$ and $\rho
_{AB}(t_{n})$ is the exchange of $\rho _{11}$ and $\rho _{44}$. That is to say, $\rho _{0}$ and $\rho _{AB}(t_{n})$ have the same quantum discord and the same classical correlation. What’s more, since $\left\langle \sigma
_{z}(t_{n})\right\rangle =3-4x$ from eq. (10) and all the entries of $\rho
_{0}$ given in eq. (1) are the function of $x$, one can conclude that the quantum discord $\mathcal{Q}(\rho _{0})$ and the classical correlation $%
\mathcal{C}(\rho _{0})$ can be obtained by measuring $\sigma _{z}$ on $\rho
_{C}(t_{n})$. Namely, we can detect the quantum and the classical correlations of $\rho _{0}$ without disturbing them.
Finally, we would like to discuss the influence of the noise. As we know, the decoherence will inevitably happen in $\rho _{0}$ if the two cavity modes interact with noise no matter whether we introduce the third qubit to probe the system. So we want to emphasize here that our detection has no influence on the concurrence, the quantum discord and the classical correlation of the system. From the viewpoint of noise, we say that the noise due to our detection will have slight influence on the system. In this sense, we only need to consider the noise relevant to the third qubit—–the spontaneous emission of atom C.
![(Dimensionless) Quantum discord and classical correlation vs. x. The solid line and the square line correspond to the classical correlation with and without spontaneous emission, respectively. The dotted line and the plus line correspond to the quantum discord with and without spontaneous emission, respectively. Here, $\protect\gamma =0.1g$. []{data-label="1"}](correlation.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
In the interaction picture, the master equation governing the evolution of the cavity+atom system can be given by$$\dot{\rho}=-i[H_{I},\rho ]+\gamma (2\sigma ^{-}\rho \sigma ^{+}-\sigma
^{+}\sigma ^{-}\rho -\rho \sigma ^{+}\sigma ^{-}),$$where $\gamma $ is the atomic spontaneous emission rate and $H_{I}$ is defined as eq. (3). The initial state of the cavities is given by eq. (1) and the atom is prepared in the ground state initially. We have numerically solved the master equation. The concurrence $C(\rho _{AB}(t_{n}))$, the quantum discord $\mathcal{Q}(\rho _{AB}(t_{n}))$ and the classical correlation $\mathcal{C}(\rho _{AB}(t_{n}))$ with and without noise vs. $x$ are plotted in Fig. 2 and $\left\langle \sigma _{z}(t_{n})\right\rangle $ with and without noise vs. $x$ are plotted in Fig. 3. We set $\gamma =0.1g$. From the figure, one can find that the spontaneous emission has slight influence on the entanglement and correlation of $\rho _{0}$ as well as our detection. In particular, the quantum discord of the original state is influenced more slightly by the small $\gamma $. In addition, we also find a very interesting phenomenon that the existence of $\gamma $ might lead to the increment of quantum discord for some large $x$, such as $x>0.8$.
![(Dimensionless)(a) Concurrence vs. $x$. (b) $<\protect\sigma _{z}>$ vs. $x$. The solid line and the dotted line in both the figures correspond to the case with and without spontaneous emission, respectively. Here, $%
\protect\gamma =0.1g$.[]{data-label="1"}](double.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
Non-demolition measurement of the quantum state
===============================================
In the previous section, we have presented a model to probe the concurrence and correlation of a type one-parameter quantum state without disturbing them. In fact, in a different framework, one can realize the non-demolition measurement of the quantum state. In this case, we consider two identical two-level atoms A and B which are trapped in an optical cavity, respectively. In particular, the two cavities are arranged to be crossed as is sketched in Fig. 1 (b). We will introduce a third atom C as a probe qubit. One can find that the measurement on the qubit C can reveal the information of the quantum state of the joint system ‘A+B’ without disturbing it.
The Hamiltonian of our whole system is given by (setting $\hbar =1$) $$\begin{aligned}
H &=&\sum_{i=A,B,C}\omega _{i}\sigma _{i}^{+}\sigma _{i}^{-}+\sum \upsilon
a_{j}^{\dagger }a_{j}+\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_{j=1,2}(\sigma
_{C}^{+}a_{j}+a_{j}^{\dagger }\sigma _{C}^{-}) \notag \\
&&+\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}(\sigma _{A}^{+}a_{1}+a_{1}^{\dagger }\sigma _{A}^{-})+%
\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}(\sigma _{B}^{+}a_{2}+a_{2}^{\dagger }\sigma _{B}^{-}),\end{aligned}$$where $\omega _{i},i=A,B,C$ and $\omega _{c}$ are the frequencies of the atomic transition and the cavity modes respectively; $\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}$ is the coupling constant of the atom and cavity mode; $\sigma _{i},i=A,B,C$ denotes the lowering operators of the atom $i$; $a_{j}$ is the annihilation operator of the $j$th cavity. In addition, we let $\omega _{A}=\omega _{B}$ and $\omega _{C}-\omega _{A}=g^{2}/2\delta $ with $\delta =\omega
_{C}-\upsilon $. If there is not any photons initially in both the cavities, under the large detuning condition, i.e. $\delta \gg \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}$, one can obtain the effective Hamiltonian of the joint system in a proper rotation frame as $$H_{eff}=\frac{g^{2}}{2\delta }(\sigma _{A}^{-}\sigma _{C}^{+}+\sigma
_{A}^{+}\sigma _{C}^{-}+\sigma _{B}^{-}\sigma _{C}^{+}+\sigma _{B}^{+}\sigma
_{C}^{-}).$$Thus, the evolution of the system can be given by the time evolution operator $$U(t)=\exp (-iH_{eff}t).$$Now we turn to the original state $\rho _{0}$ given in eq. (1). After the evolution governed by $U(t)$, one can find that $$\rho _{0}\overset{U(t_{m}):|e\rangle _{C}\langle e|}{\rightarrow }\rho
_{AB}(t_{m})=(\sigma _{x}\otimes \sigma _{x})\rho _{0}(\sigma _{x}\otimes
\sigma _{x}),$$since one can find that $H_{eff}$ have the consistent form with the Hamiltonian of eq. (3). Here $|e\rangle _{C}\langle e|$ means that the initial state of the probe atom is $|e\rangle _{C}$ and $t_{m}=\frac{\delta
m\pi }{g^{2}}(m=1,2,3,...)$. The quantum state of atom C at this time is consistent with that in eq. (6). It is very interesting that one can find $$\rho _{AB}(t_{m})\overset{U(\tau _{n}):|g\rangle _{C}\langle g|}{\rightarrow
}\rho _{AB}(\tau _{n})=\rho _{0},$$which means the initial state $\rho _{AB}(t_{m})$ evolves to $\rho
_{AB}(\tau _{n})$ with the initial atom C in $\left\vert g\right\rangle _{C}$ and the evolution time $\tau _{n}=\frac{\delta n\pi }{g^{2}}(n=1,2,3,...)$. In addition, the state of atom C at $\tau _{n}$ are $\sigma _{x}\rho
_{C}(t_{m})\sigma _{x}$. So when we probe the quantum state $\rho _{0}$, we can first select the initial atom C in $|e\rangle _{C}$ and after the system evolve for $t_{m}$, we remove the atom C, and then select another atom C’ in $|g\rangle _{C}$ to interact with the residual atoms A and B for $\tau _{n}$. In this way, the final state of atoms A and B will stay in the initial state $\rho _{0}$. One can repeat the same procedure on the atoms A and B to complete the quantum measurement statistics of atom C. But from our calculation, one will find that $\rho _{0}$ is not disturbed. That is to say, one has completed the non-demolition measurement of the quantum state.
Besides the non-demolition measurement of the quantum state, we would like to compare this model with that in Sec. II. One can find that the intial state of the probe qubit must be $|g\rangle _{C}$ in the model of Sec. II, otherwise the original state of $\rho _{0}$ will have to be disturbed. That is to say, in Sec. II, the quantum state can only be probed once. The residual quantum state has the same entanglement, discord and classical correlation as $\rho _{0}$. However, in the model of this section, one can alternately select $|g\rangle _{C}$ and $|e\rangle _{C}$ as the initial quantum state of the probe qubit. One divides the measurement outcomes into two groups according to the different choice of $|g\rangle _{C}$ and $%
|e\rangle _{C}$. For each group (or any one of the two groups), one can complete the measurement statistics. In this way, we can implement the measurement of entanglement and correlation without disturbing them.
Conclusion and discussion
=========================
We have presented a scheme for a type of one-parameter quantum state to probe quantum entanglement, quantum discord and classical correlation without disturbing them. We also analyze how the spontaneous emission of our probe qubit influences our detection, which shows that small spontaneous emission rate of the probe atom has slight influence on the detection. In particular, one can find that the influence on the quantum discord and classical correlations is much weaker than the concurrence. It is very interesting that we have found that spontaneous emisstion might benefit to the quantum discord for some quantum states. In addition, we also present a scheme to implement the non-demolition measurement of the quantum state. That is to say, based on our scheme, one can extract the information of the quantum state, but the quantum state per se is not disturbed. However, it seems that our scheme is not universal for a general quantum state. How to develop a scheme for multiple-parameter quantum state to probe the concurrence, quantum discord or classical correlation, even the quantum state without disturbing them deserves our forthcoming efforts.
Acknowledgement
===============
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, under Grant No. 10805007 and No. 10875020, and the Doctoral Startup Foundation of Liaoning Province.
[99]{} A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 1413 (1996).
W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 2245 (1998).
A. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. A **62**, 032307 (2000).
K. Audenaert, F. Verstraete and De Moor, Phys. Rev. A **64**, 052304 (2001).
Florian Mintert, Marek Kus, and Andreas Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 167902 (2004).
Valerie Coffman, Joydip Kundu, and William K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 052306 (2000).
Chang-shui Yu, He-shan Song, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 032329 (2008).
Chang-shui Yu, He-shan Song, Phys. Rev. A **80**, 022324 (2009).
L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A **34**, 6899-6905 (2001).
H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 017901 (2001).
S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, R. Jozsa, N. Linden, S. Popescu, and R. Schack, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 1054 (1999).
D. A. Meyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2014 (2000).
A. Datta, S. T. Flammia, and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. A **72**, 042316 (2005).
A. Datta, A. Shaji, and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 050502 (2008).
Mazhar Ali, A. R. P. Rau, and G. Alber, Phys. Rev. A **81**, 042105 (2010).
S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 042303 (2008).
N. Li and S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A **76**, 032327 (2007); S. Luo, ibid **77**, 022301 (2008).
Martin B. Plenio, S. Virmani, Quant. Inf. Comp. **7**, 1 (2007).
S. P. Walborn, P. H. Souto Ribeiro, L. Davidovich, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. A **75**, 032338(2007).
Florian Mintert and Andreas Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 140505 (2007).
Chang-shui Yu, He-shan Song, Phys. Rev. A, **76**, 022324 (2007).
Chang-shui Yu, He-shan Song, C. Li, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 012305 (2008).
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A **223**, 1 (1996).
A. G. White, D. F. V. James, P. H. Eberhard et al., Phys. Rev. Lett **83**, 3103 (1999).
H. Häffner et al., Nature (London) **438**, 643 (2005).
B. Dakić, V. Vedral, and Č. Brukner, arXiv: 1004.0190v1.
D. Cavalcanti, L. Aolita, S. Boixo, K. Modi, M. Piani, and A. Winter, arXiv: 1008.3205v2.
T. Werlang, S. Souza, F. F. Fanchini, and C. J. Villas Boas1, Phys. Rev. A **80**, 024103 (2009).
L. Mazzola, J. Piilo, and S. Maniscalco, arXiv: 1006.1805v1.
G. Nogues, A. Rauschenbeutel, S. Osnaghi, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Nature (London) **400**, 239 (1999).
C. Guerlin, J. Bernu, S. Del$\mathrm{\acute{e}}$glise, C. Sayrin, S. Gleyzes, S. Kuhr, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Nature (London) **448**, 889 (2007).
J. Larson and M. Abdel-Aty, Phys. Rev. A **80**, 053609 (2009).
F. Helmer, M. Mariantoni, E. Solano, and F. Marquardt, Phys. Rev. A **79**, 052115 (2009).
R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A **40**, 4277 (1989).
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A **59**, 4206 (1999).
P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Quant. Inf. Comp. **1**(1), 45 (2001).
F. K$\mathrm{\ddot{o}}$nig, B. Buchler, T. Rechtenwald, G. Leuchs, and A. Sizmann, Phys. Rev. A **66**, 043810 (2002).
T. C. Ralph, S. D. Bartlett, J. L. O’Brien, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A **73**, 012113 (2006).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss methods, based on the theory of vector-valued modular forms, to determine all modular differential equations satisfied by the conformal characters of RCFT; these modular equations are related to the null vector relations of the operator algebra. Besides describing effective algorithmic procedures, we illustrate our methods on an explicit example.'
author:
- 'P. Bantay'
title: Modular differential equations for characters of RCFT
---
\#1[\#1\^]{}
\#1[\^[t]{}\#1]{}
\#1\#2[{ \#1 | \#2} ]{}
\#1\#2\#3[\#1:\#2\#3]{}
\#1[(\#1)]{}
\#1[(\#1)]{}
\#1[\_[\#1]{}]{}
\#1
\#1\#2\#3\#4
(
\#1 & \#2\#3 & \#4
)
\#1
\#1[(/\#1)\^]{}
\#1\#2\#3[\#1\#2 ( \#3)]{}
\#1\#2[\_[\#1]{}(\#2)]{}
\#1[(\#1)]{}
\#1\#2\#3\#4
(
[cc]{} \#1 & \#2\
\#3 & \#4
)
\#1[(\#1)]{}
\#1[(\#1)]{}
\#1[(\#1)]{}
\#1[M(\#1)]{}
\#1[C(\#1)]{}
\#1[[**e**]{}\_[\#1]{}]{}
\#1[(\#1)]{}
\#1\#2\#3[\_[\#1]{}\^[(\#2;\#3)]{}]{}
\#1[(\#1)]{}
\#1[\#1\^]{}
\#1\#2
\#1[\^[\[\#1\]]{}]{}
\#1[\_[\#1]{}(J)]{}
\#1[\_[\#1]{}]{}
\#1[\_[\#1]{}]{}
\#1[J\#1]{}
\#1[(\#1)]{}
\#1[\_[\#1]{}()]{}
[^1]
Introduction
============
Differential equations are arguably one of the most important tools of theoretical physics. They appear in many guises, like equations of motion, conservation laws, etc. The usual approach to a physical theory is to deduce the governing differential equations starting from some basic theoretical considerations or experimental observations, and then to investigate the theory by solving these equations under different circumstances. But, while this is by far the most common situation, there are cases where one can determine the quantities of interest by some different method, without the knowledge of the differential equations themselves.
Conformal characters of RCFT provide an interesting example of this phenomenon. It is known [@modeq1; @modeq2; @modeq3] that these quantities satisfy differential equations of a very special kind, so-called modular equations, related to the null vector relations of the chiral operator algebra [@DiFMS]. By analyzing the representation theory of the latter, one could find enough null vector relations to make the corresponding system of modular equations completely determined, whose unique solution should therefore give the conformal characters. In many examples this procedure does indeed work. But in some circumstances we don’t have enough information about the operator algebra, the most extreme case being when even its existence is unknown, while we still have enough information to determine the would-be characters, at least partially, e.g. using the fact that they form a [vector-valued modular form]{} for a suitable automorphy factor of weight $0$, which can in turn be determined from the would-be fusion rules. In this situation, one faces the following question: can we determine from the knowledge of the characters all the modular equations that they satisfy, and from this information infere the null vectors of the operator algebra? As to the second question, the precise relation of null vectors to modular equations has been settled in work of Gaberdiel-Keller [@bib:GK] and of Zhu [@bib:Zh]. In this note we want to address the question of how to determine, for a given character vector, all modular differential equations satisfied by it. Our answer is based on the machinery of vector-valued modular forms and their invariant differential operators, as developed in joint work with Terry Gannon [@bib:BG; @bib:BG2]; the relevant concepts and results are reviewed in the first sections. As we shall see, we can give an effective computational answer, which we illustrate on the well-known example of the Ising model. We conclude with some general comments on the applications of our results.
Vector-valued modular forms
===========================
Recall [@bib:Ap; @bib:diamond] that the ** classical modular group $\FG\!=\!\SL$ ** of 2$\times$2 integer matrices with unit determinant acts on the complex upper half-plane $\uhp\!=\!\set{\tau\in\mathbb{C}}{\mathsf{Im}\,\tau\!>\!0}$ by fractional linear transformations $$\tau\mapsto\gamma\tau\!=\!\dfrac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\,\,,\label{eq:modtrafo}$$ for $\gamma\!=\!\sm abcd\!\in\!\FG$. It is well known that the so-called modular curve $X\!\left(\FG\right)$, the one-point compactification of the quotient $\uhp/\FG$ obtained by adjoining the cusp $\tau\!=\!\mathsf{i}\infty$, is a Riemann-surface of genus $0$ [@bib:koblitz; @bib:Sh].
In case $d$ is a positive integer, an automorphy factor of rank $d$ for $\FG$ is a map $\varrho\!:\!\FG\!\times\!\uhp\!\rightarrow\!\gl d{\mathbb{C}}$ that satisfies$$\varrho(\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2},\tau)=\varrho(\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}\tau)\,\varrho(\gamma_{2},\tau)\label{eq:afdef}$$ for all $\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}\!\in\!\FG$ and $\tau\!\in\!\uhp$, and is holomorphic as a function of $\tau$; it is flat of weight $w\!\in\!\mathbb{R}$ if the expression $$\varrho\!\left(\gamma,\tau\right)\left(\!\dif{\!\left(\gamma\tau\right)}{\tau}\!\right)^{\nicefrac{w}{2}}=\varrho\!\left(\gamma,\tau\right)\left(c\tau\!+\! d\right)^{-w}\label{eq:multsys}$$ is independent of $\tau$ [@gunning]. According to the above definition, a weight $0$ automorphy factor is nothing but a homomorphism from $\FG$ to $\gl d{\mathbb{C}}$, i.e. a $d$-dimensional matrix representation of $\FG$. From a geometric point of view, an automorphy factor determines a holomorphic vector bundle over the modular curve $X\!\left(\FG\right)$, making obvious how to define direct sums and tensor products of automorphy factors. Note that the direct sum of two flat automorphy factors is flat only if the weights of the summands equal each other.
Given an automorphy factor $\varrho$ of rank $d$, an automorphic form for $\varrho$ is a meromorphic map $\map{\FA}{\uhp}{\mathbb{C}^{d}}$ which satisfies the transformation rule $$\FA\!\left(\gamma\tau\right)=\varrho\!\left(\gamma,\tau\right)\FA\!\left(\tau\right)\label{eq:modtrans}$$ for all $\gamma\!\in\!\FG$ and $\tau\!\in\!\uhp$; clearly, automorphic forms are the meromorphic sections of the corresponding vector bundle. An automorphic form $\FA\!\left(\tau\right)$ is called weakly holomorphic if it is holomorphic in the upper half-plane $\uhp$, and has only a finite order pole at $\tau\!=\!\mathsf{i}\infty$, meaning that its Puisseux series (in terms of the local uniformizer) involves only finitely many negative powers; if there are no negative powers at all, then $\FA\!\left(\tau\right)$ is holomorphic, and it is a cusp form if it vanishes in the limit $\tau\!\rightarrow\!\mathsf{i}\infty$. Another common appelation for weakly holomorphic forms, spread across much of the literature, is vector-valued modular form [@bib:BG2; @bib:ES; @bib:KM], emphasizing their multicomponent nature. We shall denote by $\mro{\varrho}$ the set of weakly holomorphic forms for the automorphy factor $\varrho$; obviously, these form a linear space over $\mathbb{C}$.
At this point, it could be helpful to review the case of classical scalar modular forms [@bib:Ap; @bib:diamond; @bib:Knop; @bib:koblitz; @bib:lang; @bib:serre]. These are automorphic forms for the rank one automorphy factors $$\rho_{2k}\!\left(\gamma,\tau\right)=\left(c\tau+d\right)^{2k}\,\,\label{eq:trivik}$$ of weight $2k$, defined for any integer $k$. There exist holomorphic forms only for $k\!>\!1$, classical examples being the Eisenstein series [@bib:Ap; @bib:serre] $$E_{2k}\!\left(q\right)=1-\frac{2k}{B_{k}}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sigma_{k-1}\!\left(n\right)q^{n}\,\,,\label{eq:Ekdef}$$ where $$\sigma_{k}\!\left(n\right)=\sum_{d|n}d^{k}\,\,\label{eq:skdef}$$ is the $k$-th power sum of the divisors of the integer $n$, and $B_{k}$ denotes the $k$-th Bernoulli number. Actually, any holomorphic form may be expressed uniquely as a polynomial in $E_{4}\!\left(\tau\right)$ and $E_{6}\!\left(\tau\right)$. There are no cusp forms for $k\!<\!6$, and there is a unique one (up to a multiplicative constant) for $k\!=\!6$, the famous discriminant form $$\Delta\!\left(\tau\right)=\frac{E_{4}\!\left(\tau\right)^{3}-E_{6}\!\left(\tau\right)^{2}}{1728}=q\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(1-q^{n}\right)^{24}\,\,.\label{eq:deltadef}$$ The expression of $\Delta$ as an infinite product shows that the discriminant form doesn’t vanish on the upper half-plane [@bib:Ap; @bib:serre], and this makes it possible to construct weakly holomorphic forms for arbitrary $k$ as suitable quotients of Eisensteins by powers of $\Delta$. In particular, the [@bib:Ap; @bib:diamond; @bib:koblitz] $$J\!\left(q\right)=\frac{E_{4}\!\left(\tau\right)^{3}}{\Delta\!\left(\tau\right)}-744=q^{\textrm{-}1}+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}c\!\left(n\right)q^{n}=q^{\textrm{-}1}+196884q+21493760q^{2}+\ldots\,\,,\label{eq:Jexp}$$ is invariant under $\FG$, i.e. $J\!\left(\gamma\tau\right)\!=\! J\!\left(\tau\right)$ for all $\gamma\!\in\!\FG$, is holomorphic in $\uhp$, and has a first order pole at the cusp, hence it is a weakly holomorphic form for $\rho_{0}$, and every element of $\mro{\rho_{0}}$ can be expressed as a univariate polynomial in $J\!\left(\tau\right)$. Finally, we note that the Eisenstein series $E_{2}\!\left(\tau\right)$, defined by Eq. for $k\!=\!1$, is equal to the logarithmic derivative of the discriminant form $$E_{2}\!\left(\tau\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi\mathsf{i}}\dif{\!\left(\ln\Delta\right)}{\tau}\,\,.\label{eq:deltadif}$$ While obviously holomorphic, $E_{2}\!\left(\tau\right)$ is not a modular form, since it does not satisfy the transformation rule Eq..
A major simplification follows from the observation that the theory for automorphy factors of non-zero weight may be reduced to the case of zero weight via the so-called weight shifting trick. Indeed, thanks to the fact that the discriminant form doesn’t vanish on the upper half-plane, it is meaningful to consider arbitrary fractional powers of $\Delta$. This allows one to associate to the flat automorphy factor $\varrho$ of weight $w$ the automorphy factor $$\varrho_{{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}\!\left(\gamma,\tau\right)=\varrho\!\left(\gamma,\tau\right)\left(\frac{\Delta\!\left(\tau\right)}{\Delta\!\left(\gamma\tau\right)}\right)^{\nicefrac{w}{12}}\label{eq:wshift}$$ of weight $0$. If $\FA\!\in\!\mro{\varrho}$ is a weakly holomorphic form for $\varrho$, then $$\FA_{{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}\!\left(\tau\right)\!=\!\Delta\!\left(\tau\right)^{\textrm{-}\nicefrac{w}{12}}\FA\!\left(\tau\right)\label{eq:X0}$$ is a weakly holomorphic form for $\varrho_{{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}$, providing a one-to-one correspondence between $\mro{\varrho}$ and $\mro{\varrho_{{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}}$. Consequently, we can restrict our attention to forms for automorphy factors of weight $0$, without any loss of generality. What is more, in many important applications the only automorphy factors that actually show up are of weight $0$. For example, the character vector of a RCFT, formed by the genus one characters of the primary fields, is a [vector-valued modular form]{}[@bib:BG], its weight $0$ automorphy factor being the celebrated modular representation determined by the fusion rules and conformal weights of the primary fields via Verlinde’s theorem [@Ver; @MS].
For the above reasons, from now on we shall only consider flat automorphy factors of weight $0$, i.e. matrix representations $\varrho\!:\!\FG\!\rightarrow\!\gl d{\mathbb{C}}$. We make the following technical assumptions on $\varrho$ [@bib:BG; @bib:BG2]:
1. $\varrho\!\sm{\textrm{-}1}00{\textrm{-}1}$ equals the identity matrix;
2. there exists a real diagonal matrix $\FB$, called the **exponent matrix*,* such that $$\varrho\!\sm 1101=\exp\!\left(2\pi\mathsf{i}\FB\right)\:.\label{eq:expdef}$$
Note that $\FB$ is not unique, since only the fractional part of its diagonal elements are determined by Eq., but not the integer parts.
If $\FA\!\left(\tau\right)$ is an automorphic form for $\varrho$, then implies, taking into account Eq., that the map $\exp\!\left(\textrm{-}2\pi\mathsf{i}\FB\tau\right)\FA\!\left(\tau\right)$ is periodic in $\tau$ with period $1$: as a consequence, it may be expanded into a Fourier series (the *$q$*-expansion of $\FA$)$$q^{-\FB}\FA\!\left(q\right)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\FA\!\left[n\right]q^{n}\:,\label{eq:qexp}$$ where $q\!=\!\exp\!\left(2\pi\mathsf{i}\tau\right)$ and $\FA\!\left[n\right]\!\in\!\mathbb{C}^{d}$. Note that $\FA$ is weakly holomorphic precisely when its $q$-expansion contains only finitely many negative powers of $q$.
For any automorphy factor $\varrho$, multiplication by $J\!\left(\tau\right)$ takes the linear space $\mro{\varrho}$ to itself: in other words, $\mro{\varrho}$ is a $\FH$-module, which may be shown to be free of finite rank. Under suitable circumstances (that are always met in practice), there exists a $d$-by-$d$ matrix $\om{\tau}$, whose columns freely generate $\mro{\varrho}$, and such that the asymptotic relation $$\om q\rightarrow q^{\FB-1}\;\quad\mathrm{as}\,\quad q\rightarrow0\:\,\label{eq:xibc}$$ holds for a suitable exponent matrix $\FB$. In such case we call $\om{\tau}$ a fundamental matrix for $\varrho$, and the limit$$\mathcal{X}=\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\left(q^{-\FB}\om q-q^{-1}\right)\,\,,\label{eq:xmdef}$$ whose existence follows from Eq., the ** [@bib:BG2]. As we shall see later, the numerical matrices $\mathcal{X}$ and $\FB$ determine the fundamental matrix completely, and provide a useful parametrization of the different automorphy factors of weight $0$.
By definition, the fundamental matrix $\om{\tau}$ satisfies the transformation rule $$\om{\gamma\tau}=\varrho\!\left(\gamma\right)\om{\tau}\,\,,\label{eq:xitrans}$$ and for each $\FA\!\in\!\mro{\varrho}$ there exists a vector $\prep{\FA}\!\in\!\FH^{d}$ with components that are polynomials in the Hauptmodul $J\!\left(\tau\right)$, such that $$\FA\!\left(\tau\right)=\om{\tau}\prep{\FA}\,\,.\label{eq:Jrep}$$ The vector $\prep{\FA}$ is called the polynomial representation of the [vector-valued modular form]{} $\FA$, and it will play an important role later.
The fundamental matrix $\om{\tau}$ is the most important piece of data needed to describe [vector-valued modular form]{}s for an automorphy factor of weight $0$, so the question is how could one determine it. This will be achieved through the consideration of the invariant differential operators to be discussed in the next section, which are also of primary interest in the study of modular differential equations.
Invariant differential operators
================================
Suppose that $\varrho$ is a flat automorphy factor of rank $d$ and weight $w$, and that $\FA\!\in\!\mathcal{M\!\left(\varrho\right)}$ is a [vector-valued modular form]{} for $\varrho$. Except in case $w\!=\!0$, the $\tau$ derivative of $\FA\!\left(\tau\right)$ fails to be a [vector-valued modular form]{}, but this can be cured by the introduction of a suitable correction term. Indeed, the expression $$\FJ_{w}\FA=\frac{1}{2\pi\mathsf{i}}\dif{\FA}{\tau}-\frac{w}{12}E_{2}\!\left(\tau\right)\FA\!\left(\tau\right)\,\,\label{eq:DDEF}$$ is easily shown to be a [vector-valued modular form]{} for the automorphy factor$$\varrho^{\prime}\!\left(\gamma,\tau\right)=\varrho\!\left(\gamma,\tau\right)\dif{\!\left(\gamma\tau\right)}{\tau}\label{eq:rohat}$$ of weight $w\!+\!2$. Here$$E_{2}\!\left(\tau\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi\mathsf{i}}\dif{\!\left(\ln\Delta\right)}{\tau}=1-24q-72q^{2}-\ldots\label{eq:E2def}$$ is the logarithmic derivative of the discriminant form $\Delta\!\left(\tau\right)$, cf. Eq..
An important consequence of is the equivariance relation$$\FJ_{w+12u}\left(\Delta^{u}\FA\right)=\Delta^{u}\FJ_{w}\FA\,\,,\label{eq:Deqvar}$$ valid for any $u\!\in\!\mathbb{R}$, which allows the use of the weight shifting trick Eq. discussed in the previous section; if $\FA\!\in\!\mro{\varrho}$, then $$\left(\FJ_{w}\FA\right)_{{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}=\FJ_{0}\FA_{{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}\,\,.\label{eq:DX0}$$
When defining higher powers of $\FJ_{w}$, one should take into account that it increases the weight by $2$; as a result, one should use the recurrence relation $$\FJ_{w}^{n+1}=\FJ_{w+2n}\circ\FJ_{w}^{n}\,\,,\label{eq:Dpowers}$$ Note that $\FJ_{w}^{n}$ increases the weight by $2n$. To get a differential operator of order $n$ that maps $\mathcal{M\!\left(\varrho\right)}$ to itself, one has to multiply $\FJ_{w}^{n}$ by a scalar modular form of weight $-2n$. A suitable choice is$$\mathfrak{d}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)=\frac{E_{4}\!\left(\tau\right)^{n_{3}}E_{6}\!\left(\tau\right)^{n_{2}}}{\Delta\!\left(\tau\right)^{n_{\infty}}}\,\,,\label{eq:dnfactdef}$$ with $n_{k}$ denoting the value of $n$ modulo $k$, and$$n_{\infty}\!=\!\frac{n+2n_{3}+3n_{2}}{6}\,\,.\label{eq:ninfdef}$$ With the above choice of prefactors, the operators$$\DO_{n}=\mathfrak{d}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)\FJ_{w}^{n}\,\,\label{eq:nabladef}$$ are invariant scalar differential operators, which means that they act on [vector-valued modular form]{}s component-wise, and that they map $\mathcal{M\!\left(\varrho\right)}$ to itself for each automorphy factor $\varrho$. What is more, any invariant scalar differential operator may be expressed as a linear combination of the $\DO_{n}$-s, with coefficients that are polynomials in the Hauptmodul[^2]. In particular, this is true for the products $\DO_{n}\!\circ\!\DO_{m}$. Some of the relevant multiplication rules read
$$\begin{aligned}
\DO_{1}\!\circ\!\DO_{1} & =\left(J\!-\!984\right)\!\DO_{2}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(5J\!+\!264\right)\!\DO_{1}\nonumber \\
\DO_{1}\!\circ\!\DO_{2} & =\left(J\!+\!744\right)\!\DO_{3}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(J\!-\!984\right)\!\DO_{2}\nonumber \\
\DO_{1}\!\circ\!\DO_{3} & =\left(J\!-\!984\right)\!\DO_{4}-{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(J\!+\!744\right)\!\DO_{3}\nonumber \\
\DO_{1}\!\circ\!\DO_{4} & =\DO_{5}-{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(J\!-\!984\right)\!\DO_{4}\nonumber \\
\DO_{1}\!\circ\!\DO_{5} & =\left(J\!-\!984\right)\left(J\!+\!744\right)\!\DO_{6}-{\textstyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(7J\!-\!1704\right)\!\DO_{5}\nonumber \\
\DO_{2}\!\circ\!\DO_{1} & =\left(J\!+\!744\right)\!\DO_{3}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(5J\!+\!264\right)\!\DO_{2}\!+\!{\textstyle \frac{5}{6}}\left(J\!+\!744\right)\!\DO_{1}\label{eq:Dnmulttable}\\
\DO_{2}\!\circ\!\DO_{2} & =\left(J\!+\!744\right)\!\DO_{4}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{4}{3}}\left(J\!+\!744\right)\!\DO_{3}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{9}}\left(5J\!+\!264\right)\!\DO_{2}\nonumber \\
\DO_{2}\!\circ\!\DO_{3} & =\DO_{5}\!-\!\left(J\!+\!744\right)\!\DO_{4}\!+\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(J\!+\!744\right)\!\DO_{3}\nonumber \\
\DO_{3}\!\circ\!\DO_{1} & =\left(J\!-\!984\right)\!\DO_{4}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(5J\!+\!264\right)\!\DO_{3}\!+\!{\textstyle \frac{5}{2}}\left(J\!-\!984\right)\!\DO_{2}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{5}{36}}\left(7J\!-\!1704\right)\!\DO_{1}\nonumber \\
\DO_{3}\!\circ\!\DO_{2} & =\DO_{5}\!-\!2\!\left(J\!-\!984\right)\!\DO_{4}\!+\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(5J\!+\!264\right)\!\DO_{3}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{5}{9}}\left(J\!-\!984\right)\!\DO_{2}\nonumber \\
\DO_{3}\!\circ\!\DO_{3} & =\left(J\!-\!984\right)\!\DO_{6}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{3}{2}}\DO_{5}\!+\!\left(J\!-\!984\right)\!\DO_{4}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{18}}\left(5J\!+\!264\right)\!\DO_{3}\,\,.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Of special importance are the periodicity formula$$\DO_{n+6}\!=\!\DO_{n}\!\circ\!\DO_{6}\,\,,\label{eq:nabla6}$$ which follows from $\FJ_{{\scriptscriptstyle 12}}\Delta\!=\!0$, and the recursion formula $$\DO_{1}\!\circ\!\DO_{n}=\mathfrak{a}_{n}\DO_{n+1}-\mathfrak{b}_{n}\DO_{n}\,\,,\label{eq:recurs1}$$ where $\mathfrak{a}_{n}$ and $\mathfrak{b}_{n}$ denote weakly holomorphic scalar modular forms of weight $0$ that can be expressed as the following univariate polynomials in the Hauptmodul:$$\begin{split}\mathfrak{a}_{n} & =\left(J\!-\!984\right)^{n_{2}}\left(J\!+\!744\right)^{\frac{n_{3}\left(n_{3}-1\right)}{2}}\\
\mathfrak{b}_{n} & ={\textstyle \frac{n_{2}}{2}}\left(J\!+\!744\right)+{\textstyle \frac{n_{3}}{3}}\left(J\!-\!984\right)\,\,\end{split}
\label{eq:anbndef}$$ Note that, in complete accord with Eq., the coefficients $\mathfrak{a}_{n}$ and $\mathfrak{b}_{n}$ depend only on the value of $n$ modulo $6$.
Since the operators $\DO_{n}$, together with the multiplication-by-$J$ operator $$\begin{split}\FC\!:\!\mathcal{M\!\left(\varrho\right)} & \!\rightarrow\!\mathcal{M\!\left(\varrho\right)}\\
\FA\!\left(\tau\right) & \!\mapsto\! J\!\left(\tau\right)\FA\!\left(\tau\right)\end{split}
\,\,\label{eq:bigJ}$$ all map the space $\mathcal{M\!\left(\varrho\right)}$ of weakly holomorphic forms to itself, $\mathcal{M\!\left(\varrho\right)}$ is a module for the noncommutative ring $\dr\!=\!\mathbb{C}\!\left[\mathbf{J},\DO_{1},\DO_{2},\ldots\right]$. This module is necessarily of finite rank, since it is already of finite rank as a $\mathbb{C}\!\left[\mathbf{J}\right]$-module. An important result is that the ring $\dr$ is generated by the operators $\mathbf{J},\DO_{1},\DO_{2}$ and $\DO_{3}$, as a consequence of the relations Eqs. and , which allow to express any operator $\DO_{n}$ with $n\!>\!3$ in terms of $\mathbf{J},\DO_{1},\DO_{2},\DO_{3}$, e.g. $$\DO_{4}={\textstyle \frac{1}{1728}}\left(\DO_{2}\!\circ\!\DO_{2}-\DO_{1}\!\circ\!\DO_{3}+{\textstyle \frac{5}{6}}\!\left(\mathbf{J}\!+\!744\right)\!\circ\!\DO_{3}+{\textstyle \frac{1}{9}}\!\left(5\mathbf{J}\!+\!264\right)\!\circ\!\DO_{2}\right)\,\,.\label{eq:D4expr}$$
It is clear from the multiplication rules Eq. and the commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\DO_{1},\FC\right]\!=\! & -\left(\FC\!-\!984\right)\!\circ\!\left(\FC\!+\!744\right)\nonumber \\
\left[\DO_{2},\FC\right]\!=\! & -2\!\left(\FC\!+\!744\right)\!\circ\!\DO_{1}\!+\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(\FC\!+\!744\right)\!\circ\!\left(7\FC\!-\!1704\right)\label{eq:Dcom}\\
\left[\DO_{3},\FC\right]\!=\! & -3\!\left(\FC\!-\!984\right)\!\circ\!\DO_{2}\!+\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(7\FC\!-\!1704\right)\!\circ\!\DO_{1}\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{2}{9}}\left(\FC\!-\!984\right)\!\circ\!\left(7\FC\!+\!3480\right)\,\,,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ that the structure of the ring $\dr$ does not depend on the automorphy factor: the ring $\dr$ is universal, one and the same for all automorphy factors $\varrho$. This shows that there is a very close connection between [vector-valued modular form]{}s (for arbitrary automorphy factors) and representations of $\dr$.
Let’s now turn to the determination of the fundamental matrix. Consider an automorphy factor $\varrho$ of weight $0$, with fundamental matrix $\om{\tau}$, characteristic matrix $\mathcal{X}$ and exponent matrix $\FB$. Since each operator $\DO_{n}$ maps $\mro{\varrho}$ to itself, applying any $\DO_{n}$ to the fundamental matrix gives a matrix whose columns are [vector-valued modular form]{}s: consequently, for each positive integer $n$ there exists matrices $\mathcal{D}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)$ for which $$\DO_{n}\om{\tau}=\om{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)\,\,,\label{eq:Dndef}$$ and whose matrix elements are weakly holomorphic scalar modular forms, hence polynomials in the Hauptmodul $J\!\left(\tau\right)$; these polynomials may be determined explicitly by comparing the $q$-expansions of both sides of Eq.. For example, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_{1} & \!\left(\tau\right)=\left(J\!\left(\tau\right)\!-\!\mathcal{X}\right)\left(\FB\!-\!1\right)+\FB\mathcal{X}-240\left(\FB\!-\!1\right)\label{eq:DN1}\\
\mathcal{D}_{2} & \!\left(\tau\right)=(J\!\left(\tau\right)\!-\!\mathcal{X})(\FB\!-\!1)(\FB\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{7}{6}})+(\FB\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{6}})\FB\mathcal{X}+504(\FB\!-\!1)(\FB\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{73}{63}})\label{eq:DN2}\end{aligned}$$ and$$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{D}_{3}\!\left(\tau\right)=\left(J\!\left(\tau\right)\!-\!\mathcal{X}\right)(\FB\!-\!1)(\FB\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{7}{6}})(\FB\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{4}{3}})+(\FB\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{3}})(\FB\!-\!{\textstyle \frac{1}{6}})\FB\mathcal{X}\\
-480\left(\FB\!-\!1\right)(\FB^{2}-{\textstyle \frac{101}{40}}+{\textstyle \frac{71}{45}})\label{eq:DN3}\end{gathered}$$
For any given $n\!>\!0$, the relation Eq. is nothing but a linear differential equation of order $n$ that the fundamental matrix has to satisfy. A necessary and sufficient condition for this infinite sequence of equations to have a common solution is the relation$$\DO_{1}\mathcal{D}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)+\mathcal{D}_{1}\!\left(\tau\right)\!\mathcal{D}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)=\mathfrak{a}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)\!\mathcal{D}_{n+1}\!\left(\tau\right)-\mathfrak{b}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)\!\mathcal{D}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)\,\,,\label{eq:Dnrecurs}$$ which follows from Eq. and the recursion relation Eq.; actually, only the $n\!=\!1$ and $n\!=\!2$ cases of Eq. have to be considered, the remaining ones are consequences of these two. Taking into account the known expression of the matrices $\mathcal{D}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)$ as polynomials in the Hauptmodul, Eq. reduces to intricate algebraic relations between the matrices $\FB$ and $\mathcal{X}$, whose explicit form can be found in [@bib:BG2]. Provided these are satisfied, one may compute the fundamental matrix by solving the first order linear differential equation $$\DO_{1}\om{\tau}=\om{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{1}\!\left(\tau\right)\,\,,\label{eq:compat}$$ with boundary condition Eq.: the solution will automatically solve the higher order equations as well. This means that $\om{\tau}$ is completely determined by the two numerical matrices $\FB$ and $\mathcal{X}$.
Besides $\dr$, another ring of interest is $\hdr$, spanned by linear combinations of powers of $\FJ$ with coefficients given by holomorphic scalar modular forms, i.e. suitable polynomials in the Eisenstein series $E_{4}$ and $E_{6}$. As an algebra over $\mathbb{C}$, the ring $\hdr$ is generated by the operators $\FJ$, $\mathbf{E}_{4}$ and $\mathbf{E}_{6}$, where $\mathbf{E}_{k}$ denotes multiplication by the Eisenstein series $E_{k}\!\left(\tau\right)$. The basic commutation relations connecting these generators read $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathbf{E}_{4},\mathbf{E}_{6}\right] & =0\nonumber \\
\left[\mathbf{E}_{4},\FJ\right]\, & ={\textstyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathbf{E}_{6}\label{eq:hdcom}\\
\left[\mathbf{E}_{6},\FJ\right]\, & ={\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{E}_{4}^{2}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Note that the elements of $\hdr$ usually don’t preserve the weight. If an element of $\hdr$ happens to change the weight of all modular forms by $2n$, then we say that it is homogeneous of grade $n$. This leads to a decomposition$$\hdr=\bigoplus_{n=0}^{\infty}\hdr_{n}\,\,,\label{eq:hdgrad}$$ the grade $n$ homogeneous subspace $\hdr_{n}$ consisting of the operators that can be written as linear combinations$$\sum_{k=0}^{n}g_{n-k}\!\left(\tau\right)\FJ^{k}\,\,,\label{eq:hddef}$$ whose coefficients $g_{k}\!\left(\tau\right)$ are holomorphic forms of weight $2k$; in particular, $g_{0}$ is constant, while $g_{1}\!=\!0$. Each homogeneous subspace $\hdr_{n}$ is finite dimensional, the set $$\set{\mathbf{E}_{4}^{a}\mathbf{E}_{6}^{b}\FJ^{n-2a-3b}}{0\!\leq\! a,b,n-2a-3b}\label{eq:hdrbasis}$$ providing a basis of it. It follows that the Hilbert series of $\hdr$ reads $$H_{\hdr}\!\left(z\right)=\frac{1}{\left(1-z\right)\left(1-z^{2}\right)\left(1-z^{3}\right)}\,\,.\label{eq:hilbhdr}$$
Modular differential equations
==============================
\#1[\^(\#1)]{}
\#1[A\_[\#1]{}]{}
\#1[\_[\#1]{}]{}
An interesting question, with direct relevance to physics, is to determine all those invariant differential operators that annihilate a given [vector-valued modular form]{} [@bib:GKMO; @bib:Mas; @bib:Zh]. In other words, one is interested in the annihilator$$\an{\FA}\!=\!\left\{ \nabla\!\in\!\dr\,|\,\nabla\FA=0\right\} \label{eq:andef}$$ of the [vector-valued modular form]{} $\FA\!\in\!\mro{\varrho}$; note that $\an{\FA}$ is a (left) ideal of the ring $\dr$ of invariant differential operators. It is clear that, as a $\FH$-module, $\an{\FA}$ is the inductive limit of the increasing sequence $\An 1\!\subset\!\An 2\!\subset\!\cdots$, where $\An n$ denotes the set of those elements of $\an{\FA}$ whose order (as a differential operator) does not exceed $n$, i.e. which can be written as a combination $\sum\limits _{k=0}^{n}\mathfrak{f}_{k}\!\left(J\right)\DO_{k}$ with polynomial coefficients $\mathfrak{f}_{k}\!\in\!\FH$.
The basic idea is the following: since $\FA\!\in\!\mro{\varrho}$ implies $\DO_{n}\FA\!\in\!\mro{\varrho}$ for all $n$, one has $$\DO_{n}\FA=\om{\tau}\dx n\label{eq:dxdef}$$ for some $\dx n\!\in\!\FH^{d}$, where $\om{\tau}$ is the fundamental matrix of $\varrho$; note that $\dx 0\!=\!\prep{\FA}$ is the polynomial representation of $\FA$, cf. Eq.. Let’s now consider a syzygy $\mathfrak{s}\!=\!\left(\mathfrak{s}_{0},\cdots,\mathfrak{s}_{n}\right)$ between the vectors $\dx 0,\ldots,\dx n$, i.e. a linear relation $$\sum_{k=0}^{n}\mathfrak{s}_{k}\!\left(J\right)\dx k=0\,\,\label{eq:syz}$$ with polynomial coefficients $\FI k\!\in\!\FH$. Such syzygys form the syzygy module $\syz n$, which is finitely generated and free according to Hilbert’s syzygy theorem [@bib:Eis]. Multiplying both sides of Eq. by $\om{\tau}$ from the left, and taking into account the definition Eq., one gets the result that the differential operator $$\DO_{\mathfrak{s}}=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\FI k\DO_{k}\,\,\label{eq:syzopdef}$$ annihilates $\FA$. This shows that the map $\mathfrak{s}\!\mapsto\!\DO_{\mathfrak{s}}$ is a module isomorphism between $\syz n$ and $\An n$. Note that this isomorphism implies that each $\An n$ is a finitely generated free $\FH$-module. One may compute a free generating set of $\syz n$ using standard methods of commutative algebra, and the corresponding differential operators will provide a free generating set of $\An n$.
This is all that is needed if one is only interested in the modular differential equations satisfied by $\FA$ up to some given order. If one is interested instead in the structure of the full annihilator, then one needs to understand the relation of $\An{n+1}$ to $\An n$, at least for large enough $n$. Luckily enough, this relation is fairly simple. Indeed, let’s denote by $\mo n$ the submodule of $\FH^{d}$ generated by the vectors $\dx 0,\ldots,\dx n$; clearly, these submodules form an increasing sequence $\mo 0\!\subset\!\mo 1\!\subset\!\cdots$. But the module $\FH^{d}$ is Noetherian, hence any increasing sequence of submodules saturates, in the sense that there exists a positive integer $N$ (the saturation index) such that $\mo n\!=\!\mo N$ for all $n\!\geq\! N$, and in particular, $\dx n\!\in\!\mo N$ for $n\!>\! N$. Since $\mo N$ is generated by the vectors $\dx 0,\ldots,\dx N$, this means that for $n\!>\! N$ there exist univariate polynomials $\mathfrak{p}_{k}^{\left(n\right)}\!\in\!\mathbb{C}\!\left[J\right]$ such that $$\dx n=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\mathfrak{p}_{k}^{\left(n\right)}\!\left(J\right)\dx k\,\,.\label{eq:maxrel}$$ Multiplying (from the left) both sides of this equality by the fundamental matrix $\om{\tau}$, we get the equality $$\DO_{n}\FA=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\mathfrak{p}_{k}^{\left(n\right)}\!\left(J\right)\DO_{k}\FA\,\,,\label{eq:maxdif}$$ from which we conclude that the operator $$\mathfrak{D}_{n}=\nabla_{n}-\sum_{k=0}^{N}\mathfrak{p}_{k}^{\left(n\right)}\!\left(J\right)\nabla_{k}\,\,\label{eq:maxop}$$ belongs to $\An n$. What is more, given an element $\DO\!=\!\sum\limits _{k=0}^{n}\mathfrak{f}_{k}\!\left(J\right)\DO_{k}\!\in\!\An n$, the combination $\DO\!-\!\mathfrak{f}_{n}\!\left(J\right)\mathfrak{D}_{n}$ is of order less than $n$, hence belongs to $\An{n-1}$; it follows that for $n\!>\! N$ the module $\An n$ is generated by $\An{n-1}$ and $\mathfrak{D}_{n}$, and the full annihilator $\an{\FA}$ is generated (as a $\FH$-module) by the sequence $\mathfrak{D}_{N+1},\mathfrak{D}_{N+2},\cdots$ and a generating set of $\An N$.
What could be said about the annihilator as a left ideal of $\dr$? Using the multiplication rules Eq., one may show that $\An{N+3}$ generates the full annihilator. This means that every modular differential equation satisfied by $\FA\!\in\!\mro{\varrho}$ is a consequence of one corresponding to an element of $\An{N+3}$. In this respect, much more is true: every modular differential equation satisfied by $\FA\!\in\!\mro{\varrho}$ is a consequence of one corresponding to a generator of $\An{N+1}$, so that, in order to have full control over modular equations, it is enough to determine a generating set of the latter module.
Of course, to be able to apply the above ideas, one needs first to determine the sequence of the $\dx n$-s. In principle, this computation involves transcendental operations; but, thanks to Eqs. and , one has the simple algebraic recursion $$\dx{n+1}=\!\frac{1}{\mathfrak{a}_{n}}\left\{ \mathcal{D}_{1}\!\left(J\right)\!+\!\mathfrak{b}_{n}\!-\!\left(J\!-\!984\right)\left(J\!+\!744\right)\dif{}J\right\} \dx n\,\,.\label{eq:dxrecursion}$$ Indeed, applying both sides of Eq. to $\FA$, and taking into account Eqs. and , one arrives at Eq.. It is straightforward to compute, starting from $\dx 0\!=\!\prep{\FA}$, the sequence of $\dx n$-s by using the above recursion. Once this has been done, the whole story boils down to some more or less elementary algebraic manipulations, as explained above.
In some important applications it is not the annihilator that one is really interested in, but rather the holomorphic annihilator $$\han{\FA}=\!\left\{ \nabla\!\in\!\hdr\,|\,\nabla\FA=0\right\} \,\,.\label{eq:handef}$$ The first thing to note is that $\han{\FA}$ inherits a grading from that of $\hdr$, each homogeneous subspace $\han{\FA}_{n}\!=\!\han{\FA}\cap\hdr_{n}$ being finite dimensional. An important quantity related to this decomposition is the Hilbert-Poincaré-series $$H_{\FA}\!\left(z\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\dim\left(\han{\FA}_{n}\right)z^{n}\,\,,\label{eq:HPdef}$$ which characterizes the rate of growth, as a function of the grade $n$, of the number of independent holomorphic operators annihilating the form $\FA$. Note that $H_{\FA}\!\left(z\right)$ is always majorized as a power series by $H_{\hdr}\!\left(z\right)=1\!+\! z\!+\!2z^{2}\!+\!3z^{3}\!+\!\cdots$.
For a given grade $n\!\geq\!0$, an element of $\han{\FA}_{n}$ can be expressed as a linear combination of the operators $\mathbf{E}_{4}^{a}\mathbf{E}_{6}^{b}\FJ^{n-2a-3b}$ for $0\!\leq\! a,b,n-2a-3b$. The coefficients in this linear combination satisfy a system of linear equations, whose coefficient matrix may be determined by considering the action of the operators $\mathbf{E}_{4}^{a}\mathbf{E}_{6}^{b}\FJ^{n-2a-3b}$ on the $q$-expansion of $\FA\!\left(q\right)$, and by solving this system, one gets a basis of $\han{\FA}_{n}$. While this direct approach is conceptually simple, its computational complexity grows rapidly with the grade $n$, making it unsuitable to treat but the simplest cases.
A more effective approach is based on the following observation. Any element of the homogeneous subspace $\hdr_{n}$ of grade $n$ can be decomposed as $$\sum_{{a,b\geq0\atop 2a+3b\leq n}}C_{n}\!\left(a,b\right)\mathbf{E}_{4}^{a}\mathbf{E}_{6}^{b}\FJ^{n-2a-3b}\,\,,\label{eq:hanelm}$$ where the coefficients $C_{n}\!\left(a,b\right)$ are complex numbers. If this sum annihilates the form $\FA$, then so does $$\sum_{{a,b\geq0\atop 2a+3b\leq n}}C_{n}\!\left(a,b\right)\dpref n\!\left(\tau\right)\mathbf{E}_{4}^{a}\mathbf{E}_{6}^{b}\FJ^{n-2a-3b}\,\,.\label{eq:hanelm2}$$ But the operators $\mathfrak{d}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)\mathbf{E}_{4}^{a}\mathbf{E}_{6}^{b}\FJ^{n-2a-3b}$ don’t change the weight, hence they all belong to $\dr$, and being differential operators of order $n-2a-3b$, they are proportional to $\DO_{n-2a-3b}$, the only basis element of $\dr$ of that order, i.e.$$\mathfrak{d}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)\mathbf{E}_{4}^{a}\mathbf{E}_{6}^{b}\FJ^{n-2a-3b}=\hdpref{n,a,b}\DO_{n-2a-3b}\,\,,\label{eq:hnabdef}$$ for some prefactors$$\hdpref{n,a,b}=\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)E_{4}\!\left(\tau\right)^{a}E_{6}\!\left(\tau\right)^{b}}{\mathfrak{d}_{n-2a-3b}\!\left(\tau\right)}\label{eq:hnabexp}$$ which are weight $0$ scalar modular forms, hence univariate polynomials in the Hauptmodul $J\!\left(\tau\right)$; the precise form of these polynomials is easy to work out. Comparing Eqs. and , we get $$\mathfrak{d}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)\mathbf{E}_{4}^{a}\mathbf{E}_{6}^{b}\FJ^{n-2a-3b}\FA=\om{\tau}\hdpref{n,a,b}\dx{n-2a-3b}\,\,,\label{eq:dxnab}$$ hence the element Eq. belongs to $\han{\FA}_{n}$ if, and only if the following linear relation holds: $$\sum_{{a,b\geq0\atop 2a+3b\leq n}}C_{n}\!\left(a,b\right)\hdpref{n,a,b}\dx{n-2a-3b}=0\,\,.\label{eq:haneq}$$ The sequence $\dx 0,\dx 1,\ldots$ can be determined using the recursion relation Eq., and the polynomials $\hdpref{n,a,b}\!\in\!\FH$ are known, so Eq. is a linear system for the numerical coefficients $C_{n}\!\left(a,b\right)$: solving this system, one gets a basis of $\han{\FA}_{n}$. While conceptually a bit more involved, this method is much more effective than the direct approach based on the consideration of $q$-expansions.
A worked-out example: the Ising model
=====================================
The Ising model [@DiFMS] is the Virasoro minimal model of central charge $c\!=\!\nicefrac{1}{2}$. Its character vector is known to be \#1[\_[\#1]{}]{} $$\FA=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\w{}+\w 1\\
\w{}-\w 1\\
\sqrt{2}\w 2\end{array}\right)\,\,,\label{eq:isingchar}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{f}\!\left(\tau\right) & =q^{-1/48}\prod_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(1+q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)\,\,,\nonumber \\
\mathfrak{f}_{1}\!\left(\tau\right) & =q^{-1/48}\prod_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(1-q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)\,\,,\label{eq:weberdef}\\
\mathfrak{f}_{2}\!\left(\tau\right) & =\sqrt{2}q^{1/24}\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(1+q^{n}\right)\,\,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ are the classical Weber functions . These satisfy the identities $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{f}_{1}^{8}+\mathfrak{f}_{2}^{8} & =\mathfrak{f}^{8}\,\,,\label{eq:weberrel1}\\
\w{}\w 1\w 2 & =\sqrt{2}\,\,,\label{eq:weberrel2}\end{aligned}$$ and are related to the Hauptmodul trough$$J+744=\frac{\left(\mathfrak{f}^{24}-16\right)^{3}}{\mathfrak{f}^{24}}=\frac{\left(\mathfrak{f}_{1}^{24}+16\right)^{3}}{\mathfrak{f}_{1}^{24}}=\frac{\left(\mathfrak{f}_{2}^{24}+16\right)^{3}}{\mathfrak{f}_{2}^{24}}\,\,.\label{eq:weberJ}$$
The character vector Eq. is a modular form for the weight $0$ automorphy factor characterized by $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho\!\sm 0{\textrm{-}1}10\! & =\!\frac{1}{2}\!\left(\!\begin{array}{rrr}
1 & 1 & \sqrt{2}\\
1 & 1 & \textrm{-}\sqrt{2}\\
\sqrt{2} & \textrm{-}\sqrt{2} & 0\end{array}\!\right)\\
\varrho\!\sm 0{\textrm{-}1}1{\textrm{-}1}\! & =\!\frac{\zeta}{2}\!\left(\!\begin{array}{rrc}
1 & \textrm{-}1 & \,\,\sqrt{2}\zeta^{3}\\
1 & \textrm{-}1 & \textrm{-}\sqrt{2}\zeta^{3}\\
\sqrt{2} & \sqrt{2} & 0\end{array}\!\right)\,\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta\!=\!\exp\!\left(\frac{2\pi\mathsf{i}}{48}\right)$. A suitable exponent matrix reads $$\FB=\frac{1}{48}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
47\\
& 23\\
& & 2\end{array}\right)\,\,.\label{eq:isingL}$$
The fundamental matrix$$\!\left(\!\begin{array}{ccc}
\dfrac{\w{}\!+\!\w 1}{2} & \dfrac{\w{}^{25}\!-\!\w 1^{25}\!-\!25\w{}\!-\!25\w 1}{2} & 8\!\left(\w{}^{17}\w 1^{8}\!-\!\w{}^{24}\w 1\!-\!16\w{}\right)\!+\!\dfrac{\w 2^{7}}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\w{}^{39}\!-\!\w 1^{39}\!-\!16\w{}^{15}\!-\!32\w 1^{15}\right)\\
\\\dfrac{\w{}\!-\!\w 1}{2} & \dfrac{\w{}^{25}\!+\!\w 1^{25}\!-\!25\w{}\!+\!25\w 1}{2} & 8\!\left(\w{}^{17}\w 1^{8}\!+\!\w{}^{24}\w 1\!-\!16\w{}\right)\!-\!\dfrac{\w 2^{7}}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\w{}^{39}\!+\!\w 1^{39}\!-\!16\w{}^{15}\!+\!32\w 1^{15}\right)\\
\\\dfrac{\w 2}{\sqrt{2}} & \textrm{-}\left(25\!+\!\w 2^{24}\right)\dfrac{\w 2}{\sqrt{2}} & \w{}^{15}\w 1^{7}\left(\w{}^{24}\!-\!16\right)\!-\!16\w{}^{24}\dfrac{\w 2}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\!\right)$$ for this automorphy factor has been determined in [@bib:BG], with corresponding characteristic matrix $$\mathcal{X}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 2325 & 94208\\
1 & 275 & -4096\\
1 & -25 & -23\end{array}\right)\label{eq:isingX}$$
The character vector of the Ising model clearly equals the first column of the fundamental matrix, which implies that its polynomial representation has the simple form$$\prep{\FA}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
1\\
0\\
0\end{array}\right)\,\,.\label{eq:isingpolrep}$$ Starting from this, it is straightforward to compute the sequence of $\dx n$-s using the recursion relation Eq., leading to the result$$\dx 0\!=\!\left(\begin{array}{c}
1\\
0\\
0\end{array}\right)\!,\;\dx 1\!=\!\frac{1}{48}\!\left(\begin{array}{c}
240\!-\! J\\
24\\
3\end{array}\right)\!,\;\dx 2\!=\!\frac{1}{768}\!\left(\begin{array}{c}
3J\!+\!1448\\
112\\
\textrm{-}7\end{array}\right)\!,$$ $$\dx 3\!=\!\frac{1}{36864}\!\left(\begin{array}{c}
23648\!-\!51J\\
856\\
107\end{array}\right)\!,\;\dx 4\!=\!\frac{1}{1769472}\!\left(\begin{array}{c}
1275J\!+\!288088\\
\textrm{-}2080\\
\textrm{-}2507\end{array}\right)\!,\ldots$$ From this follows that the saturation index is $N\!=\!2$, i.e. $\mo n\!=\!\mo 2$ for $n\!>\!2$, and that there are no syzygys between the generators of $\mo 2$, i.e. $\syz 2$ (hence $\An 2$ as well) is trivial. By expressing the higher $\dx n$-s in terms of $\dx 0,\dx 1$ and $\dx 2$, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{D}_{3}\!= & \,\nabla_{3}-{\textstyle \frac{107}{2304}}\nabla_{1}+{\textstyle \frac{23}{55296}}\!\left(\FC\!-\!984\right)\nonumber \\
\mathfrak{D}_{4}\!= & \,\nabla_{4}-{\textstyle \frac{107}{2304}}\nabla_{2}+{\textstyle \frac{293}{18432}}\nabla_{1}-{\textstyle \frac{23}{110592}}\!\left(\FC\!+\!744\right)\label{eq:isingann}\\
\vdots\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Since $\An 3$ is generated by $\mathfrak{D}_{3}$
As to the holomorphic annihilator $\han{\FA}$, its Hilbert-Poincaré series reads$$H_{\FA}\!\left(z\right)\!=\! z^{3}\!+\! z^{4}\!+\!2z^{5}\!+\!3z^{6}\!+\cdots\!=\!\frac{z^{3}}{\left(1-z\right)\left(1-z^{2}\right)\left(1-z^{3}\right)}\,,\label{eq:isingHP}$$ showing clearly that $\han{\FA}$ is generated, as an ideal of $\hdr$, by a single operator of grade $3$, whose expression is (up to a multiplicative constant) $$\dpref 3\!\left(\tau\right)^{\textrm{-1}}\mathfrak{D}_{3}=\FJ^{3}-{\textstyle \frac{107}{2304}}\mathbf{E}_{4}\FJ+{\textstyle \frac{23}{55296}}\mathbf{E}_{6}\,\,,\label{eq:isinhhgen}$$ showing that, up to an irrelevant multiplicative factor, the modular equation $\mathfrak{D}_{3}\FA\!=\!0$ is a holomorphic equation. This is precisely the one that follows from the null vector relation for the characters of the Ising model [@bib:GK].
Summary
=======
Differential equations satisfied by modular forms have been of interest since the time of Jacobi. The development of String Theory and two dimensional CFT has led to major advances in the application of the theory of modular forms to physics, and the important role of the modular equations satisfied by them has been clear since the early days. The work of Zhu [@bib:Zh] and of Gaberdiel and Keller [@bib:GK] clarified the relation of modular equations and the structure of the operator algebra,
The present note addressed the question: given a [vector-valued modular form]{} $\FA$ for some weight zero automorphy factor $\varrho$, determine all modular differential equations with (weakly) holomorphic coefficients that are satisfied by $\FA$. As we have seen, there exist effective algorithmic techniques, based on the general theory of [vector-valued modular form]{}s, that provide full control over all such modular equations.
An important possible use is to the existence problem of RCFT: in some applications (e.g.[@Gaberdiel]), one faces the question whether RCFTs with given properties (fusion rules, modular properties, torus partition function, etc.) do exist or not. In such cases one can use the above methods to check whether there exists potential character vectors that are consistent with the given data, have non-negative integral $q$-expansion coefficients and do satisfy suitable modular differential equations. If no such candidate character vectors can be found, then one can conclude that no RCFT with a consistent operator algebra exists with the given properties; on the other hand, for each consistent candidate character vector the holomorphic modular equation that it satisfies characterize the null vector relations, hence the representation theory of the would-be operator algebra.
[28]{} T. M. Apostol, *Modular Functions and Dirichlet Series in Number Theory* (Springer, 1990).
G. Anderson and G.W. Moore, ”Rationality in conformal field theory”, Commun. Math. Phys. **117** (1988) 441.
P. Bántay and T. Gannon, “Conformal characters and the modular representation”, **JHEP 0602** (2006) 005.
P. Bántay and T. Gannon, “Vector-valued modular functions for the modular group and the hypergeometric equation”, Commun. Number Th. Phys. **1** (2008) 637–666.
J. Cardy, Nucl. Phys. **B270**, 186 (1986).
F. Diamond and J. Shurman, *A first course in modular forms* (Springer, 2005).
P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu and D. Senechal, *Conformal Field Theory* (Springer, 1997).
W. Eholzer and N.-P. Skoruppa, “Modular invariance and uniqueness of conformal characters”, Commun. Math. Phys. **174** (1995) 117–136.
M. Eichler and D. Zagier, *The Theory of Jacobi Forms*, Prog. Math. 55 (Birkhäuser, Boston, 1985).
D. Eisenbud, *Commutative algebra with a view toward algebraic geometry* (Springer, 1995).
M.R. Gaberdiel, ”Constraints on extremal self-dual CFTs”, **JHEP 0711** (2007) 087.
M. R. Gaberdiel, S. Gukov, C. A. Keller, G. W. Moore, and H. Ooguri, “Extremal $N=(2,2)$ 2D conformal field theories and constraints of modularity”, arXiv: hep-th/0805.4216.
M. R. Gaberdiel and C. A. Keller, “Modular differential equations and null vectors”, **JHEP 0809** (2008) 079.
R.C. Gunning, *Riemann surfaces and generalized theta functions* (Springer-Verlag,1976).
M.I. Knopp, *Modular Functions in Analytic Number Theory* (Markham, Chicago, 1970).
M. Knopp and G. Mason, “Generalized modular forms”, J. Number Th. **99** (2003) 1–28.
M. Knopp and G. Mason, “Vector-valued modular forms and Poincaré series”, Illinois J. Math. **48** (2004) 1345–1366.
N. Koblitz, *Introduction to elliptic curves and modular forms* (Springer-Verlag, 1993).
Kohnen, W. and Mason, G., ”On generalized modular forms and their application”, Nagoya J. Math. **192** (2008), 119-136.
S. Lang, *Introduction to modular forms* (Springer-Verlag, 1976).
G. Mason, “Vector-valued modular forms and linear differential operators”, Intl J. Number Th. **3** (2007) 377–390.
S.D. Mathur, S. Mukhi and A. Sen, Phys. Lett. **B213** (1988) 303.
S.D. Mathur, S. Mukhi and A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. **B318** (1989) 483.
G. Moore and N. Seiberg, Commun. Math. Phys. **123**, 177 (1989).
J.-P. Serre, *A course in arithmetic* (Springer, 1973).
G. Shimura, *Introduction to the Arithmetic Theory of Automorphic Functions*, (Princeton University Press, 1971).
E. Verlinde, Nucl. Phys. **B300**, 360 (1988).
Y. Zhu, “Modular invariance of characters of vertex operator algebras”, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **9** (1996) 237–302.
[^1]: Work supported by grant
[^2]: This follows from the observation that, for a positive integer $n$, any weakly holomorphic scalar form of weight $\textrm{-}2n$ is the product of $\mathfrak{d}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)$ with a form of weight $0$, i.e. $\mro{\rho_{\,\textrm{-}2n}}\!=\!\mathfrak{d}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)\mro{\rho_{0}}$. In other words, $\mathfrak{d}_{n}\!\left(\tau\right)$ generates $\mro{\rho_{\,\textrm{-}2n}}$ as a $\FH$-module.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We compute the decay rates of emitters coupled to spheroidal nanoantennas made of gold, copper, silver, and aluminum. The spectral position of the localized surface plasmon-polariton resonance, the enhancement factors and the quantum efficiency are investigated as a function of the aspect ratio, background index and the metal composing the nanoantenna. While copper yields results similar to gold, silver and aluminum exhibit different performances. Our results show that with a careful choice of the parameters these nanoantennas can enhance emitters ranging from the UV to the near-IR spectrum.'
author:
- 'A. Mohammadi'
- 'V. Sandoghdar'
- 'M. Agio'
title: 'Gold, copper, silver and aluminum nanoantennas to enhance spontaneous emission'
---
Introduction
============
Single molecules, nanocrystals and nanotubes are relevant light emitters for fundamental research and applications. [@bruchez98; @uppenbrink99; @oconnell02; @ossicini03; @moerner04; @silbey07] However, many of these systems exhibit a low quantum yield and often photobleach. The latter issue can be solved by embedding the emitter into a matrix, such that reactive elements like oxygen cannot interact with the dye. [@pfab04; @boiron96] Regarding the low quantum yield, a possible solution exploits the concept of radiative decay engineering with microcavities, [@gerard99] photonic crystals [@galli06] or metal nanostructures. [@lakowicz01] It turns out that a faster radiative decay rate also reduces photobleaching, because the emitter is in the excited state for a shorter time. Even if microcavities and photonic crystals can be as small as a few microns, they still occupy a space much larger than the emitter. Furthermore, they require a well defined geometry, which gives constraints on the fabrication method and hence on the choice of the material.
Recently, we have experimentally demonstrated that a single gold nanoparticle enhances the fluorescence signal of a single molecule [@kuehn06; @kuehn08] and found quantitative agreement with theory. [@ruppin82] Moreover, our calculations show that gold nanoparticles with designed shapes can increase the decay rates by three orders of magnitude. [@rogobete07] These so-called [*nanoantennas*]{} [@greffet05] can thus be used to improve the quantum efficiency of emitters [@biteen05; @mertens06] and reduce photobleaching [@hale01] with the advantage that they have nanoscale dimensions, a simple shape, and a broad resonance that does not require fine tuning of the structure parameters. Furthermore, metal nanoparticles can be mass produced and surface functionalization allows controlled binding of the emitter. [@zhang07]
![\[layout\]A single emitter is coupled to a nanoantenna made of one or two metal spheroids. (a) The dipole is placed at a distance $d$ and it is oriented along the $z$ axis. The spheroid has dimensions $a$ and $b$ for the semi-major and semi-minor axes, respectively. When the nanoantenna consists of two spheroids, the emitter is at the center of the gap with width $2d$. The rotational symmetry with respect to the $z$ axis makes the system a body of revolution that can be treated in two dimensions by considering its cross section (b). The total $P_\mathrm{tot}$ and radiated $P_\mathrm{rad}$ powers are obtained using Poynting theorem (solid lines). The mesh is truncated using PML absorbing boundary conditions (dashed line).](figure1.eps){width="6cm"}
Nanoantennas base their properties on the so-called localized surface plasmon-polariton resonance (LSPR), which is sustained by the collective oscillation of free electrons in the metal. This resonance can be tuned by changing shape, size, background index and material. [@bohren83] Because emitters cover a broad spectral range, it is interesting to investigate which nanoantenna designs should be chosen for operation in a given frequency domain. Similar studies have been carried out for the field enhancement in surface-enhanced Raman scattering. [@moskovits85; @cline86; @zeman87]
In this paper we study the decay rate enhancement and the quantum efficiency for an emitter coupled to nanoantennas made of one or two spheroids as a function of several parameters, including aspect ratio, background index and metal. We choose spheroidal nanoparticles because they have a simple geometry, yet with sufficient degrees of freedom to represent a model system for nanoantennas. Indeed, they have been extensively studied for field-enhanced spectroscopy [@moskovits85; @cline86; @zeman87] and for fluorescence enhancement. [@gersten81; @rogobete07; @agio07; @mohammadi08; @mertens08] We discuss nanoantenna designs that cover the spectral range from the UV to the near-IR. Even if the LSPR can be easily tuned by changing the spheroid aspect ratio, [@gersten81] one has to consider that the decay rates might not be enhanced as much as desired. Therefore, both geometric effects and material properties have to be taken into account.
Results and discussion {#results}
======================
Theory and computational approach {#computation}
---------------------------------
When an emitter is placed in the near field of a nanoantenna, its radiative decay rate $\gamma_\mathrm{rad}^{o}$ is modified to $\gamma=\gamma_\mathrm{rad}+\gamma_\mathrm{nrad}$. [@ruppin82] $\gamma_\mathrm{rad}$ represents the energy that reaches the far field, while $\gamma_\mathrm{nrad}$ accounts for the radiated energy absorbed by the nanoantenna due to material losses. The ratio $\eta_\mathrm{a}=\gamma_\mathrm{rad}/\gamma$ can be considered as a quantum efficiency. If $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ is small, the emitter is quenched even if the radiative decay rate is large [@ruppin82]. Another important quantity is the Purcell factor defined as $F=\gamma_\mathrm{rad}/\gamma_\mathrm{rad}^{o}$, which represents the radiative decay rate enhancement. If the isolated emitter has a quantum efficiency $\eta_o$, when it is coupled to the nanoantenna, it acquires a quantum efficiency $\eta$ that depends on $F$ and $\eta_\mathrm{a}$, which reads [@agio07; @mohammadi08] $$\label{eta}
\eta=\frac{\eta_o}{(1-\eta_o)/F+\eta_o/\eta_\mathrm{a}}.$$ Equation \[eta\] shows that if the emitter possesses a poor quantum efficiency $\eta_o$, the nanoantenna can effectively enhance it to a value close to 100%, if $F\gg 1$ and $\eta_\mathrm{a}\simeq
100\%$. $F$ and $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ strongly depends on the relative position and orientation of the emitter with respect to the nanoantenna [@ruppin82] and on the nanoantenna shape and size. [@rogobete07] Furthermore these quantities depend also on the material composing the nanoantenna and on the background medium. For simplicity, here we fix the emitter position and orientation and focus on the effect of size, shape and material properties. The emitter is positioned on the nanoantenna axis at a distance d=10 nm from the spheroid surface and oriented along the spheroid major axis as shown in Fig. \[layout\](a). For the case of nanoantennas made of two spheroids, the emitter is at the center of a 20 nm gap formed between the two nanoparticles.
The decay rates are obtained from classical electrodynamics calculations by collecting the total $P_\mathrm{tot}$ and radiated $P_\mathrm{rad}$ powers of an oscillating dipole located at the position of the emitter. [@xu00] These quantities are computed using the Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD) method .[@taflove05; @kaminski07] Furthermore, we take advantage of the rotational symmetry of the system to reduce the problem to two dimensions, see Fig. \[layout\](b), and we employ the body-of-revolution FDTD approach. [@taflove05; @mohammadi08] The experimental dielectric function of metals is fitted using Drude or Drude-Lorentz dispersion models. [@kaminski07; @mohammadi08bis] The FDTD mesh discretization is chosen to be 1 nm for gold and copper nanoantennas, while for silver and aluminum nanoantennas we use 0.5 nm to compensate for the shorter operating wavelength. We terminate the FDTD mesh with perfectly-matched-layer (PML) absorbing boundary conditions. [@prather99]
![\[eps-Au-Cu\]Real (dashed curves) and imaginary parts (solid curves) of the dielectric functions of (a) gold and (b) copper. The experimental data are compiled from Refs. (CRC) and (J&C).](figure2.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Gold and copper nanospheroids
-----------------------------
To better understand the performances of nanoantennas we first review the optical properties of gold and copper. Figure \[eps-Au-Cu\] shows the real and imaginary parts of the dielectric functions of gold and copper in the visible and near IR spectral range. The real part for the two materials is quite similar, whereas the imaginary part for copper is slightly larger than for gold if the experimental data are taken from Ref. . Therefore, we expect similar results for both materials. On the other hand, if for gold we consider the experimental values from Ref. , the imaginary part gets smaller and consequently gold nanoantennas should further improve with respect to copper. We choose the optical constants from Ref. for gold and from Ref. for copper.
Since we have already studied nanoantennas made of two gold spheroids, [@mohammadi08] here we focus the attention on single ones. This system can be also studied using an approximate method developed by Gersten and Nitzan [@gersten81] and recently improved by Mertens et al. [@mertens07; @mertens08] to account for radiative damping [@wokaun82] and depolarization effects. [@meier83] Figure \[1Au\](a) elucidates how the Purcell factor and the quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ depend on the background index for an emitter coupled to a gold spheroid with semi-axes $a=70$ nm and $b=25$ nm. Even a small change in the refractive index shifts the LSPR by more than hundred nanometers. At the same time, the resonance gets wider because radiative broadening increases with the refractive index. [@wokaun82] That also explains the small decrease in the Purcell factor. As a consequence of material losses, the quantum efficiency drops to zero below 600 nm. However, the shift of the LSPR towards shorter wavelengths improves the quantum efficiency. For instance, it is larger than 70% around 650 nm if the nanoantenna is embedded in air, $n_\mathrm{b}=1$.
![\[1Au\]Purcell factor (solid curves) and quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ (dashed curves) for an emitter coupled to a gold spheroid for $d=10$ nm (see Fig. \[layout\](b)). (a) Dependence on the background index $n_\mathrm{b}$ for $a=50$ nm and $b=25$ nm. (b) Dependence on the semi-major axis $a$ for $b=20$ nm and $n_\mathrm{b}=1.33$. (c) Dependence on the semi-minor axis $b$ for $a=70$ nm and $n_\mathrm{b}=1.33$.](figure3.eps){width="7.5cm"}
 LSPR wavelength, corresponding to the maximum Purcell factor for an emitter coupled to a gold spheroid, as a function of $a$ and $b$ (see Fig. \[layout\](b)). The distance to the spheroid is $d=10$ nm and the background index is $n_\mathrm{b}=1.33$. (b) Purcell factor and (a) quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ for the corresponding wavelengths and spheroid parameters given in (c).](figure4.eps){width="7.5cm"}
![\[12Cu\]Purcell factor (solid curves) and quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ (dashed curves) for an emitter coupled to a nanoantenna made of (a) one or (b) two copper spheroids in glass, with $a=60$ nm and $d=10$ nm (see Fig. \[layout\]).](figure5.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Figures \[1Au\](b) and \[1Au\](c) present the situation where the background index $n_\mathrm{b}$ is fixed to that of water, $n_\mathrm{b}=1.33$, and the spheroid axes are varied. In Fig. \[1Au\](b) the semi-minor axis is constant, $b=20$ nm, and the semi-major one spans from 40 to 70 nm. When the aspect ratio gets smaller the LSPR shifts towards shorter wavelengths and the Purcell factor drops. [@mohammadi08] Notice that even if a smaller aspect ratio implies a smaller volume and a dipolar LSPR closer to the higher order modes, [@mertens08] the quantum efficiency can still be large, as shown for $a=40$ nm. Also decreasing the volume reduces the effect of radiative broadening and the LSPRs appear narrower. In Fig. \[1Au\](c) we keep the semi-major axis constant, $a=70$ nm, and vary the spheroid width. In this case, reducing the aspect ratio increases the volume such that radiative broadening increases and the LSPRs appear wider. For the same aspect ratio, the smaller spheroid in Fig. \[1Au\](b) with $a=40$ nm and $b=20$ nm exhibits a stronger Purcell factor and a lower quantum efficiency than the larger one with $a=70$ nm and $b=35$ nm.
 LSPR wavelength, corresponding to the maximum Purcell factor for an emitter coupled to one (solid curves), or two (dashed curves) copper spheroids, as a function of $a$ and $b$ (see Fig. \[layout\]). The distance to the spheroid is $d=10$ nm and the background index is $n_\mathrm{b}=1.5$. (b) Purcell factor and (a) quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ for the corresponding wavelengths and spheroid parameters given in (c).](figure6.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Figure \[1AueB1.7689\] summarizes the results of a single gold spheroid in water for different values of the nanoantenna axes. In Fig. \[1AueB1.7689\](c) we plot the wavelengths at which the maximum Purcell factor is achieved, corresponding to the peak of the LSPR. These values are reported in Fig. \[1AueB1.7689\](b). For the same wavelengths we have also computed the quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$, shown in Fig. \[1AueB1.7689\](a). The data for nanoantennas with resonances outside the wavelength range from 600 to 1100 nm have not been considered. While the quantum efficiency does not depend much on the spheroid parameters, the Purcell factor changes by almost an order of magnitude, as already seen in Fig. \[1Au\].
We now move our attention to copper spheroids. Figure \[12Cu\](a) shows the Purcell factor and the quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ for an emitter coupled to a single spheroid in glass, $n_\mathrm{b}=1.5$, for $a=60$ nm and variable $b$. Compared to gold (see Fig. \[1Au\](c)) the enhancement is smaller and the resonances are broader as expected by the fact that the imaginary part of copper is larger. On the other hand, the Purcell factor does not drop as rapidly when the aspect ratio decreases. The quantum efficiency is lower, but it shows the same trend. Namely, if the LSPR shifts to shorter wavelengths, the efficiency increases. For an aspect ratio equal to 2, for $a=60$ nm and $b=30$ nm, the Purcell factor is about 75 and the quantum efficiency is close to 70%. If we consider a nanoantenna made of two copper spheroids, we can improve both the Purcell factor and the quantum efficiency, but we also redshift the resonance wavelength, as shown in Fig. \[12Cu\](b).
Collective data on the resonance wavelength, Purcell factor and quantum efficiency are displayed in Fig. \[CueB2.25\] for nanoantennas made of one or two copper spheroids in glass. In Fig. \[CueB2.25\](a) notice that the quantum efficiency is now more sensitive to the nanoantenna geometry than in the case of gold (see Fig. \[1AueB1.7689\](a)), while the opposite holds for the Purcell factor, when comparing Fig. \[CueB2.25\](b) and Fig. \[1AueB1.7689\](b). These differences stem from the imaginary part of the dielectric function, which is larger for copper. We should keep in mind that if for gold we used the optical constants from Ref. , gold and copper would exhibit even closer resemblance.
![\[eps-Ag-Al\]Real (dashed curves) and imaginary parts (solid curves) of the dielectric functions of (a) silver and (b) aluminum. The experimental data are compiled from Refs. (CRC), (J&C), and (Palik).](figure7.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Silver and aluminum nanospheroids
---------------------------------
We now consider nanoantennas made of silver or aluminum. As before, we start looking at the real and imaginary parts of the dielectric function, presented in Fig. \[eps-Ag-Al\]. Silver appears to be similar to gold if the experimental data are taken from Ref. and from Ref. , respectively. The main difference is that silver has a higher plasma frequency so that the curves are shifted towards shorter wavelengths. Therefore, we expect that silver yields results similar to gold, but in a spectral range closer to UV light. However, if for silver we consider the experimental data of Ref. , we notice that while the real part is almost the same, the imaginary part drops to much lower values. In this case, silver nanoantennas should perform much better than their gold counterparts. Because samples of silver nanoantennas might exhibit a lower optical quality than the bulk material, caused by imperfections in the crystalline structure and contamination occurring in the nanofabrication steps, we prefer to choose the experimental dielectric function with the largest imaginary part. [@CRChandbook]
![\[12Ag\]Purcell factor (solid curves) and quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ (dashed curves) for an emitter coupled to a nanoantenna made of two silver spheroids in air with $a=60$ nm and $d=10$ nm (see Fig. \[layout\](a)).](figure8.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Figure \[eps-Ag-Al\](b) displays the optical constants of aluminum as given in Ref. . Aluminum has a plasma frequency even higher than silver. Therefore the real part is larger in the same spectral range. On the other hand, there is an interband absorption peak located at 800 nm, which creates a dispersive profile in the real part of the dielectric function and, most importantly, a strong increase in the imaginary part. This makes aluminum less attractive for nanoantenna applications in the spectral range around 800 nm. Even if the imaginary part is significantly larger than in the noble metals, in the region below 600 nm the large and negative real part ensures that the skin depth is sufficiently small to prevent significant losses.
Figure \[12Ag\] shows the quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ and the Purcell factor for an emitter coupled to a nanoantenna made of two silver spheroids in air. The general trend agrees with what we have previously discussed for gold in Fig. \[1Au\](c), and for copper in Fig. \[12Cu\](b). Because the plasma frequency of silver is higher than that of gold and copper, the resonances are shifted by about 200 nm towards shorter wavelengths. Furthermore, the quantum efficiency and the Purcell factor are higher. Using the optical constants of Ref. would have yielded even better results. A more complete set of results for silver nanoantennas embedded in water is given in Fig. \[2AgeB1.7689\]. In comparison to Fig. \[12Ag\], the LSPR is redshifted and the Purcell factor is slightly reduced due to the radiative broadening effect as seen for gold in Fig. \[1Au\](a).
 LSPR wavelength, corresponding to the maximum Purcell factor for an emitter coupled to two silver spheroids, as a function of $a$ and $b$ (see Fig. \[layout\](a)). The distance to the spheroids is $d=10$ nm and the background index is $n_\mathrm{b}=1.33$. (b) Purcell factor and (a) quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ for the corresponding wavelengths and spheroid parameters given in (c).](figure9.eps){width="7.5cm"}
The quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ and the Purcell factor for an emitter coupled to a nanoantenna made of two aluminum spheroids in air is provided in Fig. \[2Al\]. While the quantum efficiency, as expected, increases with the volume of the spheroid, the LSPR is not redshifted when the aspect ratio increases. The reason for that can be found in the electromagnetic interaction between the two spheroids. For a single aluminum spheroid, the LSPR exhibits a small redshift in agreement with the polarizability theory. [@meier83; @zeman87] For the case of two aluminum spheroids separated by a gap $2d=20$ nm, the interaction between the two LSPR modes is stronger for small aspect ratios than for larger ones because sharper particles have larger but more rapidly decaying near fields at their tips. The coupling between the two particles redshifts the LSPR. [@aravind81] The increased interaction explains also why the Purcell factor does not drop much when the aspect ratio decreases: the two spheroids act together more effectively to increase the near field. An indication of the same effect can be appreciated also for copper in Fig. \[12Cu\], where however the redshift caused by the single particle polarizability is so strong that makes it difficult to notice. The Purcell factors given by the aluminum nanoantennas of Fig. \[2Al\] are not as large as found for the same system made from other materials. Because the quantum efficiency is large, the reason for that should be mainly attributed to radiative broadening rather than to losses. [@wokaun82] For instance, since the radiative broadening is proportional to $1/\lambda^3$, the effect is 8 times stronger at 400 nm than at 800 nm. Indeed calculations of the field enhancement have shown that the LSPR should be located around 200-300 nm and the semi-major axis of the spheroid should not be larger than 40 nm for optimal performances. [@zeman87] Therefore aluminum nanoantennas can be better exploited for the UV spectral region rather than for the visible and near IR range.
![\[2Al\]Purcell factor (solid curves) and quantum efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{a}$ (dashed curves) for an emitter coupled to a nanoantenna made of two aluminum spheroids in air, with $a=60$ nm and $d=10$ nm (see Fig. \[layout\](a)).](figure10.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Conclusions {#conclusion}
===========
We have investigated the performances of nanoantennas for improving light emitters by considering different materials, namely gold, copper, silver and aluminum, aspect ratios and background media. While gold and copper can both operate in the near IR spectral range, silver is more suitable for the visible range and aluminum for the UV range. Therefore, various emitters can be enhanced by choosing appropriate nanoantenna parameters.
We have seen that contrary to conventional antennas, nanoantennas cannot be simply scaled to operate at different wavelengths. Here the material properties play a fundamental role. Also the choice of the experimentally determined optical constants available in the literature can be an issue of concern. [@stoller06] In particular, these data have been obtained for bulk samples, while nanoantennas are truly nanoscale objects. Even if the volume of a nanoantenna is sufficiently large to ignore quantum-size effects, [@bohren83] the fabrication methods might influence the actual optical properties by nanograins formation and material contamination. [@johnson72; @shinya97]
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank L. Rogobete, F. Kaminski, Y. Ekinci, N. Mojarad, H. Eghlidi, and S. Götzinger for helpful discussions. A. Mohammadi is thankful to the Persian Gulf University Research Council for partial support. This work was financed by the ETH Zurich initiative on Composite Doped Metamaterials (CDM).
[99]{} M. Bruchez, M. Moronne, P. Gin, S. Weiss, and A. P. Alivisatos, [*Science*]{} [**281**]{}, 2013 (1998).
J. Uppenbrink, and D. Clery, [*Science*]{} [**283**]{}, 1667 (1999).
M. J. O’Connell, S. M. Bachilo, C. B. Huffman, V. C. Moore, M. S. Strano, E. H. Haroz, K. L. Rialon, P. J. Boul, W. H. Noon, C. Kittrell, J. Ma, R. H. Hauge, R. B. Weisman, and R. E. Smalley, [*Science*]{} [**297**]{}, 593 (2002).
S. Ossicini, L. Pavesi, and F. Priolo, [*Light-Emitting Silicon for Microphotonics*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2003).
W. E. Moerner, [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**6**]{}, 1 (2004).
R. J. Silbey, [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} [**104**]{}, 12595 (2007).
R. J. Pfab, J. Zimmermann, C. Hettich, I. Gerhardt, A. Renn, and V. Sandoghdar, [*Chem. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**387**]{}, 490 (2004).
A.-M. Boiron, B. Lounis, and M. Orrit, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**105**]{}, 3969 (1996).
J.-M. Gérard and B. Gayal, in [*Confined Photon Systems: Fundamentals and Applications*]{}, H. Benisty, J.-M. Gérard, R. Houdré, J. Rarity, and C. Weisbuch, eds. (Springer, Berlin, 1999), pp. 331-351.
M. Galli, D. Gerace, A. Politi, M. Liscidini, M. Patrini, L. C. Andreani, A. Canino, M. Miritello, R. Lo Savio, A. Irrera, and F. Priolo, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{}, 241114 (2006).
J. R. Lakowicz, [*Anal. Biochem.*]{} [**298**]{}, 1 (2001).
S. Kühn, U. Håkanson, L. Rogobete, and V. Sandoghdar, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{}, 017402 (2006).
S. Kühn, G. Mori, M. Agio, and V. Sandoghdar, [*Mol. Phys.*]{} [**106**]{}, 893 (2008).
R. Ruppin, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**76**]{}, 1681 (1982).
L. Rogobete, F. Kaminski, M. Agio, and V. Sandoghdar, [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**32**]{}, 1623 (2007).
J.-J. Greffet, [*Science*]{} [**308**]{}, 1561 (2005).
J. S. Biteen, D. Pacifici, N. S. Lewis, and H. A. Atwater, [*Nano Lett.*]{} [**5**]{}, 1768 (2005).
H. Mertens and A. Polman, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{}, 211107 (2006).
G. D. Hale, J. B. Jackson, O. E. Shmakova, T. R. Lee, and N. J. Halas, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{}, 1502 (2001).
J. Zhang, Y. Fu, M. H. Chowdhury, and J. R. Lakowicz, [*Nano Lett.*]{} [**7**]{}, 2101 (2007).
C. F. Bohren, and D. R. Huffman, [*Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles*]{} (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1983).
M. Moskovits, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**57**]{}, 783 (1985).
M. P. Cline, P. W. Barber, and R. K. Chang, [*J. Opt. Soc. Am. B*]{} [**3**]{}, 15 (1986).
E. J. Zeman, and G. C. Schatz, [*J. Phys. Chem.*]{} [**91**]{}, 634 (1987).
J. Gersten, and A. Nitzan [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**75**]{}, 1139 (1981).
A. Mohammadi, V. Sandoghdar, and M. Agio, [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**10**]{}, xxxx (2008).
M. Agio, G. Mori, F. Kaminski, L. Rogobete, S. Kühn, V. Callegari, Ph. M. Nellen, F. Robin, Y. Ekinci, U. Sennhauser, H. Jäckel, H. H. Solak, and V. Sandoghdar, [*Proc. of SPIE*]{} [**6717**]{}, 67170R (2007).
H. Mertens, and A. Polman, [*arXiv:0711.1591v1*]{} (2007).
Y. Xu, K. Lee, and A. Yariv, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**61**]{}, 033807 (2000).
A. Taflove and S. C. Hagness, [*Computational electrodynamics: the finite-difference time-domain method*]{}, 3rd edn. (Artech House, Norwood, MA, 2005).
F. Kaminski, V. Sandoghdar, and M. Agio, [*J. Comput. Theor. Nanosci.*]{} [**4**]{}, 635 (2007).
A. Mohammadi, F. Kaminski, V. Sandoghdar, and M. Agio, [*Int. J. Nanotechnology*]{}, submitted (2008).
D. W. Prather and S. Shi, [*J. Opt. Soc. Am. A*]{} [**16**]{}, 1131 (1999).
H. Mertens, A. F. Koenderink, and A. Polman, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**76**]{}, 115123 (2007).
A. Wokaun, J. P. Gordon, and P. F. Liao, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**48**]{}, 957 (1982).
M. Meier, and A. Wokaun, [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**8**]{}, 581 (1983).
D. R. Lide, ed., [*CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics*]{}, 87th edn. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2006).
P. B. Johnson, and R. W. Christy, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**6**]{}, 4370 (1972).
E. D. Palik, and G. Ghosh, eds., [*Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids*]{} (Academic Press, San Diego, Ca, 1998)
P. K. Aravind, A. Niztan, and H. Metiu, [*Surf. Sci.*]{} [**110**]{}, 189 (1981).
P. Stoller, V. Jacobsen, and V. Sandoghdar, [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**31**]{}, 2474 (2006).
A. Shinya, Y. Okuno, M. Fukui, and Y. Shintani, [*Surf. Sci.*]{} [**371**]{}, 149 (1997).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Simplex gradients are an essential feature of many derivative free optimization algorithms, and can be employed, for example, as part of the process of defining a direction of search, or as part of a termination criterion. The calculation of a general simplex gradient in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$ can be computationally expensive, and often requires an overhead operation count of ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ and in some algorithms a storage overhead of ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$. In this work we demonstrate that the linear algebra overhead and storage costs can be reduced, both to ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$, when the simplex employed is regular and appropriately aligned. We also demonstrate that a gradient approximation that is second order accurate can be obtained cheaply from a combination of two, first order accurate (appropriately aligned) regular simplex gradients. Moreover, we show that, for an arbitrarily aligned regular simplex, the gradient can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ operations.'
author:
- Ian Coope
- Rachael Tappenden
bibliography:
- 'COAP\_DFO\_bib.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: Efficient Calculation of Regular Simplex Gradients
---
Introduction {#S_Intro}
============
Estimating derivatives is important in a wide variety of applications and many successful numerical optimization algorithms rely on gradient information and/or directional derivatives. When analytical derivatives are not directly available, it is useful to be able to obtain gradient estimates, for example, by using difference methods. Furthermore, simplex gradients are often used in derivative-free optimization as search directions, like is the case of the implicit filtering algorithm [@Bortz98], as descent indicators for reordering the poll directions in directional direct search [@Custodio07], or in the definition of stopping criteria for algorithms [@Custodio08]. A first comprehensive study on the computation of general simplex gradients was provided in [@Regis15]. In this work we investigate computationally efficient approaches to estimating the gradient at either the centroid or vertex of an appropriately aligned regular simplex.
To obtain a first order approximation to the gradient (of the function $f$ at some point $x_0$) one considers the first order Taylor approximation about $x_0$: $$f(x) = f(x_0) + (x-x_0)^T\nabla f(x_0) +{\mathcal{O}}(\|x-x_0\|_2^2).$$ Consider a set of $m+1$ points ($m\geq n$), $x_0,x_1,\dots,x_m\in {\mathbf{R}}^n$. Using the notation $g \approx \nabla f(x_0)$ to denote an approximation to the gradient, $f_j {:=}f(x_j)$, and ignoring the order terms, the previous expression leads to the following system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{geq}
f_j-f_0 = (x_j-x_0)^Tg \quad \text{ for } j=1,\dots,m.
\end{aligned}$$ Expression is a linear regression model, and determining a least squares solution to the system results in an approximation to the gradient of the underlying function. If $m=n+1$ and the $n+1$ points are affinely independent then is a determined system with unique solution independent of the ordering of the points. When $m>n+1$ the order of the points used is important because the least squares solution to the system depends on which point is labelled $x_0$. In this work we restrict our attention to the case where $m = n+2$ and the points $x_1,x_2,...,x_{n+1}$ defining the regression model in are the vertices of an appropriately aligned regular simplex and $x_0$ is its centroid. (This will be defined in Section \[S\_NotationPreliminaries\].) The main theme here is to determine a least squares solution to the system efficiently, both in terms of the linear algebra costs and in terms of storage requirements, to determine an appropriately aligned regular simplex gradient.
For the regular simplexes discussed in this work, the centroid of the simplex is denoted by $x_0$, and each vertex $x_1,x_2,...,x_{n+1}$ is equidistant from the centroid with $$\label{eq:h}
h {:=}\|x_j-x_0\|_2, \quad j=1,2,\dots,n+1,$$ where the distance $h$ is sometimes referred to as the ‘radius’ or ‘arm length’ of the regular simplex. The system in is central to many derivative free optimization algorithms, but solving it can be a computational challenge. Firstly, usually the vectors $x_0,\dots,x_{n+1}$ (or the differences $x_1-x_0,\dots,x_{n+1}-x_0$) must be explicitly stored, which can be costly in terms of memory requirements, and also poses a limitation in terms of the size of problems that can be solved using such algorithms. Secondly, the computational cost (number of floating point operations) of solving such problems can also be high (e.g., if the problem is unstructured or if a general simplex is used).
In this work we investigate the use of regular simplexes. The computation of regular simplex gradients was proposed in the context of derivative-free optimization of molecular geometries [@Alberto04]. One advantage of using a regular simplex is that it provides a uniform, economic ‘tiling’ of $n$-dimensional space, each $n$-dimensional tile having only $n+1$ vertices compared to $2^n$ vertices for a hypercube tile. A disadvantage is that storing the vertices of the simplex is usually less efficient than that for a hypercube because it is possible to align the edges of the hypercube with the coordinate axes. However, if the orientation of the regular simplex is free to be chosen also, then we will show that it is possible to generate each vertex from a single vector by simple adjustment of one component. This enables considerable savings in storage requirements for several lattice search algorithms for optimization. For example, the multidirectional search (MDS) method of Torczon [@Torczon89], [@Torczon91] can be implemented using either a rectangular or a regular simplex based lattice but the usual construction for the regular simplex lattice requires ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ storage (see for example [@Torczon89]). Similarly, the Hooke and Jeeves [@Hooke+J61] lattice search method, although originally implemented in a rectangular lattice framework, can also be implemented using a regular simplex lattice. (It is anticipated that each of these methods will benefit, in terms of memory requirements and computational effort, if the particular simplex construction used in this work is employed.) The added advantage of being able to compute an aligned regular simplex gradient in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ housekeeping operations using only $n+1$ function evaluations makes it attractive for many numerical gradient based algorithms for optimization, including the recent minimal positive basis based direct search conjugate gradient methods described in [@Liu2011].
The vertices of a simplex are often explicitly required during the initialization of simplex based algorithms for optimization, including the algorithms in [@Nelder1965], [@Parkinson+H72], [@Price+CB2002], [@Spendley+H62], [@Torczon89]. Using the technique described later, the vertices of an aligned regular simplex can be constructed explicitly, whenever required, very efficiently. However, we also show that the vertices of the aligned regular simplex do not have to be stored in order to calculate the simplex gradient.
In derivative free optimization, one must always be mindful of the cost of function evaluations. There exist real-world applications for which computing a single function evaluation can be very costly, and in such cases it is clear that the linear algebra and memory requirements may be very small in comparison. In this work, we focus on algebraically efficient methods to compute the simplex gradient *after function evaluations are complete*. In most situations, function evaluations will dominate the overall time to compute a simplex gradient. However, this trend should not be used to justify performing other portions of the computation inefficiently. It is prudent to be as economical as possible at every stage of the optimization process.
Contributions
-------------
We state the main contributions of this work (listed in order of appearance).
1. **Aligned regular simplex gradient in $\mathbf{{\mathcal{O}}(n)}$ operations.** A simplex gradient is the (least squares) solution of a system of linear equations, which, in general, comes with an associated ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ computational cost. In this work we show that, if one employs a regular simplex that is appropriately aligned, then the linear system simplifies, and the aligned regular simplex gradient can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations. Indeed, the gradient of the aligned regular simplex is simply a weighted sum of a vector containing function values (measured at the vertices of the simplex) and a constant vector. This is an important saving over the ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ computational cost of solving a general unstructured linear system. (See Section \[S\_Simplex\].)
2. **Aligned regular simplex need not be explicitly stored.** In this work we demonstrate that the storage needed for the computation of the aligned regular simplex gradient is ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$, whereas the usual storage requirements for the computation of a general simplex gradient are at least ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ *vectors* (i.e., ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$). In particular, it is simple and inexpensive to construct the vertices of the aligned regular simplex on-the-fly, and the simplex need not be stored explicitly at all. This is because all that is required to uniquely specify (and construct) each simplex vertex is the centroid $x_0$, the simplex ‘arm length’ $h$ and the problem dimension $n$. To compute the aligned regular simplex gradient, the function values at the vertices of the simplex are required, but once a vertex has been constructed and the function value found, the vertex can be discarded. Therefore, the storage requirements of this approach are low. (See Section \[S\_Simplex\].)
3. **Function value $f_0$ is not required.** We show that the function value $f_0$ at the centroid of the regular simplex is not required in the calculation of the regular simplex gradient (at the point $x_0$). Moreover, we extend this result to show that it also applies to any general simplex, and not just a regular one. (See Section \[S\_Weight\].)
4. **Regular simplex gradient in $\mathbf{{\mathcal{O}}(n^2)}$ operations.** In some applications, it may not be possible to ensure the particular alignment of the regular simplex. In this case, we show that it is still possible to calculate the regular simplex gradient in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ floating point operations. (See Section \[S\_RegSimp\].)
5. **Inexpensive $\mathbf{{\mathcal{O}}(h^2)}$ gradient approximation.** We show that one can efficiently compute an accurate (order $h^2$) gradient approximation using a Richardson extrapolation type approach. Specifically, if two first order accurate aligned regular simplex gradients are combined in a particular way, then a second order accurate approximation to the true gradient $\nabla f(x_0)$ is obtained. That is, an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ gradient approximation is simply the weighted sum of two ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ aligned regular simplex gradients. Moreover, no additional storage is required to generate the ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ gradient approximation. (See Section \[S\_Oh2\].)
Paper Outline
-------------
This paper is organised as follows. In Section \[S\_NotationPreliminaries\] we introduce the notation and technical preliminaries that are necessary to describe and set up the problem of interest. In particular, we introduce the concepts of a minimal positive basis, how a minimal positive basis is related to a simplex, and we also state the definition of a simplex gradient. In Section \[S\_Simplex\] the main results of this work are presented, including how to construct the simplex and how to compute the aligned regular simplex gradient in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations. In Section \[S\_extensions\] we describe several extensions to the work presented in Sections \[S\_Intro\], \[S\_NotationPreliminaries\] and \[S\_Simplex\], including a special case of a regular simplex with integer entries, as well as a technique to obtain an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ gradient approximation from two ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ aligned regular simplex gradients. Numerical experiments are presented in Section \[S\_Numerical\] to demonstrate how the aligned regular simplex and its gradient can be computed in practice, as well as how to generate an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ gradient approximation. Finally we make our concluding remarks in Section \[S\_Conclusion\], and we also discuss several ideas for possible future work.
Notation and Preliminaries {#S_NotationPreliminaries}
==========================
Here we define the variables that are used in this work, and fix the notation. We also give several preliminary results that will be used later.
Notation {#S_Notation}
--------
Consider a set of $n+2$ points $x_0,x_1,\dots,x_{n+1} \in {\mathbf{R}}^n$, where $x_0$ is the centroid of the $n+1$ points $x_1,\dots,x_{n+1}$, and suppose that the function values $f_1,\dots,f_{n+1}$ are known. The function value $f_0$ also appears in this work, although we will present results to confirm that it is not used in the computation of the aligned regular simplex gradient, so it is unnecessary to assume that $f_0$ is known. Let $e$ be the (appropriately sized) vector of all ones and define the following vectors, $$\label{fvec}
{\mathbf{f}}{:=}{\begin{bmatrix}f_1\\\vdots\\f_n\end{bmatrix}},\qquad\text{and}\qquad {\delta\mathbf{f}}{:=}{\mathbf{f}}-f_0 e = {\begin{bmatrix}f_1-f_0\\\vdots\\f_{n}-f_0\end{bmatrix}},$$ along with their ‘extended’ versions, $$\label{fvecex}
{\mathbf{f}_+}= {\begin{bmatrix}{\mathbf{f}}\\f_{n+1}\end{bmatrix}},\qquad\text{and}\qquad {\delta\mathbf{f}_+}{:=}{\mathbf{f}_+}-f_0 e = {\begin{bmatrix}{\delta\mathbf{f}}\\f_{n+1}-f_0\end{bmatrix}} .$$
For a general simplex (to be defined precisely in the next section), the internal ‘arms’ of the simplex are $\nu_j = x_j-x_0$ for $j=1,\dots,n+1.$ However, in this paper, we will only be considering *regular* simplexes. In this case it is convenient to denote the ‘arms’ of the regular simplex using the vectors $v_1,\dots,v_{n+1}$, which satisfy the relationship $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vj}
x_j=x_0 +hv_j, \qquad \text{ for }\; j=1,\dots,n+1,
\end{aligned}$$ for some (fixed) $h \in {\mathbf{R}}$, with $\|v_j\|_2 = 1$ and $\|x_j-x_0\|_2=h$ for $j=1,\dots,n+1$. Thus $h>0$ is the radius of the circumscribing hypersphere of the regular simplex and each $v_j$ denotes a *unit* vector defining the direction of each vertex from the centroid of the simplex.
Now we can define the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GenericV}
V = {\begin{bmatrix}v_1&\dots&v_n\end{bmatrix}}\in {\mathbf{R}}^{n\times n}
\end{aligned}$$ and the vector $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vnp1}
v_{n+1} = -\sum_{j=1}^n v_j \equiv -Ve,
\end{aligned}$$ along with the ‘extended’ matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Vplus}
{V_+}{:=}{\begin{bmatrix}V& -Ve\end{bmatrix}} \in {\mathbf{R}}^{n\times (n+1)}.
\end{aligned}$$
Technical Preliminaries {#S_Preliminaries}
-----------------------
Here we outline several technical preliminaries that will be used in this work. These properties are known but we state them here for completeness. For further details on the results discussed here, see, for example, [@Audet17], [@Boyd04 p.32–34], [@Conn09 Chapter 2].
A set of $m+1$ points $y_1,y_2\dots,y_{m+1}\in{\mathbf{R}}^n$ is called affinely independent if the vectors\
$y_2-y_1,\dots,y_{m+1}-y_1$ are linearly independent.
Given an affinely independent set of points $\{y_1,\dots,y_{m+1}\}$, its convex hull is called a simplex of dimension $m$.
A regular simplex is a simplex that is also a regular polytope.
A regular simplex has many interesting properties, see for example [@ElGebeily04].
\[Prop:1\] A regular simplex satisfies the following properties.
1. The distance between any two vertices of the simplex is constant.
2. The centroid of a regular simplex is equidistant from each vertex.
3. The angle between the vectors formed by joining the centroid to any two vertices of the simplex is constant.
The first property is a direct consequence of the definition. The second property is established in Theorem 10 in [@ElGebeily04]. The third property follows from the first and second properties.
Thus, for a regular simplex, using Proposition \[Prop:1\] it can be established (see for example, [@ElGebeily04]) that the centroid of the simplex $x_0$ is equidistant from each vertex of the simplex, and we will say that each (internal) simplex ‘arm’ (vectors $v_j$ for $j=1,\dots,n+1$) is of equal length, and the angles between any two arms of the simplex are equal.
The positive span of a set of vectors $\{y_1,\dots,y_m\}$ in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$ is the convex cone $$\{y \in {\mathbf{R}}^n : y = \alpha_1 y_1 + \dots + \alpha_m y_m, \; \alpha_i \geq 0, i = 1,\dots, m\}.$$
\[Def\_posspanset\] A positive spanning set in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$ is a set of vectors whose positive span is ${\mathbf{R}}^n$. The set $\{y_1,\dots,y_m\}$ is said to be positively dependent if one of the vectors is in the convex cone positively spanned by the remaining vectors, i.e., if one of the vectors is a positive combination of the others; otherwise, the set is positively independent. A positive basis in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$ is a positively independent set whose positive span is ${\mathbf{R}}^n$.
Definition \[Def\_posspanset\] is taken directly from [@Conn09 Definition 2.1]. As is stated in Footnote 2 of that work, “strictly speaking we should have written *nonnegative* instead of positive, but we decided to follow the notation in [@Davis54; @Lewis99]”.
\[L\_minposbasis\]
- ${\begin{bmatrix}I&-e\end{bmatrix}}$ is a minimal positive basis.
- Let $W={\begin{bmatrix}w_1&\dots&w_n\end{bmatrix}}\in {\mathbf{R}}^{n\times n}$ be a nonsingular matrix. Then ${\begin{bmatrix}W&-We\end{bmatrix}}$ is a minimal positive basis for ${\mathbf{R}}^n$.
Proving the existence of a regular simplex in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$ is equivalent to proving the existence of a minimal positive basis with uniform angles in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$, which is established in [@Alberto04]. Moreover, the work [@Lazebnik] establishes the existence of a regular simplex by an induction argument.
In this work we are considering the set-up where $x_0$ is the centroid of the regular simplex in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$ with vertices $x_1,\dots,x_{n+1}$. The arms of the simplex $v_1,\dots,v_{n+1}$ (defined in ) form a minimal positive basis. (This will be discussed in more detail in the sections that follow.) To make this more concrete, Figure \[Fig\_Simplex\] shows a regular simplex in ${\mathbf{R}}^2$.
\[scale=3\] (0,0) –(0,-1); (0,0) –(0.8660,0.5); (0,0) –(-0.8660,0.5); (0,-1) – (0.8660,0.5) – (-0.8660,0.5) – (0,-1); (0,0) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (0,-1) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (0.8660,0.5) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (-0.8660,0.5) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (-0.3,0.02) – (-0.03,0); at (-0.4,0.02) [$x_0$]{}; at (1.0,0.6) [$x_1$]{}; at (-1.0,0.6) [$x_2$]{}; at (0.02,-1.10) [$x_3$]{}; at (0.07,-0.45) [$h$]{}; at (0.4,0.35) [$h$]{}; at (-0.4,0.35) [$h$]{}; (0,-0.12) arc (-65:5:0.18); (0,-0.12) arc (-115:-185:0.18); (-0.09,0.07) arc (-240:-300:0.18); at (0.1,-0.08) [[$\theta$]{}]{}; at (-0.12,-0.08) [[$\theta$]{}]{}; at (0,0.15) [[$\theta$]{}]{};
Simplex Gradients {#S_simpgrad}
-----------------
The following defines a simplex gradient.
\[Def\_SimplexGradient\] When there are $n+2$ (or more) points, $y_1,\dots,y_m\in{\mathbf{R}}^n$ with $m\geq n+2$, containing a proper subset of affinely independent points, the simplex gradient is defined as the least-squares solution of the linear system $$\label{newlabel}
f(y_j) - f(y_{1}) = (y_j-y_1)^Tg, \quad \text{for } j = 2,\dots,m.$$
This definition depends upon whichever point is labeled $y_1$ and as a consequence, it is sometimes referred to as the simplex gradient *at the point* $y_1$.
In this paper we consider only $n+1$ or $n+2$ points (either with or without the centroid $x_0$). In the case $m=n+1$ the aligned regular simplex gradient is independent of the ordering of the points because the system generated by these points is a determined system. In the case $m=n+2$, $y_1$ is the centroid of the other $n+1$ points and it can be shown (see Section \[S\_alternate\]) that the system generated by these points is equivalent to a determined system.
Using the results in Sections \[S\_Notation\] and \[S\_Preliminaries\], can be rewritten in matrix notation as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_simplexsystem}
{V_+}^T g = \tfrac1h {\delta\mathbf{f}_+}.
\end{aligned}$$
Definition \[Def\_SimplexGradient\] makes clear that, in the setup used in this work with the $n+2$ points $x_0,\dots,x_{n+1}\in{\mathbf{R}}^n$, $g$ satisfies the normal equations form of : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_SimplexGradientNormalEqns}
{V_+}{V_+}^T g = \tfrac1h {V_+}{\delta\mathbf{f}_+}.
\end{aligned}$$ For further discussion on simplex gradients in a more general setting, see for example [@Conn09], [@Custodio08], [@Regis15].
Constructing the simplex {#S_Simplex}
========================
The central goal of this work is to determine a least squares solution to the system in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations/computations, while maintaining ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ storage for the aligned regular simplex. One cannot hope to achieve this for a *generic* simplex. However, if one can choose the simplex to be a *regular simplex* that is *oriented* in a particular way, then this goal can be achieved. This section is devoted to the construction of an aligned regular simplex that can be stored in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ and whose gradient can be evaluated in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations.
Positive basis with uniform angles
----------------------------------
Several properties of a positive basis with uniform angles are stated now. The description uses several of the concepts already presented in [@Conn09 Chapter 2].
Consider $n+1$ *normalized* vectors $v_1,\dots,v_{n+1}\in{\mathbf{R}}^n$, where the angle $\theta$ between any pair of vectors $v_i,v_j$, for $i\neq j$ is equal. It can be shown that (see [@Conn09 Exercise 2.7(4)]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vjangle}
\cos{\theta} = v_i^Tv_j = -\frac1n, \qquad i,j\in\{1,\dots,n+1\},\;\;i\neq j.
\end{aligned}$$
If , and hold, then $x_1,\dots,x_{n+1}\in {\mathbf{R}}^n$ are the vertices of a regular simplex with centroid $x_0$. Thus, we seek to construct a positive basis of $n+1$ normalized vectors $v_1,\dots,v_{n+1}\in {\mathbf{R}}^n$ such that properties and hold. With in mind, first the aim is to find a matrix $V$ satisfying (see (2.2) in [@Conn09]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A}
A = V^TV= \begin{bmatrix}
1 & -\frac1n & \dots &-\frac1n\\
-\frac1n & 1 & &\vdots\\
\vdots & & \ddots & -\frac1n\\
-\frac1n & \dots & -\frac1n & 1\\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ From , one may write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Aalphabeta}
A = V^TV= \left(1+\tfrac1n\right) I - \tfrac1n ee^T= \alpha^2 (I - \beta ee^T),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{alphabeta}
\alpha{:=}\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \beta {:=}\frac1{n+1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Using and , a positive basis with uniform angles exists. In particular, $A$ in is symmetric and positive definite (see, for example, [@Conn09 pg.20], [@Golub16]) so it has a Cholesky decomposition $A=R^TR$. Taking $V=R$, which is nonsingular, combined with and applying Lemma \[L\_minposbasis\], establishes that $R_+={\begin{bmatrix}R&-Re\end{bmatrix}}$ is a normalized minimal positive basis with uniform angles, as pointed out in [@Conn09 p.20]. The particular structure of $A$ allows the Cholesky factor $R$ to be calculated efficiently.
There is, however, another factorization of $A$ that comes from the fact that any symmetric positive definite matrix has a *unique* symmetric positive definite square root [@Golub16 p.149]. We search for a square-root matrix with similar structure to $A$. In particular, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{V}
V=\alpha(I-\gamma ee^T),
\end{aligned}$$ where we must now specify $\gamma\in {\mathbf{R}}$. Since $A=V^TV=V^2$ it is clear that $\gamma\in {\mathbf{R}}$ must satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
I-\beta ee^T=(I-\gamma ee^T)^2=I-2\gamma ee^T +n\gamma^2ee^T.
\end{aligned}$$ Equating the coefficients of $ee^T$ one sees that $\gamma$ is a root of the quadratic equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_Quadratic}
n\gamma^2 -2\gamma + \beta =0,
\end{aligned}$$ giving two possible solutions:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{gamma}
\gamma = \frac1n\left(1\pm \frac1{\sqrt{n+1}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Letting $\gamma_1,\gamma_2$ denote these two solutions and $V_1,V_2$ the corresponding matrices defined in it is easy to show that $V_1=HV_2$ where $H=I-\tfrac2nee^T$ is an elementary Householder reflection matrix ($V_2$ is the reflection of $V_1$ in the hyperplane through the origin with normal vector $e$ and vice-versa).
Choosing the negative sign for $\gamma$ in yields the unique positive definite square-root matrix as the following lemma shows.
\[eigV\] Let $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ be defined in and . The matrix $V = \alpha(I - \gamma ee^T)$ is nonsingular. Moreover, $V$ has $n-1$ eigenvalues equal to $\alpha$ and one eigenvalue satisfying $$\lambda_n(V) =
\begin{cases}
\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{n}} & \text{ if }\gamma = \frac1n(1-\sqrt{\beta}),\\
-\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{n}} & \text{ if } \gamma = \frac1n(1+\sqrt{\beta}).
\end{cases}$$
The matrix $-\alpha\gamma ee^T$ has $n-1$ zero eigenvalues, and one eigenvalue equal to $-\alpha\gamma n$. Further, adding $\alpha I$ to $-\alpha\gamma ee^T$ simply shifts the spectrum by $\alpha$. Therefore, $V$ has $n-1$ eigenvalues equal to $\alpha$, and the remaining eigenvalue is $\alpha(1-\gamma n) \overset{\eqref{gamma}}{=} \alpha(1-(1\pm\sqrt{\beta}))= \mp \alpha\sqrt{\beta} = \mp1/\sqrt{n}.$ Finally, all the eigenvalues are nonzero, so $V$ is nonsingular.
If $\gamma = \frac1n(1-\sqrt{\beta})$ then $V$ is positive definite.
\[L\_alignedwithe\] Let $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ be defined in and and let $V$ be defined in . Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ve}
Ve =
\begin{cases}
\tfrac1{\sqrt{n}}e & \text{if } \gamma = \frac1n(1-\sqrt{\beta})\\
-\tfrac1{\sqrt{n}}e & \text{if } \gamma = \frac1n(1+\sqrt{\beta}).
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VeeV}
Vee^TV^T = \tfrac1n ee^T.\end{aligned}$$
With some abuse of notation, for $\gamma = \frac1n(1\pm \sqrt{\beta})$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
Ve &\overset{\eqref{V}}{=}& \alpha(I-\gamma ee^T)e =\alpha(1 - n\gamma) e = \mp\tfrac1{\sqrt{n}} e,
\end{aligned}$$ which proves . The result follows immediately.
Now we present the main result of this subsection, which shows that the choice $V$ in leads to a minimal positive basis with uniform angles.
\[T\_minposbasis\] Let $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $V$ be defined in , and respectively. Then ${V_+}={\begin{bmatrix}V&-Ve\end{bmatrix}}$ is a minimal positive basis with uniform angles.
By Lemma \[eigV\], $V$ is nonsingular, so applying Lemma \[L\_minposbasis\] shows that ${V_+}$ is a minimal positive basis.
It remains to show the uniform angles property. By construction, $V$ defined in satisfies . Then $$\begin{aligned}
{V_+}^T{V_+}= {\begin{bmatrix}V^T\\-(Ve)^T\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}V&-Ve\end{bmatrix}} = {\begin{bmatrix}V^2&-V^2e\\ -(V^2e)^T & e^TV^2e\end{bmatrix}}\in {\mathbf{R}}^{(n+1)\times (n+1)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by , $$\begin{aligned}
V^2e = V(Ve) = V\Big(\frac1{\sqrt{n}}e\Big)
=\frac1n e,
\end{aligned}$$ and $e^TV^2e = e^Te/n = 1$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
{V_+}^T{V_+}= \begin{bmatrix}
1 & -\frac1n & \dots &-\frac1n\\
-\frac1n & 1 & &\vdots\\
\vdots & & \ddots & -\frac1n\\
-\frac1n & \dots & -\frac1n & 1\\
\end{bmatrix}\in {\mathbf{R}}^{(n+1)\times (n+1)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $v_1,\dots,v_{n+1}$ also satisfy , so the positive basis has uniform angles.
Although not explicitly stated, the positive basis derived from has essentially been used (with a scaling factor and origin shift), for setting up initial regular simplexes by several authors ([@Dennis+T91], [@Belegundu99 p. 267], [@Jacoby74 p. 80] )
Lemma \[L\_alignedwithe\] and Theorem \[T\_minposbasis\] explain why the terminology ‘aligned regular simplex’ is used in this work. Theorem \[T\_minposbasis\] shows that ${V_+}$ is a minimal positive basis with uniform angles, so the resulting simplex is regular. Moreover, Lemma \[L\_alignedwithe\] demonstrates that $Ve$, which is an ‘arm’ of the simplex (recall Figure \[Fig\_Simplex\]), is always proportional to $e$; one arm of the regular simplex is always aligned with the vector of all ones. Finally, the choice of $\gamma$ simply dictates whether the simplex arm is oriented in the ‘$+e$’ or ‘$-e$’ direction.
Weight attached to centroid {#S_Weight}
---------------------------
Here we present a general result regarding the weight attached to the centroid when solving the normal equations defining a least squares solution in linear regression. It is is well known to linear regression analysts in statistics that a linear (affine) function, fitted by least squares, passes through the centroid of the data points. Adding an extra ‘observation’ at the centroid does not affect the solution for the normal of the fitted affine function — it does, of course, affect the offset. This is irrespective of the number of data points but has important consequences for calculating the simplex gradient at the centroid when fitting an affine function to $n+2$ data points in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$. The following result generalises to any least squares system with $p>n$ data points ($V$ need not be a normalized invertible matrix), however, we avoid introducing extra notation by focusing on the result relating to simplex gradients.
In order to define a general simplex the following equations are used: $$\label{eq:nuj}
\nu_{n+1} = -\sum_{j=1}^n \nu_j,\quad \text{where} \quad \nu_j=x_j-x_0\;\;\text{for}\;\;j=1,\dots,n+1.$$ The vertices of the simplex are $\{x_i,\quad i=1,\dots,n+1\}$ and its centroid is $x_0$. Here, it is *not* assumed that $\|\nu_j\|_2 =1$ for all $j$, so the simplex is *not necessarily* a regular simplex (i.e., need not hold).
\[T\_Weightless\] Let ${\delta\mathbf{f}_+}$ and ${\delta\mathbf{f}}$ be defined in and , respectively, where $f_0,\dots,f_{n+1}$ are the function values at the points $x_0,\dots,x_{n+1}$. Let $V$ and ${V_+}$ be structured as in and , respectively, but using the points $\nu_1,\dots,\nu_{n+1}$ defined in . Then the simplex gradient $g$ in is independent of $f_0$.
Clearly, the term $({V_+}{V_+}^T)^{-1}$ in does not involve $f_0$. Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:VpvsV}
{V_+}{\delta\mathbf{f}_+}&=& V{\delta\mathbf{f}}-(f_{n+1}-f_0) Ve\notag\\
&=& V{\mathbf{f}}- f_0Ve -f_{n+1}Ve + f_0Ve\notag\\
&=& V({\mathbf{f}}-f_{n+1}e).\end{aligned}$$
Theorem \[T\_Weightless\] shows that, if the relationship holds (equivalently, the summation property in ), and ${V_+}$ is a minimal positive basis, then the function value at the centroid $x_0$ is not used when computing the simplex gradient. That is, the weight attached to $x_0$ is zero when calculating a simplex gradient.
Aligned regular simplex gradient
--------------------------------
Here we state and prove the main result of this work, that the aligned regular simplex gradient can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations. We begin with the following result.
\[L\_VplusVplusT\] Let $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ be defined in and and let $V$ be defined in . Then, for ${V_+}$ defined in , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_VpVp}
{V_+}{V_+}^T = \alpha^2 I.
\end{aligned}$$
Note that $$\begin{aligned}
{V_+}{V_+}^T &=& {\begin{bmatrix}V & -Ve\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}V^T\\ -(Ve)^T\end{bmatrix}}\\
&=& VV^T + Vee^TV^T\\
&\overset{\eqref{VeeV}}{=}& V^2 + \tfrac1n ee^T\\
&\overset{\eqref{Aalphabeta}}{=}& \alpha^2(I - \beta ee^T) + \tfrac1n ee^T\\
&=& \alpha^2I - (\alpha^2\beta - \tfrac1n)ee^T\\
&\overset{{\eqref{E_Quadratic}}}{=}& \alpha^2 I.
\end{aligned}$$
Our main result follows, which shows that the aligned regular simplex gradient can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations.
\[T\_Ongrad\] Let $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ be defined in and , respectively, let $V$ and ${V_+}$ be defined in and respectively, and let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_c1c2}
c_1 = \frac1{h \alpha} \qquad \text{and} \qquad c_2 = c_1\left((\gamma n -1)f_{n+1} -\gamma e^T{\mathbf{f}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Then, the aligned regular simplex gradient g is computed by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_Ong}
g = c_1 {\mathbf{f}}+ c_2 e,
\end{aligned}$$ which is an ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ computation.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g}
g &\overset{\eqref{E_SimplexGradientNormalEqns}}{=}& \frac1{h}({V_+}{V_+}^T)^{-1} {V_+}{\delta\mathbf{f}_+}\\
&\overset{{\rm Lemma}~\ref{L_VplusVplusT}}{=}&\frac1{h\alpha^2} {V_+}{\delta\mathbf{f}_+}\\
&\overset{\eqref{eq:VpvsV}}{=}& \frac1{h\alpha^2} V({\mathbf{f}}-f_{n+1}e)\\
&\overset{\eqref{V}}{=}& \frac1{h\alpha} (I-\gamma ee^T)({\mathbf{f}}-f_{n+1}e)\\
&=& \frac1{h\alpha} ({\mathbf{f}}-f_{n+1}e -\gamma (e^T{\mathbf{f}})e +\gamma f_{n+1}n e)\\
&=& \frac1{h\alpha} ({\mathbf{f}}+((\gamma n -1)f_{n+1} -\gamma (e^T{\mathbf{f}}))e).
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the gradient is simply the sum of two (scaled) vectors, which is an ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ computation (see, for example [@Watkins10 p.3]).
Theorem \[T\_Ongrad\] shows that the gradient of the aligned regular simplex can be expressed very simply as a weighted sum of the function values (measured at the vertices of the simplex) and a constant vector. Thus, it is very cheap to obtain the simplex gradient once function values have been calculated.
These results also demonstrate that using this particular simplex leads to efficiencies in terms of memory requirements. Neither the vertices of the simplex $x_1\dots,x_{n+1}$, nor the arms of the simplex $v_1,\dots,v_{n+1}$, appear in the calculation of the aligned regular simplex gradient. All that is needed is the function values computed at the vertices of the simplex. Note that the vertices of the simplex need not be stored because they can be computed easily on-the-fly as follows. Recall that $V=\alpha(I-\gamma ee^T)$ . Therefore, each arm of the simplex is $$\label{vjcheap}
v_j = \alpha(e_j - \gamma e),$$ where $e_j$ is the $j$th column of $I$. The $j$th vertex of the simplex is recovered via $$\label{xjcheap}
x_j \overset{\eqref{vj}}{=} x_0 + h v_j \overset{\eqref{vjcheap}}{=} x_0 + h \alpha(e_j - \gamma e) = (x_0 - h\alpha \gamma e) + h\alpha e_j.$$ Expression shows that $x_j$ is simply the sum of a constant vector $(x_0 - h\alpha \gamma e)$ whose $j$th component has been modified by $h\alpha$. The only quantities necessary to uniquely determine each vertex are $x_0$, $h$ and $n$. To compute the aligned regular simplex gradient, the $j$th vertex can be generated (via ), the function value $f_j$ evaluated and stored in ${\mathbf{f}}$, and subsequently, the vertex can be discarded. This confirms that the storage requirements for the aligned regular simplex gradient are ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$.
An alternative formulation {#S_alternate}
--------------------------
In Section \[S\_Weight\] it was shown that the weight attached to the centroid is zero so that only the function values at the vertices of the simplex feature in the regular simplex gradient calculation. But $n+1$ affinely independent points in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$ define a unique interpolating affine function with constant gradient and this must, therefore, coincide with the definition of the simplex gradient defined by the $n+2$ points used in the least-squares solution . This means that the regular simplex gradient could also be calculated as the solution to the square system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_NoCentroid}
(x_j-x_{n+1})^Tg=\left(f_j-f_{n+1}\right), j=1,\dots,n.\end{aligned}$$ It is not immediately obvious that this is an equivalent formulation. To show this equivalence algebraically we use the identity $x_j-x_{n+1}=x_j-x_0 -(x_{n+1}-x_0) = h(v_j-v_{n+1})$, and the definition of $V$ and $v_{n+1}$ . The linear system of equations (\[E\_NoCentroid\]) can then be rewritten $$\begin{aligned}
h(v_j-v_{n+1})^Tg=\left(f_j-f_{n+1}\right), j=1,\dots,n.\end{aligned}$$ or in matrix form (after dividing by $h$), $$\begin{aligned}
(V+Vee^T)^Tg = (V+ee^TV)g = \tfrac{1}{h}({\mathbf{f}}-f_{n+1}e).\end{aligned}$$ Premultiplying by the invertible matrix $V$ then gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_NoCentroidMV}
(V^2 +Vee^TV)g &=& \tfrac{1}{h}V({\mathbf{f}}-f_{n+1}e).\end{aligned}$$ Lemma \[L\_VplusVplusT\] showed that $(V^2+Vee^TV) =\alpha^2I$, and it is then clear that solving equation (\[E\_NoCentroidMV\]) is equivalent to finding the solution of the normal equations by the method described in the previous section.
We remark that a *linear model* is being used throughout this work, so an affine function is fitted through the $n+1$ simplex vertices, and the simplex gradient is the gradient of the affine function. Furthermore, note that if the centroid $x_0$ is included in the calculation of the simplex gradient at $x_0$, then the offset of the affine function is affected, but this *does not affect the gradient*, i.e., the simplex gradient at the centroid is the same as the simplex gradient at any vertex when the centroid is not included. (If the simplex gradient is calculated at $x_j , j\ne 0$, using the $n+2$ points then the simplex gradient will be affected.) However, inclusion of the centroid does simplify the derivation of error bounds as is now shown
Error bounds
------------
Here we state explicit bounds on the error in the regular simplex gradient, compared with the analytic gradient. First we give the following result providing an error bound for the aligned regular simplex gradient at the centroid $x_0$ and follow with an extension giving an error bound at any vertex.
\[errorx0\] Let $x_0$ be the centroid of the aligned regular simplex with radius $h>0$ and vertices $x_j=x_0 +hv_j,\quad j=1,2,\dots,n+1.$ Assume that $f$ is continuously differentiable in an open domain $\Omega$ containing $B(x_0;h)$ and $\nabla f$ is Lipschitz continuous in $\Omega$ with constant $L>0$. Then, $g$, obtained by solving the system of linear equations (\[E\_SimplexGradientNormalEqns\]), satisfies the error bound $$\label{eq:genbound}
\|\nabla f(x_0) - g\|_2 \leq \tfrac12L h\sqrt{n}.$$
Using the normal equations (\[E\_SimplexGradientNormalEqns\]) defining $g$ we can write $$\label{eq:normalext}
V_+V_+^T\left(g-\nabla f(x_0)\right) =
\tfrac{1}{h}V_+\left({\delta\mathbf{f}_+}- hV_+^T\nabla f(x_0)\right).$$ The integral form of the mean value theorem provides the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MVT}
f_j - f_0 =
\int_0^1(x_j-x_0)^T\nabla f\left(x_0+t(x_j-x_0)\right) dt,
\quad j=1,\dots,n+1.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the $j$th component of the vector in brackets on the right-hand-side of equation (\[eq:normalext\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:jcomp}
\left({\delta\mathbf{f}_+}- hV_+^T\nabla f(x_0)\right)_j
&=& f_j - f_0 -(x_j-x_0)^T\nabla f(x_0), \\
&=& (x_j-x_o)^T\int_0^1\left( \nabla f(x_0+t(x_j-x_0)) - \nabla f(x_0)\right) dt, \\
&\le& \|x_j - x_0\|_2 \int_0^1L\|t(x_j-x_0\|dt, \\
&=& L\|x_j-x_0\|_2^2\int_0^1tdt, \\
&=& \tfrac12L h^2, \quad j=1,\dots,n+1, \end{aligned}$$ which provides the bound $$\label{eq:rhsbnd} \| {\delta\mathbf{f}_+}- hV_+^T\nabla f(x_0) \|_2 \le \tfrac12L h^2\sqrt{n+1}.$$ Because $V_+V_+^T=\alpha^2I$ equation and the bound lead to the inequality $$\label{eq:lhsbnd} \alpha^2\|g-\nabla f(x_0)\|_2 \le \tfrac12 L h \sqrt{n+1}\|V_+\|_2.$$ By Lemma \[eigV\], $\|{V_+}\|_2 = \alpha,$ so $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla f(x_0) - g\|_2 \leq \frac{1}{2\alpha} h L \sqrt{n+1}.\end{aligned}$$ The definition of $\alpha$ in gives the required result.
An error bound at any vertex $x_j$, $j=1,\dots,n+1$, of the regular simplex is then easily derived from the Lipschitz continuity of the gradient of $f$ and the triangle inequality. $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla f(x_j) - g\|_2
\leq \|\nabla f(x_j)-\nabla f(x_0)\|_2 + \|\nabla f(x_0)-g\|_2
\leq \left(1+\tfrac12\sqrt{n}\right)L h.\end{aligned}$$
Extensions {#S_extensions}
==========
In this section we describe several extensions of the work presented so far. In particular, we show that a regular simplex gradient, where the simplex is arbitrarily oriented, can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ operations, we show that one can easily construct a regular simplex with integer entries when $n+1$ is a perfect square, and we also show that it is computationally inexpensive to calculate an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ approximation to the gradient using a Richardson extrapolation type approach.
A regular simplex gradient in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ {#S_RegSimp}
--------------------------------------------------
In practice, it may not be desirable to use the oriented regular simplexes discussed so far. However, any regular simplex is related to that particular simplex formed from the aligned positive basis $V_+$ by a scale factor, an orientation (orthogonal matrix), a permutation of the columns, and a shift of origin. In fact the permutation can be dispensed with because if $P$ is a permutaion matrix then $$(I-\gamma ee^T)P = P-\gamma ee^TP =
P(I-\gamma P^Tee^TP)= P(I-\gamma ee^T).$$ Thus, if $W_+ ={\begin{bmatrix}W& -We\end{bmatrix}}$ is *any* normalized minimal positive basis with uniform angles then, $$W = QVP = (QP)V$$ so that $W$ is linked to $V$ by an orthogonal transformation $QP$ (and hence $W_+$ to any other normalized minimal positive basis with uniform angles). These observations enable any regular simplex gradient to be calculated in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ operations.
\[T\_General\] Let $Z_+ ={\begin{bmatrix}z_1&\dots&z_n&z_{n+1}\end{bmatrix}} ={\begin{bmatrix}Z&z_{n+1}\end{bmatrix}} \in {\mathbf{R}}^{n\times (n+1)}$ be *any* regular simplex with radius $h$ and centroid $z_0$ and let $f_j = f(z_j)$, $j=1,\dots,n+1$ be known function values. Further, let $$\label{eq_u}
u = \tfrac{1}{\alpha^2h^2}({\mathbf{f}}-f_{n+1}e).$$ Then the simplex gradient is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_gradient2}
g= Zu - (e^Tu)z_0,\end{aligned}$$ which can be calculated in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ floating point operations.
The interpolation conditions for the simplex gradient can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_Zinterpolation}
\left((z_j-z_0) -(z_{n+1} -z_0)\right)^Tg= f_j-f_{n+1},\quad j=1,\dots,n.\end{aligned}$$ Let $Y_+={\begin{bmatrix}Y&-Ye\end{bmatrix}}$ be the regular simplex with unit radius and with centroid at the origin defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_Ysimplex}
Y= \tfrac1h(Z - z_0e^T),\end{aligned}$$ and let $Q \in {\mathbf{R}}^{n\times n}$ be the orthogonal transformation linking $Y_+$ to the oriented simplex $V_+ ={\begin{bmatrix}V&-Ve\end{bmatrix}}$ where $V= \alpha(I-\gamma ee^T)$ so that $$Y=QV. $$ The square system of equations (\[E\_Zinterpolation\]) can be written in matrix form as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_ZinterpolationMV}
h(Y+Yee^T)^T g= {\mathbf{f}}- f_{n+1}e.\end{aligned}$$ Pre-multiplying by the invertible matrix $Y$ and dividing by $h$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_g}
(YY^T+Yee^TY^T) g = \tfrac1hY\left({\mathbf{f}}-f_{n+1}e\right).\end{aligned}$$ Now $$\begin{aligned}
YY^T &=& QV^2Q^T\\
&\overset{\eqref{Aalphabeta}}{=}& \alpha^2Q(I-\beta ee^T)Q^T \\
&=& \alpha^2(I-\beta Qee^TQ^T).\end{aligned}$$ But $Q=YV^{-1}$ so $Qe=YV^{-1}e$. By , $Ve=\pm\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{n}} e$, so that $V^{-1}e=\pm\sqrt{n}e$ and we have $$Qee^TQ^T = nYee^TY^T . $$ Therefore, $$YY^T=\alpha^2I -\alpha^2\beta n Yee^TY^T.$$ Using the definitions , $\alpha^2\beta n = 1$, so that $$YY^T = \alpha^2I -Yee^TY^T.$$ Inserting this result in we get $$g=\tfrac{1}{\alpha^2 h}Y\left({\mathbf{f}}-f_{n+1}e\right),$$ which is a simple matrix-vector product costing ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ flops. In fact we do not need to calculate $Y$. Substituting for $Y$ from equation gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_gradient}
g= \tfrac{1}{\alpha^2h^2}(Z-z_0e^T)({\mathbf{f}}-f_{n+1}e).\end{aligned}$$ Letting $u$ be as defined in gives the result . Finally, note that the dominant computation in is the matrix-vector product $Zu$, which has a computational complexity of ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ (see for example, [@Watkins10 p.2]).
In practice, the centroid $z_0$ will often be known but even if it is not given initially, its calculation is at most ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$ flops because $z_0 = \frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{j=1}^{n+1} z_j$. If a new simplex is formed by resizing a given simplex but keeping one vertex in common then the new centroid can be easily calculated from the old centroid and the resizing parameter in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ flops. Finally, we note that if $h$ is unknown it can be calculated as $h = \|z_j-z_0\|_2$ for any $j$, which is an additional cost of ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ flops.
Regular simplexes with integer entries
--------------------------------------
The results of Section \[S\_Simplex\] show that one can construct a regular simplex with *integer* coordinate vertices in $n$-space when $n+1$ is a perfect square. Simply let $x_0=0$ be the centroid of the simplex so that $x_j=hv_j, j=1,\dots,n+1$ are the $n+1$ vertices. Writing $X_+=[x_1,\dots,x_{n+1}]$, we choose $X_+$ to be proportional to the rational matrix $\tfrac{1}{\alpha}{V_+}$. For example, when $n=3$, then $n+1=4$ is a perfect square, so two examples of regular simplexes in ${\mathbf{R}}^3$ with integer coordinates, corresponding to the two choices for $\gamma$ in , are $$\begin{aligned}
X_+ &=& {\begin{bmatrix}5&-1&-1&-3\\-1&5&-1&-3\\-1&-1&5&-3\end{bmatrix}}\in \mathbf{Z}^{3\times 4}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
X_+ &=& {\begin{bmatrix}1&-1&-1&1\\-1&1&-1&1\\-1&-1&1&1\end{bmatrix}}\in \mathbf{Z}^{3\times 4}.\end{aligned}$$ Schöenberg [@Schoenberg37] proved that a regular $n$-simplex exists in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$ with integer coordinates in the following cases, and no others:
- $n$ is even *and* $n+1$ is a square;
- $n \equiv 3 \pmod 4$;
- $n \equiv1 \pmod4$ *and* $n+1$ is a sum of two squares.
In particular, the first few values of $n$ for which integer coordinate vertices exist are $n=1,3,7,8,9,11,15,17,19,\dots$, and do not exist for $n=2,4,5,6,10,12,13,\\14,16,18,20\dots$.
Order ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ gradient approximation {#S_Oh2}
-------------------------------------------------
At certain stages of an optimization algorithm an accurate gradient may be required. This is the case, for example, when deciding whether to reduce the mesh/grid size in mesh/grid based optimization algorithms, or for deciding whether a gradient based stopping condition has been satisfied. In such cases, an ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ gradient approximation may not be sufficient, and a more accurate gradient, say an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ gradient approximation, may be desired.
The construction proposed in this paper allows one to obtain an inexpensive aligned regular simplex gradient, which is an ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ approximation to the true gradient. However, it is well known in the statistics community that a Richardson’s extrapolation approach can be used to increase the accuracy of an approximation or iterative method by (at least) an order of magnitude, see for example [@Dimov17; @Richardson1927]. Indeed, using the set-up in this paper, we now demonstrate how to obtain an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ approximation to the true gradient in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations and storage, although extra function evaluations will be required.
The key idea behind Richardson’s extrapolation is to take two approximations that are ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$, and use these to construct an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ approximation. To this end, fix $x_0$, let $G = \nabla^2 f(x_0)$ and choose $h_1 = {\mathcal{O}}(h)$. Then one can form a regular simplex with centroid $x_0$ and diameter $h_1$ with the vertices and ‘arms’ satisfying $x_j - x_0 = h_1 v_j$ for $j=1,\dots,n+1$. Now, consider the Taylor series of $f$ about $x_0$: $$\begin{aligned}
f_j &=& f_0 + (x_j - x_0)^T \nabla f(x_0) + \tfrac12(x_j - x_0)^TG(x_j - x_0) + {\mathcal{O}}(h^3)\\
&=& f_0 + h_1v_j^T \nabla f(x_0) + \tfrac{h_1^2}2v_j^TGv_j + {\mathcal{O}}(h^3).\\\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging the above and dividing by $h_1$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:interim}
v_j^T \nabla f(x_0) = \tfrac1{h_1}(f_j - f_0) - \tfrac{h_1}2v_j^TGv_j + {\mathcal{O}}(h^2).\end{aligned}$$ An expression of the form can be written for each $j=1,\dots,n+1$. Combining the $n+1$ equations, using the notation established previously, gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:extrap_intermediatestep}
{V_+}^T\nabla f(x_0) = \tfrac1{h_1}{\delta\mathbf{f}_+}- \tfrac{h_1}2{\rm diag} ({V_+}^TG{V_+})e + {\mathcal{O}}(h^2),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm diag}({V_+}^TG{V_+})$ is a diagonal matrix with $({\rm diag}({V_+}^TG{V_+}))_{jj} = v_j^TGv_j$. Let $$\label{eq:C}
C = - \tfrac{1}2({V_+}{V_+}^T)^{-1}{V_+}({\rm diag} V^TGV)e,$$ so that becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g1vsg2}
\nabla f(x_0) &=& g_1 + h_1 C + {\mathcal{O}}(h^2),\end{aligned}$$ where $g_1 = \tfrac1{h_1}({V_+}{V_+}^T)^{-1}{V_+}{\delta\mathbf{f}}$. By , $g_1$ is an ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ approximation to the gradient at the point $x_0$.
Now, fix the same $x_0$ and direction vectors $v_1,\dots,v_{n+1}$, and choose some $h_2 = {\mathcal{O}}(h)$. Then, constructing a simplex of diameter $h_2$ and following the same arguments as above, we arrive at the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g1vsg2g2}
\nabla f(x_0) = g_2 + C h_2 + {\mathcal{O}}(h^2),\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is defined in , and $g_2 = \tfrac1{h_2}({V_+}{V_+}^T)^{-1}{V_+}{\delta\mathbf{f}}$ is an ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ approximation to the gradient at the point $x_0$.
Finally, multiplying by $h_2$, multiplying by $h_1$ and subtracting the second expression from the first, results in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Oh2gradgeneral}
\nabla f(x_0) = g_{12} + {\mathcal{O}}(h^2),\qquad \text{where} \qquad g_{12} = \frac{h_2 g_1 - h_1g_2}{h_2-h_1},\end{aligned}$$ i.e., $g_{12}$ is an order $h^2$ accurate approximation to the true gradient at $x_0$.
Moreover, if $h_2$ is chosen to be a multiple of $h_1$ (i.e., $h_2 = \eta h_1$) then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Oh2grad}
g_{12} = \frac{\eta h_1 g_1 - h_1g_2}{\eta h_1-h_1} = \frac{\eta}{\eta-1}g_1 - \frac{1}{\eta-1}g_2 .\end{aligned}$$
To make the previous arguments concrete, an algorithmic description of the procedure to find an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ approximation to the gradient is given in Algorithm \[alg:h2from2h\]. Briefly, the algorithm proceeds as follows. In Steps 2–3, an ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ aligned regular simplex gradient is formed via equation (i.e., using the procedure developed previously in this work). To obtain an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ gradient approximation, a second (related) ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ aligned regular simplex gradient approximation is also needed, and this is computed in Steps 4–5 of Algorithm \[alg:h2from2h\]. Finally, in Step 6, a weighted sum of the two ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ gradients is formed, resulting in an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ regular simplex gradient approximation.
**Input:** Centroid $x_0$, problem dimension $n$, scalars $h_1 \sim {\mathcal{O}}(h)$ and $h_2 \sim {\mathcal{O}}(h)$. Input or compute: $f(x_j) \overset{\eqref{xjcheap}}{=} f(x_0+h_1\alpha(e_j - \gamma e))$ for $j = 1,\dots,n+1$. Compute $g_1$ via using $h_1$. Input or compute: $f(x_j) \overset{\eqref{xjcheap}}{=} f(x_0+h_2\alpha(e_j - \gamma e))$ for $j = 1,\dots,n+1$. Compute $g_2$ via using $h_2$. Compute $g_{12}$ via .
\[remarkOh2\] We make the following comments.
1. The ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ gradient approximation is simply a weighted sum of two ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ gradient approximations. The coefficients of $g_1$ and $g_2$ sum to 1.
2. In the context of Richardson’s extrapolation, the parameter $\eta$ in can be chosen to be either positive or negative, (but, to avoid division by zero, it cannot be set to 1). However, in the context of this work, $h_1$ and $h_2$ denote the radii of simplexes, so they must be positive (recall the relationship $h_2 = \eta h_1$). We stress that, computationally, there is no issue here when $\eta<0$, but we must interpret the scaling parameter $\eta$ carefully. Geometrically, if $\eta$ is a positive value, then the simplex generated using $h_2$ (see Steps 4–5 in Algorithm \[alg:h2from2h\]) is simply a scaled version of the original simplex defined using $h_1$ (both simplexes sharing the common centroid $x_0$). However, if $\eta$ is negative, we still use the (negative) value $h_2$ when performing the computations in Algorithm \[alg:h2from2h\], but geometrically we interpret the simplex radius to be $|h_2|$, *and the simplex has been rotated by* $180^{\circ}$ (again with both simplexes sharing the common centroid $x_0$). See the numerical example in Section \[SS\_exp2\] and Figure \[Fig\_Simplex\_numerics\].
3. In this section the derivation proceeds by assuming that the 2 simplex gradients $g_1$ and $g_2$ are both computed at the *same point* $x_0$, and thus $g_{12}$ is an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ accuracy approximation to $\nabla f(x_0)$ (and by results previously presented in this work, $g_1$, $g_2$ and $g_{12}$ all have a computational cost of ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$). However, the arguments in Section \[S\_Oh2\] can be generalized to an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ approximation to $\nabla f(x)$, for some other point $x$ say, so long as both $g_1$ and $g_2$ are ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ simplex gradients at the common point $x$. Of course, the computational cost of obtaining $g_1$ and $g_2$ may be higher than ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ for general $x$.
Numerical example {#S_Numerical}
=================
Here we present two numerical examples to make the ideas of the paper concrete, to highlight the simplicity and economy of our approach, and to demonstrate how an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ approximation to the gradient can be constructed from two ${\mathcal{O}}(h)$ aligned regular simplex gradients. All experiments are performed on Rosenbrock’s function, and MATLAB (version 2016a) is used for the calculations.
We temporarily depart from our usual notation and let $y \in {\mathbf{R}}^2$ with components $y = {\begin{bmatrix}y_1&y_2\end{bmatrix}}^T$ so that Rosenbrock’s function can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_rosenbrock}
f(y_1,y_2) = (1-y_1)^2+100(y_2-y_1^2)^2.\end{aligned}$$ The gradient of can be expressed analytically as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_rosenbrock_grad}
\nabla f(y_1,y_2) = {\begin{bmatrix}-2(1-y_1) -400y_1(y_2-y_1^2)\\200(y_2-y_1^2)\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$
Henceforth, we return to our usual notation.
Inconsistent simplex gradients {#SS_exp1}
------------------------------
The purpose of this example is to highlight a situation that is not uncommon in derivative free optimization algorithms — that of encountering an iterate where the true (analytic) gradient and the simplex gradient point in opposite directions — and how the construction in Section \[S\_Oh2\] can be used to determine an accurate gradient direction from which to make further progress. This situation can arise, for example, when the gradient of a function at the iterate $x^{(k)}$ is close to flat.
Indeed, this is one of the motivations for considering Rosenbrock’s function, which has a valley floor with a shallow incline. To highlight the situation previously described, we have selected a test point that is very close to the ‘floor’ of the valley of Rosenbrock’s function, where a good approximation to the gradient is required to make progress. (Ultimately, descent methods do track this valley floor, so it is not unexpected that we may encounter a point of this nature.) We stress that the loss of accuracy is due to the regular simplex gradient being a first order approximation (${\mathcal{O}}(h)$) to the analytic gradient, and is not because of the particular construction proposed in this work.
The example proceeds as follows. Suppose one wishes to compute a regular simplex gradient at the point $$\label{x0}
x_0 = {\begin{bmatrix}1.1\\1.1^2+10^{-5}\end{bmatrix}}.$$ Note that, from , the true gradient at the point $x_0$ is (to the accuracy displayed) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Grad_x0}
\nabla f(1.1,1.1^2+10^{-5}) = {\begin{bmatrix}0.195599999999971\\0.002000000000013\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ The aligned regular simplex is constructed using the approach presented in Section \[S\_Simplex\]. In particular, $n=2$ for Rosenbrock’s function so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Numerical_abg}
\alpha \overset{\eqref{alphabeta}}{=} \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \qquad \beta\overset{\eqref{alphabeta}}{=} \frac13 \qquad \gamma\overset{\eqref{gamma}}{=} \frac12\left(1+\frac1{\sqrt{3}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Then, recalling that $V = \alpha(I-\gamma ee^T)$ (see ) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NumericalVp}
{V_+}= {\begin{bmatrix}V&-Ve\end{bmatrix}} = {\begin{bmatrix}0.2588&-0.9659&0.7071\\-0.9659&0.2588&0.7071\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the connection between the arms of the simplex and vertices of the simplex is given in as $x_j = x_0 + hv_j$ for $j = 1,2,3$ and for some $h\in{\mathbf{R}}$. For this experiment we choose $h_1 = 10^{-3}$ so that the three vertices of the simplex are given as the columns of $$\label{E_X}
X_+ = {\begin{bmatrix}x_1&x_2&x_3\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}1.1003&1.0990&1.1007\\1.2090&1.2103&1.2107\end{bmatrix}}.$$ The aligned regular simplex gradient (at the point $x_0$) can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations using Theorem \[T\_Ongrad\] (which requires the function values $f_1,f_2,f_3$ computed at the points $x_1,x_2,x_3$ via ), and is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SimplexGradg1}
g_{1} = {\begin{bmatrix}-0.095750884326868\\-0.017496117072893\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the regular simplex gradient is very different from the true gradient . Not only are the magnitudes of the numbers different but the regular simplex gradient even has the opposite sign from the true gradient. This loss of accuracy is inevitable for any first order numerical method used to approximate a gradient close to a stationary point and the usual remedy is to switch to a second order method.
However, using the techniques presented in this paper it is cheap to compute an aligned regular simplex gradient. So, suppose another approximation to the true gradient is constructed, again at the point $x_0$ , but using a different simplex diameter $h_2$. That is, suppose we set $h_2 = \tfrac12 h_1$ ($h_1$ and $h_2$ are of the same order) so that ${V_+}$ remains unchanged, but the simplex vertices become: $$\label{E_Xp}
X_+' = {\begin{bmatrix}x_1'&x_2'&x_3'\end{bmatrix}} = {\begin{bmatrix}1.1001&1.0995&1.1004\\1.2095&1.2101&1.2104\end{bmatrix}}.$$ The function values $f_1',f_2',f_3'$ are computed at the points $x_1',x_2',x_3'$ and then the aligned regular simplex gradient (at the point $x_0$) can be computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations via Theorem \[T\_Ongrad\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exp1:g2}
g_2 = {\begin{bmatrix}\phantom{-}0.049842074409398\\-0.007735568480143\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $g_{2}$ is different from that given in ; again, the signs and numbers do not match. In practice we do not have access to the true gradient so we are left to compare $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$. Notice the sign of the first component $g_{1}$ is opposite from that of $g_{2}$ (so they point in different directions) and the numerical values of the components are also different.
In this situation it is beneficial to use the ideas from Section \[S\_Oh2\] to improve the accuracy of the simplex gradient at $x_0$. To this end, from one can compute the ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ approximation to the true gradient: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exp1:g12}
g_{12} = 2g_2 - g_1 = {\begin{bmatrix}0.195435033145664\\0.002024980112607\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, $g_{12}$ is a very good approximation to the true gradient; the sign of $g_{12}$ matches that of $\nabla f(x_0)$, and the magnitude of the components aligns very well too, agreeing to 3 significant figures. Note that, because $h_1 = 10^{-3}$, one only expects 3 significant figures of accuracy.
We have repeated the experiment above for fixed $x_0$ and ${V_+}$, but for varying values of $h_1$ (with the relation $h_2 = \tfrac12 h_1$ holding for each choice of $h_1$). The results are shown in Figure \[fig:changingh\]. The error is measured as the difference between the true gradient $\nabla f(x_0)$ stated in and ’$g$’, where $g$ is a notational placeholder for $g_1$ , $g_2$ or $g_{12}$ as appropriate. The purpose of this experiment is to show that, as $h_1$ shrinks, the error decreases linearly, as proven in Theorem \[errorx0\]. The upper bound on the error (again see Theorem \[errorx0\]) is $\tfrac12 L h \sqrt{n}$. We selected the value 2000 to approximate the Lipschitz constant, because $L \approx \|\nabla^2f(x_0) - \nabla^2f(x_1)\|_2/\|x_0 - x_1\|_2 = 1.0769\times 10^3 \leq 2000$, where $x_1$ was the simplex vertex computed for $h_1 = 10^{-3}$. Figure \[fig:changingh\] also shows that the gradient approximation $g_{12}$ — formed by applying a Richardson’s extrapolation strategy to $g_1$ and $g_2$ — is very accurate.
{width="12cm"} \[fig:changingh\]
High accuracy near the solution {#SS_exp2}
-------------------------------
In this example we show how the techniques in Section \[S\_Oh2\] can be used to hone in on a stationary point. Suppose one wishes to compute the regular simplex gradient at the point $$\label{x0h2}
x_0 = {\begin{bmatrix}0.9\\0.81\end{bmatrix}},$$ which is close to the solution $x^* = {\begin{bmatrix}1&1\end{bmatrix}}.$ Using , the analytic gradient at $x_0$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Grad_x0h2}
\nabla f(0.9,0.81) = {\begin{bmatrix}-0.2000000000000000\\0\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we construct the aligned regular simplex using the approach in Section \[S\_Simplex\]. Here, $n=2$, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the same as in , and ${V_+}$ is the same as in . We choose $h_1 = 10^{-6}$. The vertices of the simplex are computed as $x_j = x_0 + h_1v_j$ for $j = 1,2,3$ (see ), and are the columns of $$\label{E_X}
X_+ = {\begin{bmatrix}x_1&x_2&x_3\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}0.90000026&0.89999903&0.90000071\\
0.80999903&0.81000026&0.81000071\end{bmatrix}}.$$ The simplex gradient is computed in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations using Theorem \[T\_Ongrad\] and is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SimplexGradg1h2}
g_1 = {\begin{bmatrix}-0.200206828472801\\-0.000047729764447\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ The regular simplex gradient $g_1$ is a good approximation to the true gradient . The first component of has the same sign as the first component of , and they match to 3 significant figures. Also, the second component of is $\sim -5\times10^{-5}$, which while not exactly zero, is still small.
Now consider computing a second aligned regular simplex gradient, again at the point $x_0$, but now with $h_2 = -\tfrac12 h_1$, recall Remark \[remarkOh2\](2). (We choose a negative multiple for demonstration purposes only.) The vertices of the simplex are computed as $x_j = x_0 + h_2v_j$ for $j = 1,2,3$ (see ), and are the columns of $$\label{E_X}
X_+ = {\begin{bmatrix}x_1&x_2&x_3\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}0.89999987&0.90000048&0.89999965\\
0.81000048&0.80999987&0.80999965\end{bmatrix}}.$$ Using Theorem \[T\_Ongrad\], the regular simplex gradient is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SimplexGradg1h22}
g_2 = {\begin{bmatrix}-0.199896585549141\\\phantom{-}0.000023864840841\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ Again, $g_2$ is a good approximation to the true gradient. The first components of and are very similar, and the second component of is also small. Notice that $g_1$ and $g_2$ are also similar, although the sign of the second component of $g_1$ is opposite that of $g_2$. We can now use to combine $g_1$ and $g_2$ and obtain an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ approximation to the true gradient: $$\begin{aligned}
g_{12} = {\begin{bmatrix}-0.199999999857027\\
-0.000000000027588\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, $g_{12}$ is a very good approximation to $\nabla f(x_0)$. Notice that the approximation $g_{12}$ is now accurate to 10 decimal places.
These examples make it clear that obtaining a high accuracy aligned regular simplex gradient is cheap (once function evaluations have been computed). Each regular simplex gradient (i.e., $g_1$ and $g_2$) is obtained in ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ operations, and the ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ approximation $g_{12}$ is simply a weighted sum of $g_1$ and $g_2$, so it also costs ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$.
In the above examples the simplexes had the same centroid for each first order gradient calculation but this need not always be the case. Sometimes the new simplex is obtained by shrinking (or expanding) the current simplex keeping one of the vertices fixed and/or by rotating the current simplex about a vertex. In such cases the formula can still be applied and gives a second order estimate at the vertex common to the two simplexes used in the two first order estimates. The so-called ‘centered difference simplex gradient’ [@Kelley1999 p.115] is one such example. If the centroid of the simplex is not used it may also be convenient to replace the ‘arm-length’ $h$ by the edge length $s$. These are simply related through the cosine rule ($s=\sqrt{2}\alpha h=h\sqrt{2+2/n}$). We conclude this section with a schematic of the simplexes generated in each of these numerical experiments. The left plot in Figure \[Fig\_Simplex\_numerics\] relates to the experiment in Section \[SS\_exp1\], while the right plot relates to the experiment in Section \[SS\_exp2\]. In the left plot in Figure \[Fig\_Simplex\_numerics\], points $x_1,x_2,x_3$ (see ) represent vertices of the simplex with $h_1=10^{-3}$. Points $x_1',x_2',x_3'$ (see ) represent vertices of the simplex with $h_2=\frac12 h_1 =5\times 10^{-4}$. This choice of $h_2$ simply shrinks the regular simplex while maintaining the orientation of the original simplex. On the other hand, the right plot in Figure \[Fig\_Simplex\_numerics\] corresponds to the experiment in Section \[SS\_exp2\]. In particular, points $x_1,x_2,x_3$ represent vertices of the simplex with $h_1=10^{-6}$. However points $x_1',x_2',x_3'$ represent vertices of the simplex with $h_2=-\frac12 h_1$. This choice of $h_2$ shrinks and also rotates the regular simplex (Because this is an aligned regular simplex, this is equivalent to rotating the simplex about $x_0$ by $180^{\circ}$).
\[scale=2.5\] (1.1,1.21) –(1.3588,0.2441); (1.1,1.21) –(0.1341,1.4688); (1.1,1.21) –(1.8071,1.9171); (1.1,1.21) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (1.3588,0.2441) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (0.1341,1.4688) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (1.8071,1.9171) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (1.2294,0.7270) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (0.6170,1.3394) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (1.4536,1.5636) circle \[radius=0.02\]; at (1.05,1.33) [$x_0$]{}; at (1.45,0.15) [$x_1$]{}; at (0,1.55) [$x_2$]{}; at (1.9,2) [$x_3$]{}; at (1.35,0.7) [$x_1'$]{}; at (0.6,1.2) [$x_2'$]{}; at (1.55,1.45) [$x_3'$]{};
\[scale=2.5\] (1.1,1.21) –(1.3588,0.2441); (1.1,1.21) –(0.1341,1.4688); (1.1,1.21) –(1.8071,1.9171); (1.1,1.21) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (1.3588,0.2441) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (0.1341,1.4688) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (1.8071,1.9171) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (1.1,1.21) –(0.9706,1.6930); (1.1,1.21) –(1.5829,1.0806); (1.1,1.21) –(0.7464,0.8565); (0.9706,1.6930) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (1.5829,1.0806) circle \[radius=0.02\]; (0.7464,0.8565) circle \[radius=0.02\]; at (0.95,1.33) [$x_0$]{}; at (1.45,0.15) [$x_1$]{}; at (0,1.55) [$x_2$]{}; at (1.9,2) [$x_3$]{}; at (1.05,1.75) [$x_1'$]{}; at (1.73,1.10) [$x_2'$]{}; at (0.6,0.8) [$x_3'$]{};
Conclusion {#S_Conclusion}
==========
In this work it was shown that a simplex gradient can be obtained efficiently, in terms of the linear algebra and memory costs, when the simplex is regular and appropriately aligned. A simplex gradient is the least-squares solution of a system of linear equations, which can have a computational cost of ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ for a general and unstructured system. However, due to the properties of the aligned regular simplex, the linear algebra of the least squares system simplifies, and the aligned regular simplex gradient is simply a weighted sum of the function values (measured at the vertices of the simplex) and a constant vector. Therefore, the computational cost of obtaining an aligned regular simplex gradient is only ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$. Furthermore, the storage costs are low. Indeed, ${V_+}$ need not be stored at all; the vertices of the aligned regular simplex can be constructed on-the-fly using only the centroid $x_0$ and radius $h$. Moreover, we have shown that, if the regular simplex is arbitrarily oriented, then the regular simplex gradient can be computed in at most ${\mathcal{O}}(n^2)$.
Several extensions of this work were presented, including the easy generation of a simplex with integer coordinates when $n+1$ is a perfect square. We also showed that Richardson’s extrapolation can be employed to obtain an ${\mathcal{O}}(h^2)$ accuracy approximation to the true gradient from two regular simplex gradients.
Future Work
-----------
The main contribution of this work was to show that a regular simplex gradient can be determined efficiently in terms of the numerical linear algebra and storage costs. Simplex gradients are useful in a wide range of contexts and applications, including using the simplex gradient to determine a search direction, employing the simplex gradient in an algorithm termination condition, and determining when to shrink the mesh size in a grid based method. Future work includes embedding this inexpensive regular simplex gradient computation into an optimization routine to investigate how the regular simplex gradient calculation affects overall algorithm performance.
The authors thank Luis Vicente, and the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions, leading to improvements in an earlier version of this work.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
INTRODUCTION
============
For the past several years we have been studying the kinematics of gas in damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} systems. We have focused on the [*neutral*]{} gas (Prochaska & Wolfe 1997; 1998: hereafter PW1, PW2) because of evidence suggesting this to be the source of baryons for stars in current galaxies (Wolfe 1995, 1997; Kauffmann 1996). We used the HIRES Echelle spectrograph [@vog94] on the Keck I 10 m telescope to obtain accurate velocity profiles of low ions such as Fe II, Si II, Ni II, and Al II as they trace the kinematics of the neutral gas. The evidence for this is the large Al II/Al III ratios detected in most damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} systems, which indicate the singly ionized species to be associated with neutral rather than ionized gas, provided the ionizing radiation is supplied by external sources [@pro96].
The low-ion velocity profiles that we have measured comprise multiple narrow components that are not randomly distributed in velocity space. Rather the strongest component tends to occur at the profile edge. In PW1 and PW2 we used these properties to test various models for damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} systems. We adopted Monte Carlo techniques by sending random sightlines through gaseous configurations specified by the cosmological model, the geometry and physics of the configuration, etc. We then computed distributions of test statistics such as the profile line widths and compared them with the empirical distributions. We first tested a simple model in which dark-matter halos halos enclose [*identical*]{} randomly oriented exponential disks with rotation speeds $V_{rot}$ $\approx$ 250 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{} and exponential scale-height $h$ $\approx$ 0.3$R_{d}$, where $R_{d}$ is the radial scale-length (PW1). We found this model to satisfy all the statistical tests. Its principal disadvantage, however, is it is not set in a cosmological context. We then tested semi-analytic versions of standard adiabatic CDM cosmologies (SCDM) in which the neutral gas is confined to centrifugally supported disks in dark matter halos drawn from a computed mass function. The predominance of objects with low-mass and low $V_{rot}$, results in line widths that are too low to match the observed distribution which extends to 300 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}. In particular, the SCDM models considered by [@kau96] were found to be incompatible with the kinematic data. Furthermore, [@jedpro98] showed that no CDM cosmology is consistent with models assuming the damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} systems to be single centrifugally supported disks within dark-matter halos. On the other hand [@haeh98] numerically simulated SCDM models with gas and dark matter, and found that at $z$ $\sim$ 2 the damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} gas was distributed in low-mass protogalactic clumps rather than centrifugally supported disks. The combination of infall and chaotic motions apparently reproduce the kinematic data.
This paper focuses on the kinematics of the [*ionized*]{} gas. Our aim is to place further constraints on galaxy formation models by studying gas located outside the neutral zones giving rise to damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} lines. Ionized gas is a generic feature of such models because initially the baryons are heated and ionized as they virialize in the potential wells of dark-matter protogalactic halos. However, the indicated velocity field is not unique, with some models predicting radial collapse to neutral disks (Mo & Miralda-Escud[[$\rm \acute e$]{}]{} 1996) , while others envision chaotic motions of ionized and neutral blobs (Haehnelt [[et al. ]{}]{} 1997). As a result, determining the velocity structure of the ionized gas should help to clarify crucial events in the galaxy formation process (see accompanying paper by Wolfe & Prochaska 2000; hereafter paper II).
In order to trace the velocity structure of the ionized gas we used HIRES to obtain accurate velocity profiles of the C IV, Si IV, and Al III ions; these are shown in $\S$ 2. Throughout this paper we assume the C IV ion to represent the highly ionized gas, since we have a larger number of accurate C IV than Si IV velocity profiles. In $\S$ 3 we construct frequency distributions of the profile line width, [[$\Delta v$]{}]{}, for each ion. We compare these with each other and with the [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} distribution for low ions such as Fe II or Si II which presumably trace the kinematics of the neutral gas. To further intercompare the low ion and high ion gas we examine correlations between the kinematics of low ions and high ions. To that end we consider the difference between the means of low ion and C IV profiles. We also consider the ratios of the [[$\Delta v$]{}]{}’s for various ion pairs. We then cross-correlate the velocity profiles of various ionic pairs. In $\S$ 4 we present model-independent conclusions following from our results.
[llccccc]{} &&&\
QSO & $z_{abs}$ & C IV & Si IV & Al III & Low &Ref.\
Q0100$+$1304 & 2.309 & 1548& 1393 & 1854 & Ni II 1741 &WQ0149$+$33 & 2.14075 & 1548& 1393 & 1854 & Fe II 1608&W Q0201$+$3634 & 2.4628 & 1550 & 1393 & 1862 & Si II 1808 &WQ0216+0803 & 2.2930 & 1550& — & 1862 & Si II 1808&S Q0347$-$3800 & 3.0247 & 1548& 1393 & — & Fe II 1608&W Q0458$-$020 &2.03955 &— &— & 1854 & Cr II 2056 &WQ0528$-$2505A & 2.14104 & 1550& — & — & Si II 1808 &SQ0841$-$0203A & 2.374518 & 1548& — & 1854 & Ni II 1741 &WQ0841$-$0203B & 2.476219 & 1548& 1393 & 1854 & Fe II 1608 &WQ0930$+$28 & 3.23525 & 1548 & 1393 & — & Fe II 1608&SQ0951$-$04A & 3.85669 & — & 1393 & — & Si II 1526&WQ1055+46 & 3.3172 & 1548 & —- & — & Fe II 1608 & S\
Q1104$-$18 & 1.661375 & 1550& — & 1854 & Si II 1808&S Q1108-07 & 3.607619 & 1548 & 1402 & — & Fe II 1608 & W\
Q1202$-$0725 & 4.38285 & 1548& 1393 & — & Si II 1304 &SQ1215+3322 & 1.9991 & 1548 & 1393 & 1854 & Si II 1808 &WQ1223$+$17&2.466083 & 1550& 1402 & 1862 &Si II 1808 &SQ1331+1704 & 1.77636 & 1550& — & 1854 & Si II 1808 &WQ1425+6039 & 2.8268 & 1550& 1402 & — & Fe II 1608 &SQ1759$+$7500 & 2.6253 & 1550& — & 1854 & Si II 1808&W Q1850$+$40 & 1.99016 & —& — & 1862 & Zn II 2026&S Q1946+7658A & 1.7382 & 1548& — & 1854 & Si II 1808 & SQ1946+7658B & 2.8443 & 1550& 1402 & — & Si II 1304 & SQ2206$-$1958A & 1.920 & 1548& — & 1854 & Ni II 1741 &WQ2206$-$1958B & 2.07623 & 1550& 1402 & — & Al II 1670 &WQ2212$-$1626 & 3.6617 & 1548& 1402 & — & Si II 1304&S Q2230$+$02 & 1.858536 & 1550& 1402 & 1862 & Si II 1808&W Q2231$-$0015 & 2.06615 & 1548& 1393 & 1854 & Si II 1808 &W$+$SQ2233$+$13 & 3.14927 & 1548 & 1402 & — & Fe II 1608&S Q2237$-$0608 & 4.0803 & 1548& 1393 & — & Al II 1670&S Q2343$+$12 & 2.42969 & 1550& 1393 & 1854 & Si II 1808&S Q2344$+$12 & 2.537789 & 1548& 1402 & — & Al II 1670&S Q2348$-$1400 & 2.2794 & 1548& 1393 & 1862 & Fe II 1608&W Q2359$-$0203A &2.095067 & 1550& — & 1854 & Si II 1808 &WQ2359$-$0203B & 2.153934 & 1550& — & 1862 & Si II 1526 &W
DATA: OBSERVED VELOCITY PROFILES
================================
Table 1 lists the sample of damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} systems for which we have obtained velocity profiles. The spectra were acquired with HIRES at a resolution with FWHM $\approx$ 6$-$8 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{} and were reduced according to procedures outlined in PW1 and PW2. The coordinate name of the background QSO is in column 1. Column 2 specifies the absorption redshift of the damped system. The entries in columns 3$-$5 contain the specific C IV, Si IV, and Al III transitions used in our analysis. Entries with horizontal lines indicate that statistically significant profiles were not observed. Column 6 lists the low ion transitions used in our analysis and Column 7 gives the data references. Here and throughout the paper, the term low ion refers to ions such as Fe II and Si II, the dominant ionization states in neutral gas with large optical depths at the Lyman limit , i.e., ${\tau_{LL}}$ $>$ 10$^{4}$. The ionization potential (IP) of such ions is greater than 1 Ryd, i.e. 13.6 eV, while the IP of the next lower state (typically the neutral atom except for O) is less than 1 Ryd. The term high ion refers to ions where the next lower state has IP $\gg$ 1 Ryd, for example Si IV and C IV. Photoionization studies show these ions to be in gas which is optically thin at the Lyman limit or in gas with moderate Lyman-limit optical depths (${\tau_{LL}}$ $<$ 10$^{2}$). Finally, we introduce the term intermediate ions to describe those ions where the next lower ionization state has IP $\gtrsim$ 1 Ryd (e.g.Al III). The same photoionization studies show that at column densities required for detection (i.e. above 10$^{14}$cm$^{-2}$) these ions arise in gas which is optically thick at the Lyman limit. As a result, association of high ions with intermediate ions indicates the gas is optically thick at the Lyman limit.
{height="8.0in" width="6.3in"}
The velocity profiles are shown in Figures \[CIVvsLow\]$-$ \[CIVvsAl3vsLow\] which plot flux versus velocity, where the flux, $I(v)$, is normalized to unit continuum. In Figures \[CIVvsLow\]$-$ \[Al3vsLow\] we compare C IV, Si IV, and Al III with the corresponding low ion profiles. The dark curves depict the high and intermediate ions and the grey curves depict the low ions. Figure \[CIVvsSiIV\] compares the C IV (dark curves) and Si IV (grey curves) profiles, and Figure \[CIVvsAl3vsLow\] compares C IV (dark curves), Al III (light curves), and the low ions (grey curves). In all cases, $v$ = 0 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{} corresponds to the redshifts in Table 1. The low ion transitions were selected on the basis of criteria outlined in PW1 and PW2; i.e., for high signal-to-noise ratios and absence of saturation. The high ion transitions were selected according to the same criteria, where possible. In some cases the only transitions available exhibit saturation over sizable velocity intervals. The C IV profiles toward Q0216$+$08B, Q1331$+$17, Q2206$-$19A, Q2348$-$14, and Q2359$-$02A contain significant regions in velocity space with strong saturation. The same is true for the Si IV profile toward Q2348$-$14. As emphasized in PW1, some of the statistical tests used to compare the data with model predictions are sensitive to saturation; in particular determination of test statistics measuring the profile asymmetries can be inaccurate in the presence of saturation. However, the results of statistical tests described below did not change qualitatively when the saturated C IV profiles were excluded from the sample. As a result the saturated profiles shall be included in all subsequent analysis.
{height="5.8in" width="6.2in"}
{height="5.8in" width="6.2in"}
{height="5.8in" width="6.2in"}
{height="5.8in" width="6.2in"}
The velocity profiles leave the following impressions:
$\bullet$ In common with the low ion profiles, the intermediate and high ion profiles exhibit a multi-component structure comprising several narrow components spanning a wide range of velocity intervals.
$\bullet$ The C IV and low ion profiles in Figure \[CIVvsLow\] are kinematically disjoined. In many cases strong C IV absorption components are at velocities where low ion absorption is weak or absent. In other cases C IV absorption is weak or absent at velocities where low ion absorption is strong. In many cases the velocity centroids of the C IV and low ion profiles appear to be significantly different.
$\bullet$ Despite their differences, the C IV and low ion velocity profiles overlap in velocity space in such a way that the low ion profiles generally lie within the high ion profiles.
$\bullet$ The low ion profiles also appear to be kinematically disjoined from the Si IV profiles (see Figure \[SiIVvsLow\]).
$\bullet$ The Al III and low ion profiles appear to be strongly correlated (Figure \[Al3vsLow\]).
$\bullet$ The C IV and Si IV profiles appear to be strongly correlated (Figure \[CIVvsSiIV\]).
$\bullet$ In many cases C IV absorption occurs in regions of velocity space that are free of Al III and low ion absorption (Figure \[CIVvsAl3vsLow\]).
$\bullet$ In most cases the velocity widths of C IV and Si IV velocity profiles exceed the velocity widths of the Al III and low ion profiles.
$\bullet$ Although the low ion and high ion velocity profiles exhibit “edge-leading” asymmetries in which the strongest velocity components are at the profile edges, the high ions tend to exhibit peaks at both edges more often than the low ions.
In the sections that follow, we introduce several tests to quantify these phenomena.
TEST STATISTICS
===============
Distributions for single ions
-----------------------------
To describe the kinematics of the gas in a quantitative manner, we consider test statistics that characterize the extent and shape of the velocity profiles. We discuss distributions of such statistics drawn from the profiles corresponding to given ions and then compare them. These empirical distributions are used to test theoretical models in paper II.
In PW1 we characterized the extent and asymmetry of the velocity profiles with four test statistics. Briefly stated they are:
\(1) [[$\Delta v$]{}]{}, the velocity interval enclosing the central 90$\%$ of the integrated optical depth, $\int {\tau(v)}dv$, where $\tau(v)$ $\equiv$ ln\[1/$I(v)$\].
\(2) $f_{mm}$, the “mean-median statistic” given by $|v_{median}-v_{mean}|$/([[$\Delta v$]{}]{}/2), where $v_{median}$ and $v_{mean}$ are the median and mean velocities of the profiles.
\(3) $f_{edg}$, the “edge statistic” given by $|v_{peak}-v_{mean}|$/([[$\Delta v$]{}]{}/2), where $v_{peak}$ is the velocity of the absorption component with peak optical depth.
\(4) $f_{tpk}$, the “two-peak statistic” given by\
$\pm$$|v_{tpk}-v_{mean}|$/([[$\Delta v$]{}]{}/2), where $v_{tpk}$ is the velocity of the component with second strongest peak optical-depth: $f_{tpk}$ is negative if $v_{peak}$ $<$ $v_{tpk}$ $<$ [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} and positive if 0 $<$ $v_{tpk}$ $<$ $v_{pk}$. If necessary the optical depth profiles have been reflected in velocity space in such a way that $v_{peak}$ is always located at $v$ $\le$ $v_{mean}$.
Distributions for each test statistic are illustrated in Figure \[origstat\] for the low ion, Al III, Si IV, and C IV transitions. In PW1 and PW2 we focused on the low ion distributions. We used them to argue in favor of models in which the low ions were confined to rapidly rotating disks (rotation speeds $\approx$ 250 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}) and to rule out several other models. We return to this topic in paper II. Here we check the null hypothesis that low ion and high ion kinematics stem from the same process. We do this by computing ${P_{\rm KS}}$, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov probability that each high ion or intermediate-ion test statistic is drawn from the same parent population as the corresponding low ion statistic. Figure \[origstat\] shows that the null hypothesis cannot be dismissed, with two exceptions. First, the null hypothesis is highly unlikely when comparing low ion versus C IV distributions of [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} since $P_{\rm KS}$([[$\Delta v$]{}]{})= 0.002, and when comparing low ion versus Si IV distribution of [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} since $P_{\rm KS}$([[$\Delta v$]{}]{}) = 0.021: the high ions do not exhibit as much power at low [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} as the low ions, and more power than the low ions at [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} $>$ 200 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}. Indeed, the low probabilities suggest the low ions and high ions are in two distinct kinematic subsystems. Secondly, the null hypothesis is unlikely in the case of low ion versus C IV distributions of $f_{tpk}$ because $P_{\rm KS}$($f_{tpk}$) = 0.035; i.e., the C IV profiles display more double peaked profiles than the low ions. On the other hand $P_{\rm KS}$($f_{tpk}$) = 0.23 in the case of low ion versus Si IV profiles. Since compatibility of the Si IV and low ion distributions of $f_{tpk}$ cannot not be ruled out, this is the only case in which the C IV and Si IV kinematics differ. We suspect that statistics of small numbers may be affecting the Si IV distribution, a possibility we will test when larger samples become available.
{height="5.8in" width="6.2in"}
Correlations Between Macroscopic Kinematic Properties of Ion Pairs {#sec_corr}
------------------------------------------------------------------
We now turn to correlations between kinematic properties of gas in different ionization states. First we consider distributions of the following new test statistic:
\(5) $\delta v$ = $v_{mean}$(ion $a$) $-$ $v_{mean}$(ion $b$), i.e., the difference between the means of the velocity profiles of ion $a$ and ion $b$.
Figure \[figocorr\]a shows the distribution of [[$\delta v$]{}]{} when $a$ and $b$ are (i) low ion and C IV, (ii) C IV and Al III, (iii) C IV and Si IV, and (iv) low ion and Al III. Not surprisingly, the distribution widths are narrower f or C IV versus Si IV and low ion versus Al III than for low ion versus C IV. This just indicates that the high ion subsystem includes the high ions C IV and Si IV, but not the intermediate Al III ions which are mainly associated with the low ion subsystem. The standard deviations for the 3 distributions are given in Table 2. Although the dispersion of the low ion versus C IV distribution is relatively high, $\sigma_{\delta}$ = 67 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}, it is sufficiently low to place crucial restrictions on most models (see paper II).
{height="5.8in" width="6.2in"}
-------------------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------------
Dispersion C IV versus Low C IV versus Si IV Al III versus Low
$\sigma_{\delta v}$ ([[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}) 67.0$\pm$8.2 23.2$\pm$3.4 30.0$\pm$4.2 cr
-------------------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------------
[lcccc]{} &\
ION & C IV & Si IV & Al III & Low\
C IV & ...& 0.80$\pm$0.16 &0.57$\pm$0.16 & 0.33$\pm$0.16 Si IV & ... & ... & 0.76$\pm$0.22& 0.52$\pm$0.15 Al III & ... & ...& .... & 0.73$\pm$0.16
Next we consider correlations between the [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} of various ion pairs. In Figure \[delvpairs\]a we plot [[$\Delta v_{\rm C IV}$]{}]{}, the [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} inferred from the C IV profiles versus [[$\Delta v_{\rm low}$]{}]{}, the [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} inferred from the low ion profiles. In Figures \[delvpairs\]b and \[delvpairs\]c we do the same for [[$\Delta v_{\rm C IV}$]{}]{} versus [[$\Delta v_{\rm Si IV}$]{}]{}, the velocity width of Si IV, and [[$\Delta v_{\rm Al III}$]{}]{}, the velocity width of Al III versus [[$\Delta v_{\rm low}$]{}]{}. The figure shows [[$\Delta v_{\rm C IV}$]{}]{} to be correlated with [[$\Delta v_{\rm Si IV}$]{}]{} and [[$\Delta v_{\rm Al III}$]{}]{} with [[$\Delta v_{\rm low}$]{}]{}. This is demonstrated in Table 3 showing the Kendall $\tau$ correlation coefficients. The only cases with statistically significant [$\tau$]{} (i.e., at the 5$\sigma$ level) are for the C IV versus Si IV correlation and the Al III versus low ion correlation. We conclude that statistically significant correlations exist between [[$\Delta v_{\rm C IV}$]{}]{} and [[$\Delta v_{\rm Si IV}$]{}]{}, and between [[$\Delta v_{\rm Al III}$]{}]{} and [[$\Delta v_{\rm low}$]{}]{}. Evidence for such correlations within the remaining ion pairs is marginal. On the other hand Figure \[delvpairs\]a shows that for all but 3 objects, [[$\Delta v_{\rm C IV}$]{}]{} $\ge$ [[$\Delta v_{\rm low}$]{}]{}, and even the three exceptions nearly satisfy this relation. In other words the low ion velocity width acts as a “floor” to the high ion velocity widths. While not a correlation, this is an important systematic effect indicating that the high ion and low ion systems are interrelated in a way that must be accounted for by models of the ionized gas.
{height="5.8in" width="6.2in"}
The relationship between the velocity widths is quantitatively described by the test statistic:
\(6) $f_{ratio} \ \equiv$ ${\Delta v}_{a}$/${\Delta v}_{b}$, the ratio of the velocity widths of ion $a$ to those of ion $b$.
The corresponding distributions are shown in Figure \[figocorr\]b. Notice how the $f_{ratio}$ for low versus C IV and C IV versus Al III are uniformly distributed at 0.7 $\le$ $f_{Ratio}$ $\le$ 3, while the C IV versus Si IV and low versus Al III distributions exhibit significant peaks at $f_{ratio}$ = 1. This is further evidence for an association between Al III and low ions, and between C IV and Si IV.
We searched for evidence that other test statistics were correlated between the different ion pairs. None was found, with the possible exception of correlations between the Al III and low ion $f_{edg}$ which exhibit Kendall $\tau$ coefficients at the 3.0$\sigma$ level. Correlations between between the C IV and Si IV $f_{tpk}$ were found at the 2.5$\sigma$ level. We also checked for correlations between pairs of test statistics corresponding to a given ion. [@ledx98] reported evidence for a low ion correlation between $f_{edg}$ and [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} out to [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} = 150 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}, but found no such correlation at [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} $>$ 150 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}. They claimed the “break” at 150 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{} argued against the presence of damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} systems comprised of disks with rotation speeds greater than 150 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}. It is difficult to assess the validity of their claim since no quantitative estimate was given for the significance of the correlation. With our larger data set (39 versus their 26 systems) we find evidence for such a correlation at the 3.6$\sigma$ level, but no convincing evidence for a “break” at [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} $\approx$ 150 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}. In fact when systems with [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} $>$ 150 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{} were eliminated, the significance level of the correlation [*decreased*]{} to 2.8$\sigma$. This argues against the presence of such a “break” and is consistent with a correlation extending to [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} $\approx$ 250 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}. As a result disks with rotation speeds exceeding 150 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{} cannot be ruled out. In any case, the correlation between $f_{edg}$ and [[$\Delta v$]{}]{} is tentative (see Figure \[fedgdv\]), and needs to be tested with larger data sets.
Cross Correlation Functions {#sec_cross}
---------------------------
We next investigate whether the detailed component structures exhibited by the velocity profiles of various ions are correlated. In Figure \[figocorr\]c we plot $\xi_{ab}(v)$, the cross-correlation functions between ions $a$ and $b$ versus lag velocity $v$, and the 1$\sigma$ errors, $\sigma_{\xi_{ab}}(v)$. The $\xi_{ab}(v)$ are given by
$${\xi_{ab}(v)} = {1 \over N} \sum_{k=1}^{N}{1 \over {\sqrt{\xi_{aa}^{k}(0)\xi_{bb}^{k}(0)}}} \ {
\sum_{i=1}^{n_{k}}}{{[\tau_{ak}(u_{i})]
[\tau_{bk}(u_{i}-v)]}} {\;\;\; ,}\label{crosscor}$$
where the first sum is over $N$ profiles, and the second is over $n_{k}$ velocity channels, $u_{i}$, spanning the $k^{th}$ absorption profile. The quantity $\tau_{ak}(v)$ is the optical-depth profile of ion $a$ for the $k^{th}$ profile. The quantity, $\xi_{aa}^{k}(0)$, is the autocorrelation function for ion $a$ in the $k^{th}$ profile at $v$ = 0, and is defined as
$${\xi_{aa}^{k}(0)} = {\sum_{i=1}^{n_{k}}}{{[\tau_{ak}(u_{i})]^{2}
}} {\;\;\; .}$$
As a result the cross-correlation functions are normalized so that perfectly correlated ions yield $\xi_{ab}(v)$ = 1 at zero lag velocity. The errors are dominated by cosmic variance and are computed by a “bootstrap” method [@ds86].
Comparison between the cross-correlation functions and the errors demonstrates that in some cases the measured $\xi_{ab}(v)$ are statistically significant out to $v$ $\sim$ 150 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}. The strongest correlations shown are between the low ion and Al III profiles and between the C IV and Si IV profiles. This confirms the rather accurate one-to-one alignment between the velocity components comprising these ion pairs (see Figures \[Al3vsLow\] and \[CIVvsSiIV\]). The 20 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{} half-width of $\xi_{ab}$ for Al III versus low roughly equals the half widths of the wider components in Figure \[Al3vsLow\], which supports the idea of common velocity components for Al III and low ions. The 30 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{} half width of $\xi_{ab}$ for C IV versus Si IV argues for common component structures for these two ions.
By contrast the $\xi_{ab}(v)$ for the C IV versus low ions or C IV versus Al III exhibit significantly lower, but still statistically significant, values at $v$ = 0 (the differences exceed 6$\sigma$). The lower $\xi_{ab}(0)$ stems from misalignment between the low ion (or Al III) velocity components with the C IV components in many of the profiles. In this case the correlation amplitude arises from overlap in velocity space between the ion pairs rather than one-to-one alignment between individual components. This interpretation is supported by the $\sim$ 80 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{} half widths of $\xi_{ab}$ for the C IV versus Al III or C IV versus low profiles. These half-widths more closely resemble the coherence scales of contiguous multiple components in the C IV profiles than the half widths of individual components (see Figure \[CIVvsLow\]).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
==============================
Using high-resolution absorption spectra obtained with HIRES, the Echelle spectrograph on the Keck I telescope [@vog94], we have probed the kinematics of ionized gas in a sample of 35 high-redshift damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} protogalaxies. Specifically, we obtained velocity profiles of the high ions C IV and Si IV and the intermediate ion Al III. We studied the kinematic state of the gas by constructing empirical test statistics which characterize (a) the widths and symmetry properties of high ion, intermediate-ion, and previously obtained low ion velocity profiles, and (b) correlations between the kinematic properties of various ionic pairs.
What have we learned that is new? We answer this question by discussing model-independent conclusions inferred from the data:
\(1) The damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} absorbers comprise distinct kinematic subsystems: a low ion subsystem in which low ions such as Al II are physically associated with intermediate ions such as Al III , and a high ion subsystem consisting of ions such as C IV and Si IV. This is indicated by the similarity between the C IV and Si IV velocity profiles and between the low ion and Al III velocity profiles, and by the misalignment of the velocity components comprising the C IV and low ion profiles.
\(2) The low ion and high ion kinematic subsystems are related despite misalignment of their velocity components. This follows from the detection of a statistically significant C IV versus low ion cross-correlation function which exhibits lower amplitude and a wider half-width than either the low ion versus Al III, or C IV versus Si IV cross correlation functions. Whereas the high cross-correlation amplitudes of the latter two ionic pairs arise from the coincidence between corresponding velocity components, the lower amplitude of the C IV versus low ion cross-correlation function is due to a general overlap in velocity space between the line profiles. In any case the relation between low ion and high ion subsystems is further indicated by a systematic effect in which [[$\Delta v_{\rm C IV}$]{}]{} $\ge$ [[$\Delta v_{\rm low}$]{}]{} in 29 out of 32 profiles.
\(3) The difference between the mean velocities of the C IV and Si IV velocity profiles or between the low ion and Al III profiles exhibits distributions with dispersions equaling 23 and 30 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{} respectively. By contrast the low ion versus C IV distribution has a significantly wider dispersion of 67 [[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}]{}. This is more evidence for distinct kinematic subsystems.
\(4) The absence of intermediate ions and low ions from the high ion subsystem indicates the latter is optically thin at the Lyman limit. The lack of mixed ionization states distinguishes the high ion gas in damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} protogalaxies from high ion gas in the ISM [@sav93], high-redshift Lyman-limit systems [@pro99b; @pro00], and $z$ $\sim$ 0.7 Mg II selected absorbers [@church99] where the velocity profiles of the low ions and intermediate-ions resemble those of the high ions.
These results have rather general implications. First, kinematic subsystems placed in the same potential well generate velocity profiles that tend to overlap in velocity space. In cases where the velocity field of the neutral gas is constrained to fewer degrees of freedom than the ionized gas the resulting profiles will be characterized by [[$\Delta v_{\rm C IV}$]{}]{} $\ge$ [[$\Delta v_{\rm low}$]{}]{}. Therefore, we shall test the hypothesis that both kinematic subsystems are subjected to gravitational forces arising from the same mass distribution in paper II. Second, the absence of ionized gas optically thick at the Lyman limit implies a distinction between the damped [[Ly$\alpha$ ]{}]{} systems on the one hand and the Lyman limit systems and Mg II absorbers on the other. This is potentially significant because most models assume that both classes of absorber arise in the same physical object. Finally, in paper II we use the empirical distributions of test statistics as well as the empirical C IV versus low cross-correlation function to constrain semi-analytic models of galaxy formation. Specifically we focus on models in which ionized gas in virialized dark-matter halos falls onto centrifugally supported neutral hydrogen disks.
We wish to thank Eric Gawiser and David Tytler for valuable discussions. We also thank Wal Sargent for generously giving us data prior to publication. AMW was partially supported by NSF grant AST0071257 and JXP acknowleges support from a Carnegie postdoctoral fellowship.
Churchill, C. C., Mellon, R. R., Charlton, J. C., Jannuzi, B. T., Kirhakos, S., Steidel, C. C., & Schneider, D. P. 1999, , 519, 43L
Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. J. 1993, An Introduction to the Bootstrap, (New York: Chapman & Hall)
Frodesen, A. G., Skjeggestad, O., & Tofte, H. 1979, Probability and Statistics in Particle Physics, (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget), p. 109.
Haehnelt, M. G., Steinmetz, M., & Rauch, M. 1998 , 495 647
Jedamzik, K., & Prochaska, J. X. 1998 , 296 430
Kennicutt, R. C. 1998, 498, 541
Kauffmann, G. 1996, , 281, 475
Ledoux, C., Petitjean, P., Bergeron, J., Wampler, E. J., & Srianand, R. 1998, , 337, 51
Lu, L., Sargent, W. L. W., Barlow, T. A., Churchill, C. C, & Vogt, S. S. 1996, , 107, 475
Mo, H.J., & Miralda-Escud$\rm \acute e$, J. 1996, , 469, 589
Mo, H.J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1999, , 304, 175
Mo, H.J., & Miralda-Escud$\rm \acute e$, J. 1996, , 469, 589 (MM)
Peebles, P.J.E. 1989, in [*The Epoch of Galaxy Formation*]{}, eds. C. S. Frenk, R. S. Ellis, T. Shanks, A. F. Heavans, & J. A. Peacock, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 1
Peebles, P.J.E. 1999a, , 510, 523
Peebles, P.J.E. 1999b, , 510, 531
Prochaska, J.X. 1999, , 511, L71
Prochaska, J. X. and Wolfe, A. M. 1996, , 470, 403
Prochaska, J. X. and Wolfe, A. M. 1997, , 487, 73 (PW1)
Prochaska, J. X. and Wolfe, A. M. 1998, , 507, 113 (PW2)
Prochaska, J. X. and Wolfe, A. M. 1999, , 121, 369
Prochaska, J. X. and Wolfe, A. M. 2000, in preparation
Savage, B.D., Lu, L., Weymann, R. J., Morris, S. L., & Gilliland, R. L. 1993, , 404, 124 4232
Steidel, C.C. 1993, [*The Environment and Evolution of Galaxies*]{}, ed. J.M. Shull & H.A. Thronson, Jr., (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers), p. 263
Steidel, C.C., 1999, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, 96, 4232
Storrie-Lombardi, L.J. & Wolfe, A.M. 2000, , in press
Vogt, S. S. [[et al. ]{}]{} 1994, Proc. SPIE, 2198, 362
White, S.D.M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, , 183, 341
White, S.D.M., & Frenk, C.S. 1991, , 379, 52
Wolfe, A. M., Lanzetta, K. M., Foltz, C. B., and Chaffee, F. H. 1995, , 454, 698
Wolfe, A.M. 1995, in [*ESO Workshop on QSO Absorption Lines*]{}, ed. G. Meylan, (Berlin:Springer-Verlag), p. 13
Wolfe, A.M. 1997, in [*Critical Dialogues in Cosmology*]{}, ed. N. Turok, (Singapore: World Scientific), p. 500
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the necessary conditions for bosons composed of two distinguishable fermions to exhibit bosonic-like behaviour. We base our analysis on tools of quantum information theory such as entanglement and the majorization criterion for probability distributions. In particular we scrutinize a recent interesting hypothesis by C. K. Law in the Ref. Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 034306 (2005) that suggests that the amount of entanglement between the constituent fermions is related to the bosonic properties of the composite boson. We show that a large amount of entanglement does not necessarily imply a good boson-like behaviour by constructing an explicit counterexample. Moreover, we identify more precisely the role entanglement may play in this situation.'
author:
- Ravishankar
- Pawel Kurzynski
- Tan Kok Chuan
- 'Marcelo F. Santos'
- Dagomir Kaszlikowski
title: Criteria for two distinguishable fermions to behave like a boson
---
Introduction
============
It is well-known that particles containing an even number of fermions behave like bosons under certain experimental conditions. This fact has been confirmed in numerous experiments where Bose-Einstein condensates of atoms have been created. This is generally believed to occur at low densities, where the overlap of the fermionic wave functions can be neglected. In [@Law; @Wot], it was hypothesised that the amount of entanglement between the constituent fermions plays a role in the boson-like behaviour. In this paper we scrutinize this idea further and show that a large amount of entanglement is not sufficient. We refine it and identify more precisely the role entanglement plays in boson-like behaviour of bipartite systems of two species of distinguishable fermions.
We focus on the simplest scenario of a composite boson (coboson) made of two constituent distinguishable fermions. An example of such a system is an exciton made of an electron-hole pair in semiconductors. The bosonic behavior of excitons, especially in the context of Bose-Einstein condensation has been studied (see for example [@BEC]), and it is commonly accepted that excitons behave like bosons when the density is low such that the Pauli exclusion principle and the Coulomb interaction can be neglected.
In general, the state of a single composite boson made of two distinguishable fermions of type A and B can be written as $$\label{composite}
|\psi\rangle_{AB}=\sum_{n}\sqrt{\lambda_n}a^{\dagger}_n b^{\dagger}_n|0\rangle, \nonumber$$ where $a^{\dagger}_n(b^{\dagger}_n)$ creates particle A (B) in mode $n$, and $\lambda_{n}$ is the probability of occupation of mode n. The sum in the above equation is over all modes from 0 to $\infty$, however for ease of calculation, we can introduce a cutoff $d$ (justified on grounds of finite energy), which later will be taken to infinity. Standard anti-commutation rules apply, i.e., $\{K_n,K^{\dagger}_m\}=\delta_{nm}$ ($K=a,b$) and creation/anihilation operators for fermions of type A and B anti-commute.
The number of non-zero coefficients $\lambda_{n}$ is the Schmidt number of this state and as long as it is larger than one the state is entangled. The amount of entanglement between fermions A and B can be quantified for instance by the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix of one of the subsystems, which is simply the Shannon entropy of the probability distribution generated by $\lambda_n$, i.e., $-\sum_n\lambda_n\ln{\lambda_n}$.
A necessary condition for the composite system described by the state $|\psi\rangle_{AB}$ to exhibit boson-like behaviour is that the creation operator of the coboson $$\label{c}
c^{\dagger}=\sum_n \sqrt{\lambda_n} a^{\dagger}_n b^{\dagger}_n \nonumber$$ mimics a proper bosonic creation operator as faithfully as possible. The corresponding commutation relation is given by $$[c,c^{\dagger}]= \textbf{1} - \sum_n \lambda_n( a^{\dagger}_n a_n + b^{\dagger}_n b_n). \nonumber$$ The operator $\Delta=\sum_n \lambda_n( a^{\dagger}_n a_n + b^{\dagger}_n b_n)$ can be interpreted as a deviation from the proper bosonic commutation relations and it should be as small as possible in some sense.
An interesting method of quantifying the smallness of $\Delta$ was investigated in [@CT]. Two operators were considered, the bosonic departure $1-[c,c^{\dagger}]$ and the boson number $c^{\dagger}c$, whose expectation value in the cobosonic number states $|N\rangle$ were postulated to be a measure of the [*quality*]{} of bosons.
The state $|N\rangle$ is defined as follows $$\label{state1}
|N\rangle=\chi_N^{-1/2}\frac{c^{\dagger N}}{\sqrt{N!}}|0\rangle \nonumber.$$ Note that the above state resembles a usual bosonic number state except for the normalization factor $\chi_N$, which is given by $$\chi_{N} = N! \sum_{n_1< n_2 < \dots <n_N} (\lambda_{n_1} \lambda_{n_2} \dots \lambda_{n_N}) \nonumber$$ The behaviour of the state $|N\rangle$ under the action of the corresponding annihilation operator $c$ is given by $$c|N\rangle=\alpha_N \sqrt{N}|N-1\rangle+|\varepsilon_N\rangle. \nonumber$$ The parameter $\alpha_N=\sqrt{\chi_N/\chi_{N-1}}$ is a normalization constant and $|\varepsilon_N\rangle$ is a vector orthogonal to $|N-1\rangle$ of norm $$\label{eps}
\langle\varepsilon_N|\varepsilon_N\rangle=1-N\frac{\chi_{N}}{\chi_{N-1}}+(N-1)\frac{\chi_{N+1}}{\chi_N}. \nonumber$$
The expectation values of the bosonic departure and boson number operators in $|N\rangle$ are $$\left\langle 1-[c,c^{\dagger}] \right\rangle_{N} = 2\left(1-\frac{\chi_{N+1}}{\chi_{N}}\right) \nonumber$$ and $$\left\langle c^{\dagger}c \right\rangle_{N} = N - \frac{N-1}{2}\left\langle 1-[c,c^{\dagger}] \right\rangle_{N} \nonumber$$ As can be seen from the above equations, the ratio $F_{N+1} = \frac{\chi_{N+1}}{\chi_{N}}$ is a mathematical indicator of the quality of the boson. In particular, bosonic behavior is obtained when the ratio approaches one. Moreover, it can be seen that $\alpha_N\rightarrow 1$ and $\langle\varepsilon_N|\varepsilon_N\rangle \rightarrow 0$ as $\chi_{N + 1}/\chi_N \rightarrow 1$.
In [@Law], it was shown that for a particular (exponential) distribution of $\lambda_{k}$, the above ratio is in fact related to the entanglement between the constituent fermions and approaches one in the limit of infinite entanglement. Moreover, since in principle entanglement does not depend on the distance between the fermions, it was speculated that highly delocalized cobosons could be prepared and made to condense.
This result was extended in [@Wot], where it was shown that the ratio $\chi_{N+1}/\chi_N$ can be bounded from below and from above by simple functions of the purity $P(\rho)={\mathrm{Tr}}\{\rho_{A(B)}^2\}$ of the reduced density matrix $\rho_{A(B)}$ of particle A (B), which is an entanglement measure for pure states of the bipartition A-B. The result was $$\label{wt}
1-NP\leq \frac{\chi_{N+1}}{\chi_N}\leq 1 - P.$$ For highly entangled states, i.e., for which $P\rightarrow 0$, $\chi_{N+1}/\chi_{N}\rightarrow 1$. The above bounds were proposed to validate the hypothesis that the cobosonic behavior depends on the entanglement between A and B.
Before proceeding with the main argument, let us show that one can obtain better approximations to the ratio $\frac{\chi_{N+1}}{\chi_{N}}$ by making use of the Newton-Girard identities that relate elementary symmetric polynomials $\chi_N$ to the complete symmetric polynomials $P_{j} = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \lambda_{m}^{j}$. This relation is given by $$\chi_{N} = \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}N^{j-1}P_j\chi_{N-j}. \nonumber$$ Note that $P_{2} = P$ is the purity defined earlier. Dividing the above equation throughout by $\chi_{N}$ and noting that for large N, $\frac{\chi_{N}}{\chi_{N-j}} \approx \left(\frac{\chi_{N}}{\chi_{N-1}}\right)^j$, we obtain $$1 \approx \frac{1}{F_{N}} - \frac{N P_{2}}{F_{N}^2} + \frac{N^2 P_{3}}{F_{N}^3} - \frac{N^3 P_{4}}{F_{N}^4} + \dots \nonumber.$$
A necessary condition for good bosonic behaviour is that for all k, $\lambda_{k} \ll 1/N$, which implies that the terms $N^{j-1}P_j$ in the expression above decrease in magnitude sharply [@CBD]. For instance, for a typical $\lambda_{k}$ of the order of $O(1/N^2)$, the expression $N^{j-1} P_j$ is of the order of $O(1/N^{j-1})$. Hence, performing a series expansion around these small terms leads to $$\frac{\chi_{N}}{\chi_{N-1}} \approx 1 - N P_{2} + N^{2}(P_{3} - P_{2}^{2}) + O(N^3 P_{2}^{3}). \nonumber$$ Better approximations to this important ratio for large N can be made by considering more terms in the series expansion above.
However, we shall see that high entanglement between pairs of fermions is not sufficient to make them behave like bosons. In general, the flagship bosonic phenomena like bunching and Bose-Einstein condensation do not depend on the interaction between bosons. Therefore we consider a model in which there is no interaction between fermions A and B because these processes should be possible even in the absence of such interaction. In quantum information theory such processes are referred to as LOCC (local operations and classical communication) ones. In our case, this would imply local operations among fermions of type A and B only (see Figure \[f1\]). A notable characteristic of these is that entanglement cannot be increased, which would require interaction between subsystems.
The necessary and sufficient criterion for determinisitc LOCC transformation between bipartite quantum states was given in [@Nielsen] where the mathematical concept of majorization was introduced into quantum information theory. Since we want the cobosons to behave like real bosons, the deterministic LOCC process of formation of $N$-particle cobosonic states $|N\rangle$ must be possible. As a result, the corresponding final and initial cobosonic states have to obey the majorization criterion. We show that $P\rightarrow 0$ does not imply majorization, by providing a counterexample. Finally, we find a sufficient condition for bosonic behavior incorporating majorization and high entanglement.
Condensation and LOCC conditions
================================
In this section we refer to the process of generating the state $|N\rangle$ from $N$ single-particle cobosonic states $|\psi\rangle_{AB}^{\otimes N}$ as a process of creating a condensate. It should be noted that this is a simplified notion of the actual picture, since we do not consider parameters such as temperature. However, this simplification captures the essential feature of the condensation process with regard to the macroscopic occupation of a single state.
Let us start with $N$ identical cobosons in $N$ different potential wells as illustrated in Figure \[f1\].
![The schematic picture presenting the idea of condensation of cobosons. Each coboson initially occupies a different potential well. The well energy levels enumerated by $n$ give rise to the internal structure of cobosons $c^{\dagger}=\sum_n\sqrt{\lambda_n}a_n^{\dagger} b_n^{\dagger}$. We are looking for the possibility of existence of an LOCC operation bringing all cobosons into one well. []{data-label="f1"}](fig1.jpg)
The initial state is thus given by $$\label{init}
c_1^{\dagger}c_2^{\dagger}\dots c_N^{\dagger}|0\rangle, \nonumber$$ where $c_j^{\dagger}=\sum_n \sqrt{\lambda_n} a_n^{(j)\dagger} b_{n}^{(j)\dagger}$ creates one coboson in the j’th well. Our goal is to condense all cobosons in a single well, i.e., to obtain the final state $(c^{\dagger})^{N}|0\rangle$ (up to normalization). Since we do not allow parts A and B to interact (LOCC), the process of condensation cannot increase the entanglement between A and B. The allowed set of deterministic LOCC transformations on bipartite entangled states is given by the majorization criterion [@Nielsen], which states that a state $|\psi\rangle_{AB}$ can be transformed by LOCC into another state $|\phi\rangle_{AB}$ iff the vector of eigenvalues of the density matrix of one of the two subsystems of state $|\psi\rangle_{AB}$, denoted by $\vec{\lambda}_{\psi}$, is majorized by the corresponding vector $\vec{\lambda}_{\phi}$ of state $|\phi\rangle_{AB}$. We write $\vec{\lambda}_{\psi}\prec\vec{\lambda}_{\phi}$, which means that for all $k=0,1,2,\dots,d-1,$ $\sum_{j=0}^{k}\lambda_j^{\downarrow}(\psi) \leq \sum_{j=0}^{k}\lambda_j^{\downarrow}(\phi)$, with equality $\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\lambda_j^{\downarrow}(\psi) = \sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\lambda_j^{\downarrow}(\phi) = 1$, where $\downarrow$ symbol indicates that the eigenvalues are enumerated in decreasing order, i.e., $\lambda_0\geq \lambda_1 \geq \dots \geq \lambda_{d-1}$. In order to verify that majorization applies to fermionic systems, let us emphasize that all the necessary transformations can be performed while the cobosons occupy different wells. Hence, there exists a parameter which allows us to distinguish between different cobosons, and then to perform one-to-one mapping from $N$ wells into one.
The majorization criterion has to be applied to the vectors of eigenvalues of the initial and final reduced density matrices of subsystem A or B ($\rho_{i}$ and $\rho_{f}$), which in our case are given by the diagonal matrices $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_i &=& \sum_{n_1,n_2,\dots,n_N}\lambda_{n_1}\lambda_{n_2}\dots\lambda_{n_N} \times \nonumber \\
&\times& a_{n_1}^{(1)\dagger}a_{n_2}^{(2)\dagger}\dots a_{n_N}^{(N)\dagger}|0\rangle\langle 0|a_{n_N}^{(N)}\dots a_{n_2}^{(2)} a_{n_1}^{(1)}, \nonumber
\label{rhoin}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_f &=& \frac{1}{\tilde{\chi}_N}\sum_{n_1 < n_2 <\dots <n_N}\lambda_{n_1}\lambda_{n_2}\dots\lambda_{n_N} \times \nonumber \\
&\times& a_{n_1}^{\dagger}a_{n_2}^{\dagger}\dots a_{n_N}^{\dagger}|0\rangle\langle 0|a_{n_N}\dots a_{n_2} a_{n_1}, \nonumber
\label{rhof}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\chi}_N=\sum_{n_1 <\dots < n_N} \lambda_{n_1} \dots \lambda_{n_N}$ is a normalization factor which is related to $\chi_N$ via $\chi_N=N! \tilde{\chi}_N$. In the second equation we skipped the superscript $(j)$, since all operators correspond to cobosons in one well. In this sense, condensation is a process in which the cobosons lose their identity and become indistinguishable once all of them are in the same well. Since the $\lambda$’s are enumerated decreasingly, the ordered vectors of eigenvalues for the initial ($\vec{\lambda}_{i}$) and final ($\vec{\lambda}_{f}$) states are $\vec{\lambda}_i=\{\lambda_0^N, \lambda_0^{N-1}\lambda_1,\dots\}$, and $\vec{\lambda}_f=\frac{1}{\tilde{\chi}_{N}}\{\lambda_0\lambda_1\dots\lambda_{N-1},\dots\}$.
Note, that in this case the vector $\vec{\lambda}_i$ is $d^{N}$-dimensional and $\vec{\lambda}_f$ is $\begin{pmatrix} d \\ N \end{pmatrix}$-dimensional. The dimension of the second vector being smaller than that of the first, we augment $\vec{\lambda}_f$ by $d^N - \begin{pmatrix} d \\ N \end{pmatrix}$ zeros. In the following sections, we shall look for cobosonic states described by distributions $\{\lambda\}$ for which $\vec{\lambda}_i \prec \vec{\lambda}_f$.
Large entanglement does not imply majorization
==============================================
We show that small purity $P$ does not imply majorization. We find cobosonic states for which the purity is small but vectors $\vec{\lambda}_i$ and $\vec{\lambda}_f$ corresponding to $|\psi\rangle_{AB}^{\otimes N}$ and $|N\rangle$, respectively, do not obey the majorization criterion. For simplicity, we consider the violation of the majorization relation between the first elements of these vectors $$\label{majbreak}
\lambda_0^N > \frac{\lambda_0\dots \lambda_{N-1}}{\tilde{\chi}_N}.$$ Noting that $\lambda_{j}'s$ are arranged in descending order, we can write $\lambda_j := \lambda_0 \gamma_j$, with $0\leq \gamma_j \leq 1$, $\gamma_{j+1}\leq \gamma_j$ and $\gamma_0 = 1$. Therefore, Eq. (\[majbreak\]) can be rewritten as $\tilde{\chi}_N > \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \dots \gamma_{N-1}$. Using (\[wt\]), one finds that $$\tilde{\chi}_N\geq\tilde{\chi}_{N-1}\left(\frac{1+P}{N}-P\right). \nonumber$$ Applying the above relation $N$ times we obtain $$\tilde{\chi}_N\geq \frac{\tilde{\chi}_1}{N!}\prod_{j=2}^N(1+P-jP) \geq \frac{1}{N!}\left(1-(N-1)P\right)^{N-1}, \nonumber$$ therefore majorization fails if $$\label{cond}
\gamma_1\gamma_2\dots \gamma_{N-1}< \frac{1}{N!}\left(1-(N-1)P\right)^{N-1}.$$
Next, let us consider cobosonic states with $$\label{riemann}
\lambda_{j}=\frac{1}{(j+1)^s \zeta(s)},$$ where $$\zeta(s)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(j+1)^{s}} \nonumber$$ is the Riemann Zeta function. For $s>1$ the sum of the $\lambda_j$-series is one, thus it is a valid probability distribution. The purity for these states is given by $$\label{purity}
P_s=\frac{\zeta(2s)}{\zeta(s)^2}.$$ It is small for $s=1+\varepsilon$ ($0 < \varepsilon \ll 1$), since one can approximate (\[purity\]) by $$\label{purityapprox}
P_{1+\varepsilon}\approx\zeta(2)\varepsilon^2=\frac{\pi^2}{6}\varepsilon^2. \nonumber$$ Moreover, in this case $\gamma_j=\frac{1}{(j+1)^{1+\varepsilon}}$. Plugging this into (\[cond\]) gives $$\label{violation}
N!^{\varepsilon}[1-(N-1)P_{1+\varepsilon}]^{N-1}>1. \nonumber$$ For $N \varepsilon \leq 1$, we can expand the above into power series and keep only the terms up to the first order in $\varepsilon$ $$\label{aproxviolation}
1+ \varepsilon \log(N!)>1. \nonumber$$ It is clear that the majorization condition is violated. Let us also point out that despite the fact that condensation is not possible by LOCC, the ratio $F_{N} = \frac{\chi_{N}}{\chi_{N-1}}$ can be close to one. Taking into account the lower bound in (\[wt\]), we have $$\label{frac}
F_N\geq 1 - \frac{\pi^2}{6}N\varepsilon^2. \nonumber$$ The right hand side is close to one for $N\varepsilon^2 \ll 1$. This shows that majorization is a qualitatively different condition for bosonic behavior than previously studied.
Sufficient condition for condensation
=====================================
In the references [@ExBEC1; @ExBEC2], it was argued that a necessary condition for bosonic behavior of cobosons (in particular, of excitons) is $$\label{dens}
N\lambda_0\ll 1.$$ This condition is related to the fact that the density of cobosons has to be low in order to prevent overlap between wavefunctions of underlying fermions.
We now show that this condition is more general in that it implies $N P \ll 1$, but not vice versa. This can be seen from the fact that the purity is bounded from above by the largest coefficient $\lambda_0$. Since $\sum_j \lambda_j = 1$, we have $\sum_j \gamma_j = \frac{1}{\lambda_0}$ and the following holds $$\label{b1}
P=\sum_j\lambda_j^2=\lambda_0^2\sum_j\gamma_j^2 \leq \lambda_0^2\sum_j \gamma_j =\lambda_0. \nonumber$$ Therefore $P \ll \frac{1}{N}$ is guaranteed if $\lambda_0 \ll \frac{1}{N}$.
However, the converse is not true ($NP \ll 1$ does not imply $N \lambda_{0} \ll 1$). To see this, let us consider the states (\[riemann\]) for $s=1+\varepsilon$. For $\varepsilon=\frac{1}{N}$ the purity is $O(1/N^2)$, but the condition (\[dens\]) is not satisfied, because $\lambda_0=\frac{1}{\zeta(1+\varepsilon)}\approx \varepsilon$ and $N\lambda_0\approx 1$.
In general, it is hard to give a necessary and sufficient condition for the majorization of the initial Schimidt vector of N cobosons $\vec{\lambda}_{i}$ by the final Schmidt vector of the N coboson condensate $\vec{\lambda}_{f}$. However, we would like to give a sufficient condition for majorization that has a simple physical interpretation. To do so, let us begin by considering the situation when $d$ and $N$ are finite, and then take the limit $d \rightarrow \infty$ and $N \rightarrow \infty$ while keeping the ratio $\mu = \frac{N}{d}$ constant. $\mu$ is a quantity proportional to the density of cobosons $\rho = N/V$ since $\mu$ = $\frac{\rho}{\omega}$, where $\omega$ is the density of states.
Let the state of our cobosons be described by the vector $\vec{\lambda} = \left\{\lambda_{0}, \dots, \lambda_{d}\right\}$. Firstly, let us note that if it were possible, by LOCC, to transform $\vec{\lambda}_{i}$ to a vector $$\vec{u}_{f}=\left\{\begin{pmatrix} d \\ N\end{pmatrix}^{-1}, \dots, \begin{pmatrix} d \\ N\end{pmatrix}^{-1}\right\},$$ it would be possible to transform by LOCC $\vec{\lambda}_{i}$ to $\vec{\lambda}_{f}$ since the vector $\vec{u}_{f}$ corresponds to the uniform distribution in the final Hilbert space and hence is guaranteed to be majorized by $\vec{\lambda}_{f}$. Note that the distribution $\vec{u}_{f}$ corresponds to the state with the highest $F_{N}$ and is therefore, the most ideal cobosonic condensate. The majorization problem $\vec{\lambda}_{i} \prec \vec{u}_{f}$ yields a simple condition $\lambda_{0}^N \leq \begin{pmatrix} d \\ N\end{pmatrix}^{-1}$ which in the infinite limit translates simply to $$\lambda_{0} \leq \mu \nonumber.$$ The above condition, in the spirit of [@CT; @ExBEC1], provides a sufficient condition for the bosonic behavior of these particles, to wit that the probability of occupation of the ground state be less than the occupational density. It also supports the idea of a critical density for condensation, that is, the equation above may be satisfied for all densities above a critical value $\mu_{cr}$, ensuring that such distributions lead to a condensation without interaction between the fermions as required for proper bosonic behavior.
Now, we show that there exist certain classes of states that always obey the majorization condition. Let us consider states $$\label{laws}
\lambda_{j}=(1-z)z^j,~~0<z<1,$$ which were introduced in [@Law]. For these, $$\tilde{\chi}_N=\frac{z^{N(N-1)/2}(1-z)^N}{\prod_{j=1}^N (1-z^j)}, \nonumber$$ and the purity is given by $$P_z=\frac{1-z}{1+z}. \nonumber$$ For $z \rightarrow 1$ the purity is small. Below we show that these states obey the majorization criterion for all z and N.
Firstly, observe that $$\vec{\lambda}_i=(1-z)^N\{1,z,z,\dots,z,z^2,z^2,\dots\}, \nonumber$$ where the degeneracy of $z^l$ is $g_{l}^{(i)} = \begin{pmatrix} l+N-1 \\ l\end{pmatrix}$. On the other hand, $$\vec{\lambda}_f=\frac{(1-z)^N z^{N(N-1)/2}}{\tilde{\chi}_N}\{1,z,z^2,z^2,\dots\}, \nonumber$$ for which the degeneracy of $z^l$ ($g_{l}^{(f)}$) is smaller than $g_{l}^{(i)}$. The majorization states that, for all $k$, the sum of the first $k$ terms of $\vec{\lambda}_i$ has to be less than, or equal to the sum of the first $k$ terms of $\vec{\lambda}_f$. Canceling common factors, the overall multiplicative factor in $\vec{\lambda}_f$ is $$\frac{z^{N(N-1)/2}}{\tilde{\chi}_N}= \prod_{k=1}^{N-1} \sum_{j=0}^{k} z^j, \nonumber$$ and we can rewrite $$\vec{\lambda}_i'=\{1,z,z,\dots,z,z^2,z^2,\dots\},\nonumber$$ and $$\vec{\lambda}_f'= \left(\prod_{k=1}^{N-1} \sum_{j=0}^{k} z^j\right) \{1,z,z^2,z^2,\dots\}.\nonumber$$ Next, notice that the sum over all terms of both vectors is the same and equal to $1/(1-z)^N$. Moreover, this sum can be written as a unique polynomial $$\frac{1}{(1-z)^N}=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} g_{j}^{(i)} z^{j}.\nonumber$$ The sum of first $k$ terms of $\vec{\lambda}_i'$ is given by $$\sum_{j=1}^{k}[\vec{\lambda}_i']_j= \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} g_{j}^{(i)} z^{j} + (k - \sum_{j=0}^{l-1} g_{j}^{(i)}) z^{l}.\nonumber$$ Due to the multiplicative factor of $\vec{\lambda}_f'$ and the fact that the degeneracy of $\vec{\lambda}_f'$ is less than that of $\vec{\lambda}_i'$, we have $$\sum_{j=1}^{k}[\vec{\lambda}_i']_j < \sum_{j=1}^{k}[\vec{\lambda}_f']_j \nonumber$$ which ends the proof. We have shown that the states in (\[laws\]) obey the majorization criterion for any $z$ and $N$. As a consequence, the corresponding cobosons should indeed behave like ideal bosons for large $z$ (when $P$ is small).
We now note that there may exist certain classes of states which do not describe proper cobosons, in the sense that they do not obey the majorization relation. However, there exists the interesting possibility that some of these states are transformable by LOCC into states which obey majorization (such as in (\[laws\]) for large z) and therefore can be converted into proper cobosonic states. This means that they can be converted into condensates of different coboson type, i.e., $$c \rightarrow c' \rightarrow c'^{N}.$$
A sufficient criterion for majorization [@Maj] can be stated as: If there exists an $i$ $(1\leq i \leq n)$ such that for all $k \leq i$, $\sum_{j=1}^{k} x_{j} \leq \sum_{j=1}^{k} y_{j}$, and for $k > i$, $\sum_{j=i+1}^{n} x_{j} \geq \sum_{j=i+1}^{n} y_{j}$, then $\vec{x} \prec \vec{y}$. This implies that any distribution of $\lambda's$ with $\lambda_{0} \leq (1-z)$ (with $z \rightarrow 1$) and with only one intersection with the exponential distribution in (\[laws\]) will be majorized by the latter, and can be considered as a good cobosonic distribution.
Conclusions
===========
In this article, we have studied the conjecture made in [@Law] that the amount of entanglement between the constituent fermions of a composite boson is related to its bosonic properties. We note that while necessary, entanglement may not be sufficient to ensure ideal bosonic behavior of these states. Our studies were made in relation to the majorization condition in the context of creating a cobosonic number state $|N\rangle$ from $N$ single particle states $|\psi\rangle_{AB}^{\otimes N}$.
We provide a counter-example in terms of the Riemann distribution which shows that the property of small purity does not necessarily lead to majorization. We also note that a more fundamental condition is that given in terms of small density, to wit, $N \lambda_{k} \ll 1$ which leads to small purity, but not vice versa. Also, we introduced a sufficient condition for majorization which lends support to the idea of a critical density for condensation. We note that certain states such as those in [@Law] always obey majorization. This leads to the interesting possibility that there may exist certain states, which while not obeying majorization themselves, might be transformable by LOCC to states that do.
Lack of majorization implies the necessity of interaction for the process of condensation to occur. For instance, an interesting future problem would be to study the excitonic states in [@CT] in the context of majorization, to check if excitonic condensates can be prepared in the absence of interaction between electrons and holes.
[*Acknowledgements*]{}. This research is supported by the National Research Foundation and Ministry of Education in Singapore. We acknowledge useful discussions with Rosario Fazio, Tomasz Paterek and John Goold.
[99]{}
C. K. Law, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 034306 (2005).
C. Chudzicki, O. Oke, W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 070402 (2010).
, edited by A. Griffin, D. W. Snoke, and S. Stringari (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
M. Combescot and C. Tanguy, Europhys. Lett. [**55**]{}, 390 (2001).
M. Combescot, O. Betbeder-Matibet, F. Dubin, Phys. Rep. [**463**]{}, 215 (2008).
M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 436 (1999).
C. Comte and P. Nozieres, J. Phisique [**43**]{}, 1069-1081 (1982).
C. Comte and P. Nozieres, J. Phisique [**43**]{}, 1083-1098 (1982).
A.W. Marshall and I. Olkin, [*Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications*]{}, (Academic Press, California, 1979).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we obtain topological black hole solutions of third order Lovelock gravity couple with two classes of Born-Infeld type nonlinear electrodynamics with anti-de Sitter asymptotic structure. We investigate geometric and thermodynamics properties of the solutions and obtain conserved quantities of the black holes. We examine the first law of thermodynamics and find that the conserved and thermodynamic quantities of the black hole solutions satisfy the first law of thermodynamics. Finally, we calculate the heat capacity and determinant of Hessian matrix to evaluate thermal stability in both canonical and grand canonical ensembles. Moreover, we consider extended phase space thermodynamics to obtain generalized first law of thermodynamics as well as extended Smarr formula.'
author:
- 'S. H. Hendi$^{1,2}$[^1] and A. Dehghani$^1$'
title: |
Thermodynamics of third order Lovelock adS black holes\
in the presence of Born-Infeld type nonlinear electrodynamics
---
Introduction
============
Regarding string theory and brane world cosmology, it has been shown that spacetimes possess more than four dimensions. Taking into account higher dimensional spacetimes, we know that the general conserved symmetric tensor that depends on the metric and its derivatives up to second order is not the Einstein tensor.
One of the natural generalization of Einstein theory in higher dimensional spacetimes, in which contains most of Einstein assumptions, is Lovelock gravity [@Lovelock]. Lovelock gravity field equation contains metric derivatives no higher second order and therefore its quantization is free of ghost [@GhostFree]. Since the higher curvature terms of Lovelock Lagrangian appear in the low-energy limit of string theory, black hole solutions of Lovelock gravity have been attracting renewed interest. The action of Lovelock gravity in a compressed form can be written as $$I_{G}=\int d^{d}x\sqrt{-g}\sum\limits_{k=0}^{d/2}\alpha _{k}\pounds _{k},
\label{LovelockAction}$$ where $\alpha_{k}$’s are arbitrary constants and $\pounds _{k}$’s are the Euler densities of the $2k$-dimensional manifolds with the following explicit form $$\pounds _{k}=\delta _{\rho _{1}\sigma _{1}...\rho _{k}\sigma _{k}}^{\mu
_{1}\nu _{1}...\mu _{k}\nu _{k}}R_{\mu _{1}\nu _{1}}^{\rho _{1}\sigma
_{1}}...R_{\mu _{k}\nu _{k}}^{\rho _{k}\sigma _{k}}. \label{Lk}$$In Eq. (\[Lk\]), $\delta _{\rho _{1}\sigma _{1}...\rho _{k}\sigma
_{k}}^{\mu _{1}\nu _{1}...\mu _{k}\nu _{k}}$ and $R_{\mu \nu }^{\rho \sigma
} $ are, respectively, the generalized totally anti-symmetric Kronecker delta and the Riemann tensor.
The objective of this paper is to find topological (asymptotically adS) black hole solutions of third order Lovelock gravity in the presence of two classes of Born-Infeld (BI) type nonlinear electrodynamics (NED). Some black object solutions of third order Lovelock theory coupled with NED have been studied before [@TOLNLED]. Recently, one of us considered BI type Lagrangians to obtain the black hole solutions [@HendiJHEP; @HendiAnn]. The Lagrangians of exponential and logarithmic forms of BI type theories may be defined as $$\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{F})=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\beta ^{2}\left( \exp (-\frac{\mathcal{F}}{\beta ^{2}})-1\right) , & \;~%
\text{{ENED}} \\
-8\beta ^{2}\ln \left( 1+\frac{\mathcal{F}}{8\beta ^{2}}\right) , & \;\text{~%
{LNED}}%
\end{array}%
\right. , \label{LF}$$where $\beta $ is called the nonlinearity parameter, the Maxwell invariant is $\mathcal{F}=F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }$ in which $F_{\mu \nu }=\partial _{\mu }A_{\nu }-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }$ is the Faraday tensor and $A_{\mu } $ is the gauge potential. Although BI type models was introduced with various motivations, the important motivation of considering the BI type NED theories comes from the fact that these theories may be originated if one regards the loop corrections [@Fradkin85]. Taking into account the coupling of BI type theories with Einstein and Gauss-Bonnet gravity, it was shown that although there are some analogies between the BI type theories, there exist some differences between them as well [HendiJHEP,HendiAnn,HendiNon,HendiMahmudi]{}. Now, we would like to obtain new topological black hole solutions of the mentioned models of BI type theories coupled with third order Lovelock gravity and investigate their geometric and thermodynamic properties.
The outline of the paper is as follows. We present the topological black hole solutions in Sec. \[Topol\]. Sec. \[Thermodynamics\], is devoted to investigate conserved and thermodynamic quantities of topological black holes. We also analyze the thermodynamic stability of the solutions in the canonical and grand canonical ensembles. We finish our paper with some conclusions.
Topological adS black holes in third order Lovelock gravity [Topol]{}
=====================================================================
The gravitational and electromagnetic field equations of third order Lovelock gravity in the presence of NED may be written as $$G_{\mu \nu }+\Lambda g_{\mu \nu }+\alpha _{2}\mathcal{G}_{\mu \nu }+\alpha
_{3}\mathcal{H}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{F}%
)-2F_{\mu \lambda }F_{\nu }^{\;\lambda }\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{F}},
\label{Geq}$$ $$\partial _{\mu }\left( \sqrt{-g}\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{F}}F^{\mu \nu }\right)
=0, \label{BIeq}$$where $G_{\mu \nu }$ is the Einstein tensor, $\mathcal{G}_{\mu \nu }$ and $%
\mathcal{H}_{\mu \nu }$ are, respectively, the second and third orders Lovelock tensor given as $$\mathcal{G}_{\mu \nu } =2(R_{\mu \sigma \kappa \tau }R_{\nu }^{\phantom{\nu}%
\sigma \kappa \tau }-2R_{\mu \rho \nu \sigma }R^{\rho \sigma }-2R_{\mu
\sigma }R_{\phantom{\sigma}\nu }^{\sigma }+RR_{\mu \nu })-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu
\nu }\mathcal{L}_{2}, \label{Love2}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\mu \nu } &=&-3[4R^{\tau \rho \sigma \kappa }R_{\sigma \kappa
\lambda \rho }R_{\phantom{\lambda }{\nu \tau \mu}}^{\lambda }-8R_{%
\phantom{\tau \rho}{\lambda \sigma}}^{\tau \rho }R_{\phantom{\sigma
\kappa}{\tau \mu}}^{\sigma \kappa }R_{\phantom{\lambda }{\nu \rho \kappa}%
}^{\lambda }+2R_{\nu }^{\phantom{\nu}{\tau \sigma \kappa}}R_{\sigma \kappa
\lambda \rho }R_{\phantom{\lambda \rho}{\tau \mu}}^{\lambda \rho } \nonumber
\\
&&-R^{\tau \rho \sigma \kappa }R_{\sigma \kappa \tau \rho }R_{\nu \mu }+8R_{%
\phantom{\tau}{\nu \sigma \rho}}^{\tau }R_{\phantom{\sigma \kappa}{\tau \mu}%
}^{\sigma \kappa }R_{\phantom{\rho}\kappa }^{\rho }+8R_{\phantom
{\sigma}{\nu \tau \kappa}}^{\sigma }R_{\phantom {\tau \rho}{\sigma \mu}%
}^{\tau \rho }R_{\phantom{\kappa}{\rho}}^{\kappa } \nonumber \\
&&+4R_{\nu }^{\phantom{\nu}{\tau \sigma \kappa}}R_{\sigma \kappa \mu \rho
}R_{\phantom{\rho}{\tau}}^{\rho }-4R_{\nu }^{\phantom{\nu}{\tau \sigma
\kappa }}R_{\sigma \kappa \tau \rho }R_{\phantom{\rho}{\mu}}^{\rho
}+4R^{\tau \rho \sigma \kappa }R_{\sigma \kappa \tau \mu }R_{\nu \rho
}+2RR_{\nu }^{\phantom{\nu}{\kappa \tau \rho}}R_{\tau \rho \kappa \mu }
\nonumber \\
&&+8R_{\phantom{\tau}{\nu \mu \rho }}^{\tau }R_{\phantom{\rho}{\sigma}%
}^{\rho }R_{\phantom{\sigma}{\tau}}^{\sigma }-8R_{\phantom{\sigma}{\nu \tau
\rho }}^{\sigma }R_{\phantom{\tau}{\sigma}}^{\tau }R_{\mu }^{\rho }-8R_{%
\phantom{\tau }{\sigma \mu}}^{\tau \rho }R_{\phantom{\sigma}{\tau }}^{\sigma
}R_{\nu \rho }-4RR_{\phantom{\tau}{\nu \mu \rho }}^{\tau }R_{\phantom{\rho}%
\tau }^{\rho } \nonumber \\
&&+4R^{\tau \rho }R_{\rho \tau }R_{\nu \mu }-8R_{\phantom{\tau}{\nu}}^{\tau
}R_{\tau \rho }R_{\phantom{\rho}{\mu}}^{\rho }+4RR_{\nu \rho }R_{%
\phantom{\rho}{\mu }}^{\rho }-R^{2}R_{\nu \mu }]-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }%
\mathcal{L}_{3} \label{Love3}\end{aligned}$$
In the recent equations, $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{3}$ denote the Gauss-Bonnet Lagrangian and the third order Lovelock term, given as $$\mathcal{L}_{2}=R_{\mu \nu \gamma \delta }R^{\mu \nu \gamma \delta }-4R_{\mu
\nu }R^{\mu \nu }+R^{2}, \label{L2}$$$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{3} &=&2R^{\mu \nu \sigma \kappa }R_{\sigma \kappa \rho \tau }R_{%
\phantom{\rho \tau }{\mu \nu }}^{\rho \tau }+8R_{\phantom{\mu \nu}{\sigma
\rho}}^{\mu \nu }R_{\phantom {\sigma \kappa} {\nu \tau}}^{\sigma \kappa }R_{%
\phantom{\rho \tau}{ \mu \kappa}}^{\rho \tau }+24R^{\mu \nu \sigma \kappa
}R_{\sigma \kappa \nu \rho }R_{\phantom{\rho}{\mu}}^{\rho } \nonumber \\
&&+3RR^{\mu \nu \sigma \kappa }R_{\sigma \kappa \mu \nu
}-12RR_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }+24R^{\mu \nu \sigma \kappa
}R_{\sigma \mu }R_{\kappa \nu }+16R^{\mu \nu }R_{\nu \sigma
}R_{\phantom{\sigma}{\mu}}^{\sigma} +R^{3}. \label{L3}\end{aligned}$$In addition, $\alpha _{i}$’s are Lovelock coefficients and $\mathcal{L}_{%
\mathcal{F}}=\frac{d\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{F})}{d\mathcal{F}}$. Now, we consider the following line element to obtain the $(n+1)$-dimensional static topological black hole solutions: $$ds^{2}=-f(r)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{f(r)}+r^{2}d\breve{g}^{2} \label{Metric}$$where $d\breve{g}^{2}$ is the metric of an $(n-1)$-dimensional hypersurface with constant curvature $(n-1)(n-2)k$ and volume $V_{n-1}$ with the following explicit form $$d\breve{g}^{2}=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
d\theta _{1}^{2}+\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n-1}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{i-1}\sin
^{2}\theta _{j}d\theta _{i}^{2} & k=1 \\
d\theta _{1}^{2}+\sinh ^{2}\theta _{1}d\theta _{2}^{2}+\sinh ^{2}\theta
_{1}\sum\limits_{i=3}^{n-1}\prod\limits_{j=2}^{i-1}\sin ^{2}\theta
_{j}d\theta _{i}^{2} & k=-1 \\
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1}d\phi _{i}^{2} & k=0%
\end{array}%
\right. . \label{met2}$$Since the boundary of these spacetimes may be positive, zero or negative constant curvature, these metric is usually called topological spacetime. At first we consider the electromagnetic equation (\[BIeq\]), to obtain the nonzero component of the gauge potential $$A_{\mu }=\delta _{\mu }^{0}\times \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{{\beta r\sqrt{{L}_{W}}}}{{2(n-2)(3n-4)}}\left( {(n-1)\,\zeta {L}%
_{W}+3n-4}\right) , & \text{ENED} \\
\frac{{2{\beta ^{2}}{r^{n}}}}{{nq}}\left( \eta {-1}\right) , & \text{LNED}%
\end{array}%
\right. , \label{Amu1}$$where $q$ is an integration constant which is related to the electric charge and $${L}_{W}=LambertW\left( \frac{4q^{2}}{\beta ^{2}r^{2d-4}}{)}\right)
\label{Lw}$$$$\zeta ={}_{2}{F_{1}}\left( {[1],\,\left[ {\frac{{5n-6}}{{2(n-1)}}}\right] ,\,%
}\frac{{L}_{W}}{{2(n-1)}}\right) ,\, \label{Fzeta}$$
$$\eta ={}_{2}{F_{1}}\left( {\left[ {-\frac{1}{2},\,\frac{{-n}}{{2(n-1)}}}%
\right] ,\,\left[ {\frac{{n-2}}{{2(n-1)}}}\right] ,\,1-}\Gamma ^{2}\right) .
\label{Feta}$$
$$\Gamma =\sqrt{{1}+\frac{{q^{2}}}{{\beta ^{2}}{r^{2(n-1)}}}}$$
It was shown that the mentioned gauge potential reduce to that of Maxwell field for weak field limit $\beta \rightarrow \infty $. Considering a special case ${\alpha _{3}=}\frac{{{\alpha ^{2}}}}{{3(n-2)(n-3)(n-4)(n-5)}}$ and ${\alpha _{2}}=\frac{\alpha }{{(n-2)(n-3)}}$, we can show that the metric function$$f(r)=k+\frac{r^{2}}{\alpha }\left( 1-H^{1/3}\right) {,} \label{fr}$$with$$H=1+\frac{{3\alpha m}}{{{r^{n}}}}+\frac{{6\alpha \Lambda }}{{n(n-1)}}+\frac{{%
3\alpha {\beta ^{2}}}}{{n(n-1){r^{n}}}}\times \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
{{r^{n}}}+\frac{{2nq}}{{\beta }}{\int }\left( {{\sqrt{Lw}-{\frac{{1}}{\sqrt{%
Lw}}}}}\right) {dr}, & \text{ENED} \\
-{8{r^{n}}}+8{n}\int {\,{r^{n-1}}}\left[ \Gamma -{\ln \left( \frac{\Gamma {+1%
}}{2}\right) }\right] {dr}, & \text{LNED}%
\end{array}%
\right. , \label{gr}$$satisfies all components of the field equations (\[Geq\]). The parameter $%
m $ is an integration constant which is related to finite mass as [@ADM] $$M=\frac{V_{n-1}(n-1)m}{16\pi }. \label{Mass}$$We should note that since computing the total mass leads to an infinite quantity, one may solve this problem by using of background subtraction method whose asymptotical geometry matches that of the solutions. Another approach comes from the fact that adding an additional surface action does not alter the bulk equations of motion. It is known as AdS/CFT inspired counterterm method [@Counterterm]. All methods have the same result and one may obtain the finite mass (\[Mass\]) (see appendix for more details).
Now, we should discuss the existence of singularity(ies). To do so, it is usual to calculate the Kretschmann scalar. It is easy to find that the Kretschmann is $$R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }={{f^{\prime
\prime 2}(r)}}+2(n-1){\left( {\frac{{f^{\prime }(r)}}{{r}}}\right) ^{2}}%
+2(n-1)(n-2){\left( {\frac{{f(r)-k}}{{{r^{2}}}}}\right) ^{2}}. \label{RR}$$Taking into account the metric function with Eq. (\[RR\]), one finds the Kretschmann diverges at $r=0$ and is finite for $r\neq 0$. In order to interpret the curvature singularity as a black hole, we should look for the horizon. The horizon(s) is (are) located at the root(s) of $g^{rr}=f(r)=0$. Numerical calculations shows that, depending on the values of $\alpha $ and $%
\beta $, the metric function has two real positive roots, one extreme root, one non-extreme root or it may be positive definite (for more details see [@HendiJHEP; @HendiAnn]). Hence obtained solutions may be interpreted as the black holes with two horizons, extreme black holes, Schwarzschild-like black holes (one non-extreme horizon) or naked singularity. Moreover, using the series expansion of metric function for large $r$, one finds$$\begin{aligned}
\left. f(r)\right\vert _{\text{large\ }r} &=&k-\frac{2\Lambda \left[
n(n-1)-2\alpha \Lambda \right] r^{2}}{n^{2}(n-1)^{2}}-\frac{m\left[
n(n-1)-4\alpha \Lambda \right] }{n(n-1)r^{n-2}}+\frac{2q^{2}\left[
n(n-1)-4\alpha \Lambda \right] }{n(n-1)^{2}(n-2)r^{2n-4}}+\frac{\alpha m^{2}%
}{r^{2n-2}} \label{flarge} \\
&&-\frac{4\alpha mq^{2}}{(n-1)(n-2)r^{3n-4}}+\frac{4\alpha q^{4}}{%
(n-1)^{2}(n-2)^{2}r^{4n-6}}-\frac{4\left[ n(n-1)-4\alpha \Lambda \right]
q^{4}}{\Upsilon n(3n-4)\beta ^{2}r^{4n-6}}+O(\frac{1}{r^{5n-6}}), \nonumber
\\
&& \nonumber \\
\Upsilon &=&\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
2(n-1)^{2} & ENED \\
n^{2} & LNED%
\end{array}%
\right. . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$Eq. (\[flarge\]) shows that the second term is dominant for large $r$ in which confirms that these black holes are asymptotically adS if we replace $%
\Lambda $ with $\Lambda _{eff}=\frac{\Lambda \left[ n(n-1)-2\alpha \Lambda %
\right] }{n(n-1)}$. In other words, Lovelock gravity may modify the cosmological constant and, as we expect, $\Lambda _{eff}\longrightarrow
\Lambda $ for vanishing $\alpha $.
$%
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=5.3cm \epsffile{penrose1b.eps} & \epsfxsize=8cm %
\epsffile{penrose11b.eps}%
\end{array}
$
$%
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=4.3cm \epsffile{penrose2b.eps} & \epsfxsize=5.5cm %
\epsffile{penrose22b.eps}%
\end{array}
$
$%
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=5.5cm \epsffile{penrose3b.eps} & \epsfxsize=8.5cm %
\epsffile{penrose33b.eps}%
\end{array}
$
In order to provide additional information for the conformal structure of the solutions, we can use the conformal compactification method to draw the Carter-Penrose (conformal) diagram (see Figs. \[Pen1\]-\[Pen3\] for more details). The Carter-Penrose diagrams confirm that the singularity may be timelike (such as Reissner-Nordström black holes) or spacelike (such as Schwarzschild black holes). In other words, depending the values of the nonlinearity parameter, one can find that $\lim_{r
\longrightarrow 0}f(r)$ can be positive or negative (for more details we refer the reader to Ref. [@HendiJHEP; @HendiAnn]). Drawing the Carter-Penrose diagrams shows that the causal structure of the solutions are asymptotically well behaved.
Thermodynamic properties and thermal stability [Thermodynamics]{}
=================================================================
In this section, we calculate the conserved and thermodynamic quantities, and check the first law of black hole thermodynamics. Then we perform the stability criterion.
At first, we apply the definition of surface gravity to obtain the Hawking temperature $$T=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{-\frac{1}{2}\left( \nabla _{\mu }\chi _{\nu }\right)
\left( \nabla ^{\mu }\chi ^{\nu }\right) }, \label{T1}$$where $\chi $ is the temporal Killing vector, $\partial _{t}$. One obtains$$T=\frac{f^{\prime }(r_{+})}{4\pi }=\frac{(n-1)k\left[ 3{\left( {n-2}\right)
r_{+}^{4}+3\left( {n-4}\right) {k}\alpha {r_{+}^{2}}+\left( {n-6}\right) {%
\alpha ^{2}}}\right] -6{\Lambda }r_{+}^{6}+3{{\beta ^{2}}r_{+}^{6}}\Psi }{{%
12\pi (n-1){r_{+}{\left( {r_{+}^{2}+k\alpha }\right) }^{2}}}}, \label{T2}$$where$$\Psi =\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{{2\left( {1-}L_{W+}\right) }}{\sqrt{L_{W+}}}\sqrt{\Gamma _{+}^{2}-1}-1,
& \text{ENED} \\
8\left[ 1+{\ln \left( \frac{1+\Gamma _{+}}{2}\right) }-\Gamma _{+}\right] ,
& \text{LNED}%
\end{array}%
\right. ,$$$$\Gamma _{+}={\sqrt{{1}+\frac{{q^{2}}}{{\beta ^{2}}{r_{+}^{2(n-1)}}}},}$$ which shows that the temperature depends on the Lovelock parameter as well as nonlinearity factor of electrodynamics.
Now, we calculate the entropy of the black hole solutions. Since we regard the Lovelock gravity, the area law of the Black hole entropy does not satisfy in general [@Entropyfail]. The expression of the entropy of Lovelock black holes may be derived by Hamiltonian formalism [EntropyLov1]{} (for its generalization for arbitrarily high order derivatives of the curvature, see [@EntropyLov2]), yielding $$S=\frac{{{V_{n-1}}}}{4}r_{+}^{n-1}\left( {1+\frac{{2\left( {n-1}\right) k}}{{%
\left( {n-3}\right) }}\frac{\alpha }{{r_{+}^{2}}}+\frac{{\left( {n-1}\right)
{k^{2}}}}{{\left( {n-5}\right) }}\frac{{{\alpha ^{2}}}}{{r_{+}^{4}}}}\right)
, \label{Entropy}$$It is clear that Eq. (\[Entropy\]) reproduces the area law for Einstein gravity ($\alpha \longrightarrow 0$).
In order to obtain the electric charge, we calculate the flux of the electromagnetic field at infinity. It is easy to show that $$Q=\frac{V_{n-1}}{4\pi }q. \label{Charge}$$Eq. (\[Charge\]) confirms that the electric charge does not depend on the nonlinearity parameter.
In order to calculate the electric potential of the black holes, one should consider a reference. Considering nonzero component of the gauge potential (or the electric field), one finds that for $r\longrightarrow \infty $, both the gauge potential and the electric field vanishes. Therefore, it is natural to calculate the electric potential of the event horizon of black holes, $r_{+}$, with respect to the infinity as reference [@Potential]. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi &=&A_{\mu }\chi ^{\mu }\left\vert _{r\rightarrow \infty }-A_{\mu }\chi
^{\mu }\right\vert _{r=r_{+}}= \nonumber \\
&&\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{{\beta {r_{+}}\sqrt{L{w_{+}}}}}{{2(n-2)(3n-4)}}\left[ {(n-1)\,{\zeta
_{+}L}_{W+}+3n-4}\right] , & \text{ENED} \\
-\frac{{2{\beta ^{2}}{r_{+}}^{n}}}{{nq}}\left( {{\eta _{+}}-1}\right) , &
\text{LNED}%
\end{array}%
\right. . \label{Pot}\end{aligned}$$
$$\zeta _{+}={}_{2}{F_{1}}\left( {[1],\,\left[ {\frac{{5n-6}}{{2(n-1)}}}\right]
,\,}\frac{{L}_{W+}}{{2(n-1)}}\right) ,$$
$$\eta _{+}={}_{2}{F_{1}}\left( {\left[ {-\frac{1}{2},\,\frac{{-n}}{{2(n-1)}}}%
\right] ,\,\left[ {\frac{{n-2}}{{2(n-1)}}}\right] ,\,1-}\Gamma
_{+}^{2}\right) ,$$
Here, we are in a position to check the first law of thermodynamics for various horizon topology. At first we obtain the finite mass $M$ as a function of the entropy and electric charge as the extensive quantities. Straightforward calculations show that $$M\left( S,Q\right) =\frac{(n-1){{r_{+}^{n}}}}{{48\pi \alpha }}\left[ \left(
1+\frac{k\alpha }{r_{+}^{2}}\right) ^{3}-1\right] -\frac{{\Lambda {r_{+}^{n}}%
}}{8\pi {n}}-\Theta , \label{Smark1}$$where$$\Theta =\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{{{\beta ^{2}r_{+}^{n}}}}{16\pi {n}}+\frac{{\beta q}}{8\pi }\left. {%
\int }\left( {{\sqrt{Lw}-{\frac{{1}}{\sqrt{Lw}}}}}\right) {dr}\right\vert
_{r_{+}}, & \text{ENED} \\
-\frac{{{\beta ^{2}r_{+}^{n}}}}{2\pi {n}}+\frac{{\beta }^{2}}{2\pi }\left.
\int {\,{r^{n-1}}}\left[ \Gamma -{\ln \left( \frac{\Gamma {+1}}{2}\right) }%
\right] {dr}\right\vert _{r_{+}}, & \text{LNED}%
\end{array}%
\right. .$$
Now, we use the first law to define temperature and electric potential as the intensive parameters conjugate to the entropy and electric charge $$\begin{aligned}
&&T=\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial S}\right) _{Q}=\frac{\left( \frac{%
\partial M}{\partial r_{+}}\right) _{Q}}{\left( \frac{\partial S}{\partial
r_{+}}\right) _{Q}}, \label{Tk} \\
&&\Phi =\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial Q}\right) _{S}=\frac{\left( \frac{%
\partial M}{\partial q}\right) _{r_{+}}}{\left( \frac{\partial Q}{\partial q}%
\right) _{r_{+}}}. \label{Phik}\end{aligned}$$
Numerical analysis shows that Eqs. (\[Tk\]) and (\[Phik\]) are equal to Eqs. (\[T2\]) and (\[Pot\]), respectively, and therefore we deduce that these quantities satisfy the first law of thermodynamics $$dM=TdS+\Phi dQ. \label{FirstLaw}$$
$%
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=8cm \epsffile{Cvsralpha01.eps} & \epsfxsize=8cm %
\epsffile{Hvsralpha01.eps}%
\end{array}
$
$%
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=8cm \epsffile{Cvsralpha1.eps} & \epsfxsize=8cm %
\epsffile{Hvsralpha1.eps}%
\end{array}
$
$%
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=8cm \epsffile{Cvsbetar1.eps} & \epsfxsize=8cm %
\epsffile{Hvsbetar1.eps}%
\end{array}
$
$%
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=8cm \epsffile{Cvsalphar1.eps} & \epsfxsize=8cm %
\epsffile{Hvsalphar1.eps}%
\end{array}
$
Thermal stability\[Stab\]
-------------------------
In order to discuss the thermal stability conditions, one may use both canonical and grand canonical ensembles. The positivity of the heat capacity and determinant of the Hessian matrix are the requirements usually referred to stability criterion in canonical and grand canonical ensembles, respectively. Since $M$ is a function of $S$ and $Q$, we can write the heat capacity and determinant of the Hessian matrix with the following explicit forms $$\begin{aligned}
C_{Q} &=&\frac{T}{\left( \frac{\partial ^{2}M}{\partial S^{2}}\right) _{Q}},
\label{CQ} \\
H &=&det\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\partial ^{2}M}{\partial S^{2}} & \frac{\partial ^{2}M}{\partial
S\partial Q} \\
\frac{\partial ^{2}M}{\partial Q\partial S} & \frac{\partial ^{2}M}{\partial
Q^{2}}%
\end{array}%
\right] . \label{H}\end{aligned}$$
Analytical calculations of the heat capacity and determinant of the Hessian matrix are too large and therefore we leave out the analytical result for reasons of economy. We plot some figures to discuss the stability conditions. Numerical calculations show that although large black holes have positive definite temperature, there is a lower limit for the horizon radius of physical small black holes, $r_{0}$. It is notable that $r_{0}$ increases for increasing $\beta $ (decreasing $\alpha $). In addition, we find that, for small values of $\alpha $ ($\alpha <\alpha _{c}$), there are two $r_{a}$ and $r_{b}$ ($r_{a}<r_{b}$), in which the black holes are stable for $%
r_{0}<r_{+}<r_{a}$ and $r_{+}>r_{b}$ (see Fig. \[CH1\] and also following three tables). Moreover, for large values of $\alpha $ ($\alpha >\alpha _{c}$) and $r_{+}>r_{c}$ the black holes are stable. We should note that for canonical ensemble one finds $r_{c}=r_{0}$ and for grand canonical ensemble $%
r_{c}>r_{0}$ (see Fig. \[CH2\]). Figs. \[CH3\] and \[CH4\] confirm that, regardless of value of $\beta $, we encounter an unstable phase for $%
\alpha <\alpha _{c}$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
$r_{+}=$ $0.5$ $1$ $4$ $400$
---------- -- -------- --------- ------------ ----------------------
$C_{Q}=$ $0.35$ $-2.9$ $5148$ $1.2\times 10^{13}$
$H=$ $0.02$ $-0.03$ $4.8\times $1.2\times 10^{-20}$
10^{-5}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Table (1): corresponding to Fig. \[CH1\] for $\beta=0.05$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
$r_{+}=$ $0.6$ $1$ $4$ $400$
---------- -- -------- --------- ------------ ----------------------
$C_{Q}=$ $0.07$ $-4.8$ $5148$ $1.2\times 10^{13}$
$H=$ $0.51$ $-0.13$ $4.8\times $1.2\times 10^{-20}$
10^{-5}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Table (2): corresponding to Fig. \[CH1\] for $\beta=0.5$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
$r_{+}=$ $0.6$ $1$ $4$ $400$
---------- -- -------- --------- ------------ ----------------------
$C_{Q}=$ $0.02$ $-9.25$ $5148$ $1.2\times 10^{13}$
$H=$ $2.1$ $-0.19$ $4.8\times $1.2\times 10^{-20}$
10^{-5}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Table (3): corresponding to Fig. \[CH1\] for $\beta=1$.
Extended phase space and Smarr formula
======================================
In previous section we considered the usual discussions of thermodynamic properties of asymptotically adS black holes, in which the cosmological constant is treated as a fixed parameter. However, there are some motivations to view the cosmological constant as a variable (for e.g. see [@LambdaP]). In addition, there exist some theories where some physical constants such as gauge coupling constants, Newton constant, Lovelock coefficients and BI parameter may not be fixed values but dynamical ones. In that case, it is natural to consider these variable parameters into the first law of black hole thermodynamics [@CteVariable]. Considering the cosmological constant as a thermodynamic pressure, the black hole mass $%
M $ should be explained as enthalpy rather than internal energy of the system [@Enthalpy]. In the geometric units, one can identify the cosmological constant with the pressure as $$P=-\frac{\Lambda }{8\pi }, \label{P}$$where the thermodynamic quantity conjugate to the pressure is called thermodynamic volume of black holes. In addition, it was shown that the Smarr formula may be extended to Lovelock gravity as well as nonlinear theories of electrodynamics [@SmarrNew].
Geometrical techniques (scaling argument) were used to derive an extension of the first law and its related modified Smarr formula that includes variations in the cosmological constant, Lovelock coefficient and also nonlinearity parameter. In our case, Lovelock gravity in the presence of the NED, $M$ should be the function of entropy, pressure, charge, Lovelock parameter and BI coupling coefficient [SmarrNew]{}. Regarding the previous section, we find that those thermodynamic quantities satisfy the following differential form $$dM=TdS+\Phi dQ+VdP+\mathcal{A}_{1}^{\prime }d\alpha _{2}+\mathcal{A}%
_{2}^{\prime }d\alpha _{3}+\mathcal{B}d\beta . \label{GenFirstLaw}$$where we have achieved $T$ and $\Phi $, and one can obtain$$\begin{aligned}
V &=&\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial P}\right) _{S,Q,\alpha _{2},\alpha
_{3},\beta }, \\
\mathcal{A}_{1}^{\prime } &=&\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial \alpha _{2}}%
\right) _{S,Q,P,\alpha _{3},\beta }, \\
\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\prime } &=&\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial \alpha _{3}}%
\right) _{S,Q,P,\alpha _{2},\beta }, \\
\mathcal{B} &=&\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial \beta }\right)
_{S,Q,P,\alpha _{2},\alpha _{3}}.\end{aligned}$$
Using the redefinition of $\alpha _{2}$ and $\alpha _{3}$ with respect to the single parameter, $\alpha $, we can rewrite $\mathcal{A}_{1}^{\prime
}d\alpha _{2}+\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\prime }d\alpha _{3}$ as a single differential form $$\begin{aligned}
d{\alpha _{2}} &=&\frac{1}{{(n-2)(n-3)}}d\alpha , \\
d\alpha _{3} &=&\frac{2{\alpha }}{{3(n-2)(n-3)(n-4)(n-5)}}{d\alpha .}\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, by scaling argument, we can obtain the generalized Smarr relation for our asymptotically adS solutions in the extended phase space $$(d-3)M=(d-2)TS+(d-3)Q\Phi -2PV+2\left( \mathcal{A}_{1}\alpha +\mathcal{A}%
_{2}\alpha ^{2}\right) -\mathcal{B}\beta \label{Smarr2}$$where $$\begin{aligned}
V &=&\frac{r_{+}^{n}}{n}, \\
\mathcal{A}_{1} &=&\frac{(n-1)k^{2}r_{+}^{n-4}}{16\pi }-\frac{%
(n-1)kTr_{+}^{n-3}}{2(n-3)}, \\
\mathcal{A}_{2} &=&\frac{(n-1)k^{3}r_{+}^{n-6}}{24\pi }-\frac{%
(n-1)k^{2}Tr_{+}^{n-5}}{2(n-5)}, \\
\left. \mathcal{B}\right\vert _{\text{ENED}}
&=&\frac{q(n-1)r_{+}\left(
L_{W+}\right) ^{\frac{3}{2}}F\left( [1],[\frac{5n-6}{2n-2}],\frac{L_{W+}}{%
2n-2}\right) }{8\pi n(3n-4)}-\frac{\beta r_{+}^{n}}{8\pi n}+\frac{q\beta
r_{+}^{n+1}\sqrt{L_{W+}}\left( 1-L_{W+}\right) }{8\pi n\left(
1+L_{W+}\right) }+\frac{2qr_{+}}{8\pi n\sqrt{L_{W+}}\left( 1+L_{W+}\right) },
\\
\left. \mathcal{B}\right\vert _{\text{LNED}} &=&\frac{\beta
r_{+}^{n}}{2\pi
n^{2}}\left[ -(n-1)\left( 1-\Gamma _{+}^{2}\right) F\left( \left[ \frac{1}{2}%
,\frac{n-2}{2n-2}\right] ,\left[ \frac{3n-4}{2n-2}\right] ,1-\Gamma
_{+}^{2}\right) +2n\ln \left( \frac{1+\Gamma _{+}}{2}\right) +(3n-2)\left(
1-\Gamma _{+}\right) \right] .\end{aligned}$$Regarding the mentioned argument and using Eqs. (\[P\]) and (\[T2\]), one can obtain the equation of state $P(V,T)$ to compare the black hole system with the Van der Waals fluid equation in ($n+1$)-dimensions [PVlovelock]{}.
CLOSING REMARKS
================
In this paper we considered third order Lovelock gravity in the presence of exponential and logarithmic forms of NED models. Regardless of naked singularities, we obtained topological black hole solutions with two horizons or one (non-)extreme horizon. We found that replacing $\Lambda$ with an effective cosmological constant, $\Lambda_{eff}$, one may obtain asymptotically adS solutions. In other words, Lovelock gravity and also BI type NED models do not alter the asymptotical behavior of the solutions. We obtained thermodynamics and conserved quantities of the topological black holes and found that the Lovelock gravity does not affect the temperature, entropy and finite mass only for black holes with Ricci flat horizon, $k=0$. Moreover, we showed that the thermodynamics and conserved quantities satisfy the first law of thermodynamics.
We performed stability criterion in both canonical and grand canonical ensembles by use of numerical analysis only for $k=1$. We found a lower bound for the horizon radius, $r_{0}\geq 0$, in which the temperature is positive for $r_{+}>r_{0}$. We showed that the nonlinearity parameter, $%
\beta $, and also Lovelock coefficient, $\alpha $ can affect the value of $%
r_{0}$. Then we studied the heat capacity and determinant of Hessian matrix and showed that for $\alpha <\alpha _{c}$, there are two limits $r_{a}$ and $%
r_{b}$ ($r_{a}<r_{b}$), in which the black holes have an unstable phase for $%
r_{a}<r_{+}<r_{b}$. Furthermore, we found an lower limit ($r_{c}$) in which for $\alpha >\alpha _{c}$ and $r_{+}>r_{c}$ the black holes are stable. In addition, we found that for canonical ensemble one finds $r_{c}=r_{0}$ and for grand canonical ensemble $r_{c}>r_{0}$. Calculations showed that regardless of value of values of $\beta $, there is an unstable phase of black hole solutions for $\alpha <\alpha _{c}$.
At last, we have discussed the extended phase space in which the cosmological constant, nonlinearity and Lovelock parameters considered as dynamical variables. We have calculated generalized Smarr formula and also modified first law of thermodynamics. Extended phase space help us to investigate the similarities between the thermodynamical behavior of black hole system under studied and the Van der Waals gas/liquid system.
Finally, we should note that for the sake of economy, we investigated stability conditions only for $k=1$. One may regard other horizon topology for discussion of thermal stability. In addition, it is worthwhile to mention that it would be interesting to investigate the phase transition by Geometrothermodynamics approach [@GTD]. In addition, one can follow the section IV to discuss about the concept of extended phase space thermodynamics and $P-V$ criticality of the Lovelock black holes with BI type NED [@PVlovelock]. We leave these problems to our forthcoming independent works.
We would like to thank the anonymous referee for useful suggestions and enlightening comments. The authors wish to thank Shiraz University Research Council. This work has been supported financially by Center for Excellence in Astronomy & Astrophysics of Iran (CEAAI-RIAAM).
**Appendix**
The action of third order Lovelock gravity in the presence of NED which is related to the field equations (\[Geq\]) and (\[BIeq\]) is $$\mathcal{I}_{G}=-\frac{1}{16\pi }\int_{\mathcal{M}}d^{n+1}x\sqrt{-g}%
[R-2\Lambda +\alpha _{2}\mathcal{L}_{2}+\alpha _{3}\mathcal{L}_{3}+\mathcal{L%
}(\mathcal{F})]+\mathcal{I}_{b}, \label{Ibulk}$$where $\mathcal{L}_{2}$, $\mathcal{L}_{3}$ and $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{F})$were defined before. The last term in Eq. \[Ibulk\] is boundary action. The integral of Eq. \[Ibulk\] does not have a well-defined variational principle, since one encounters a total derivative that produces a surface integral involving the derivative of $\delta g_{\mu \nu }$ normal to the boundary. The normal derivative terms do not vanish by themselves, but are cancelled by the variation of the suitable surface term (Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term [@GH1; @GH2]) with the following explicit form$$\mathcal{I}_{b}=-\frac{1}{8\pi }\int_{\partial \mathcal{M}}d^{n}x\sqrt{%
-\gamma }\left[ K+\alpha _{2}L_{2b}+\alpha _{3}L_{3b}\right] ,
\label{Iboundary}$$with$$L_{2b}=2\left( J-2\widehat{G}_{ab}^{(1)}K^{ab}\right) , \label{L2b}$$$$L_{3b}=3(P-2\widehat{G}_{ab}^{(2)}K^{ab}-12\widehat{R}_{ab}J^{ab}+2\widehat{R%
}J-4K\widehat{R}_{abcd}K^{ac}K^{bd}-8\widehat{R}%
_{abcd}K^{ac}K_{e}^{b}K^{ed}), \label{L3b}$$where $\gamma _{\mu \nu }$ and $K$ are, respectively, the induced metric and the trace of extrinsic curvature of boundary, $\widehat{G}_{ab}^{(1)}$ and $%
\widehat{G}_{ab}^{(2)}$ denote the $n$-dimensional Einstein and second order Lovelock tensors of the metric $\gamma _{ab}$ while $J$ and $P$ are the traces of $$J_{ab}=\frac{1}{3}%
(2KK_{ac}K_{b}^{c}+K_{cd}K^{cd}K_{ab}-2K_{ac}K^{cd}K_{db}-K^{2}K_{ab}),
\label{Jab}$$and $$\begin{aligned}
P_{ab} &=&\frac{1}{5}%
\{[K^{4}-6K^{2}K^{cd}K_{cd}+8KK_{cd}K_{e}^{d}K^{ec}-6K_{cd}K^{de}K_{ef}K^{fc}+3(K_{cd}K^{cd})^{2}]K_{ab}
\nonumber \\
&&-(4K^{3}-12KK_{ed}K^{ed}+8K_{de}K_{f}^{e}K^{fd})K_{ac}K_{b}^{c}-24KK_{ac}K^{cd}K_{de}K_{b}^{e}
\nonumber \\
&&+12(K^{2}-K_{ef}K^{ef})K_{ac}K^{cd}K_{db}+24K_{ac}K^{cd}K_{de}K^{ef}K_{bf}%
\}. \label{Pab}\end{aligned}$$
In general the action $\mathcal{I}_{G}$, the Hamiltonian and other associated conserved quantities diverge when evaluated on the solutions. Due to the fact that our spacetime is asymptotically adS, one can use the systematic method to regulate the gravitational action of asymptotically adS solutions which is through the use of the counterterm method. It was shown that the counterterm approach become quite reasonable when applied to AdS/CFT, as the boundary counterterm has a natural interpretation as conventional field theory counterterm that show up in the dual CFT [@Mal].
The counterterm action is a functional of the boundary curvature invariants and do not affect on the symmetries and field equations of the bulk $\mathcal{M}$ $${I_{\mathrm{ct}}}=\int_{\partial \mathcal{M}}{{d^{n}}x\sqrt{-h}L(l,\widehat{R%
},\nabla \widehat{R},...)}. \label{Ict1}$$
In a general manner, the counterterm in Lovelock gravity is a scalar constructed from the curvature invariants of the boundary as in the case of Einstein gravity [@Kraus; @DehNew]. Although one can use the procedure of Ref. [@DehNew] to compute the counterterm action for arbitrary horizon topology, for the sake of brevity and simplification, we deal with the spacetime with zero curvature boundary ($\widehat{R}_{abcd}(\gamma )=0$). In this case all the counterterm containing the curvature invariants of the boundary are zero (see [@TOLNLED; @DehShah2] for more details) and the counterterm reduces to $$\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{ct}}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\int_{\partial
\mathcal{M}}d^{n}x\sqrt{-\gamma }\left(
\frac{n-1}{l_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right) ,\ \label{Ict}$$where $l_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is given by
$$l_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{15\sqrt{\alpha \left[ 1-\left( 1-\frac{3\alpha }{l^{2}%
}\right) ^{1/3}\right] }}{9\left( 1+\frac{\alpha }{l^{2}}\right) -\left[
2+\left( 1-\frac{3\alpha }{l^{2}}\right) ^{1/3}\right] ^{2}}, \label{Leff}$$
It is notable that the effective $l_{\mathrm{eff}}$ reduces to $l$ as $%
\alpha $ goes to zero. Having the finite action and using the Brown–York method of a quasilocal definition [@BY] with Eq. (\[Ibulk\])-(\[Ict\]), one can introduce a divergence-free stress-energy tensor as follows $$T^{ab}=\frac{2}{{\sqrt{-\gamma }}}\frac{{\partial (\mathcal{I}_{G}+\mathcal{I%
}_{\mathrm{ct}})}}{{\partial \gamma {_{ab}}}}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left[
(K^{ab}-K\gamma ^{ab})+2\alpha (3J^{ab}-J\gamma ^{ab})+\frac{n-1}{l_{\mathrm{%
eff}}}\gamma ^{ab}\right] . \label{Tab}$$The quasilocal conserved quantities associated with the stress-energy tensor of Eq. (\[Tab\]) can be defined as $$Q(\xi )=\int_{\mathcal{B}}d^{n-1}\varphi \sqrt{\gamma }T_{ab}n^{a}\xi ^{b},
\label{Conserved}$$where the the timelike unit vector $n^{a}$ is normal to the boundary $B$ and $\xi ^{b}$ is the Killing vector. Regarding temporal Killing vector $\xi
=\partial /\partial t$ and taking into account Eqs. (\[Conserved\]) and (\[Tab\]), we can calculate the mass per unit volume $V_{n-1}$ as $$M=\frac{\left( n-1\right) }{16\pi }m. \label{Massk0}$$We should note that the parameter $m$ can be calculated by using of the fact that the metric function vanishes at the event horizon, $r_{+}$. Although one can check that the form of Eq. (\[Massk0\]) is valid for $k=\pm 1,0$, we should indicate that, unlike $k=\pm 1$ cases, the mass parameter, $m$, does not depend on the Lovelock parameter for the boundary flat solutions.
Although we used the counterterm method to calculate the finite mass, one may find different methods in the literature for computing the finite mass. It will be interesting to study the conditions that enable those prescriptions to provide the right mass for the solutions obtained here.
One of the best known prescriptions is that of Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM), which can be most applied in asymptotically flat spacetimes. In addition, the ADM method may also be applied to asymptotically anti-de Sitter space [@ADM]. In such case, the mass may be extracted by comparison to a suitable reference background (e.g. vacuum adS). Furthermore, we refer the reader to the Ashtekar-Magnon-Das (AMD) formula [@AMDmass], the Hamiltonian method of Regge and Teitelboim [@RTmass], the generalized Komar integral of Lovelock gravity [@Komar] and the subtraction method of Brown and York [@BY; @BY2].
[99]{} D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys. **12**, 498 (1971);
N. Deruelle and L. Farina-Busto, Phys. Rev. D **41**, 3696 (1990);
G. A. MenaMarugan, Phys. Rev. D **46**, 4320 (1992);
G. A. MenaMarugan, Phys. Rev. D **46**, 4340 (1992).
B. Zwiebach, Phys. Lett. B **156**, 315 (1985);
B. Zumino, Phys. Rep. **137**, 109 (1986).
M. H. dehghani and N. Alinejadi and S. H. Hendi, Phys. Rev. D **77**, 104025 (2008);
S. H. Hendi, S. Panahiyan and H. Mohammadpour, Eur. Phys. J. C **72**, 2184 (2012).
S. H. Hendi, JHEP **03**, 065 (2012).
S. H. Hendi, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) **333**, 282 (2013);
S. H. Hendi, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) **346**, 42 (2014)..
E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, Phys. Lett. B **163**, 123 (1985);
E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin, C.N. Pope and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B **188**, 70 (1987);
R. R. Metsaev, M.A. Rahmanov and A. A. Tseytlin, Phys. Lett. B **193**, 207 (1987);
A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B **501**, 41 (1997);
D. Brecher and M. J. Perry, Nucl. Phys. B **527**, 121 (1998).
S. H. Hendi and A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D **88**, 044044 (2013);
S. H. Hendi, S. Panahiyan and E. Mahmoudi, Eur. Phys. J. C **74**, 3079 (2014).
R. C. Myers and J. Z. Simon, Phys. Rev. D **38**, 2434 (1988);
L. F. Abbott and S. Deser, Nucl. Phys. B **195**, 76 (1982).
V. Balasubramanian and P. Kraus, Commun. Math. Phys. **208**, 413 (1999).
M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D **48**, 583 (1993);
M. Lu and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D **47**, R3095 (1993).
T. Jacobson and R.C. Myers, Phys. Rev. Lett. **70**, 3684 (1993);
T. Jacobson, G. Kang and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D **49**, 6587 (1994);
R. C. Myers and J. Z. Simon, Phys. Rev. D **38**, 2434 (1988).
R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D **48**, 3427 (1993).
M. Cvetic and S. S. Gubser, JHEP **04**, 024 (1999);
M. M. Caldarelli, G. Cognola and D. Klemm, Class. Quantum Grav. **17**, 399 (2000).
D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, JHEP **07**, 033 (2012);
S. Gunasekaran, R. B. Mann and D. Kubiznak, JHEP **11**, 110 (2012);
S. H. Hendi and M. H. Vahidinia, Phys. Rev. D **88**, 084045 (2013).
G. W. Gibbons, R. Kallosh and B. Kol, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 4992 (1996);
J. D. E. Creighton and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D **52**, 4569 (1995);
D. A. Rasheed, \[Arxiv: hep-th/9702087\];
N. Breton, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. **37**, 643 (2005).
D. Kastor, S. Ray and J. Traschen, Class. Quantum Gravit. **26**, 195011 (2009).
D. Kastor, S. Ray and J. Traschen, Class. Quantum Gravit. **27**, 235014 (2010);
R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao, L. Li and R.Q. Yang, \[arXiv:1306.6233\];
D. C. Zou, S. J. Zhang and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. D **89**, 044002 (2014);
Z. Sherkatghanad, B. Mirza, Z. Mirzaeyan and S. A. H. Mansoori, \[arXiv:1412.5028\].
S. H. Hendi, S. Panahiyan and B. Eslam Panah, *“Extended phase space of Black Holes in Lovelock gravity with nonlinear electrodynamics”* submitted for publication.
S. H. Hendi and R. Naderi, Phys. Rev. D **91,** 024007 (2015).
G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D **15**, 2752 (1977).
R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D **15**, 2752 (1987);
S. C. Davis, Phys. Rev. D **67**, 024030 (2003).
J. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. **2**, 231 (1998);
E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. **2,** 253 (1998).
P. Kraus, F. Larsen and R. Siebelink, Nucl. Phys. B **563,** 259 (1999).
M. R. Mehdizadeh, M. H. Dehghani and M. Kord Zangeneh, \[arXiv:1501.05218\].
M. H. Dehghani and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D **73**, 104003 (2006).
J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. D **47**, 1407 (1993).
A. Ashtekar and A. Magnon, Class. Quantum Gravit. **1**; L39 (1984);
A. Ashtekar and S. Das, Class. Quantum Gravit. **17**, L17 (2000).
T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, Ann. Phys. **88**, 286 (1974);
M. Henneaux, C. Martinez, R. Troncoso and J. Zanelli, Ann. Phys. **322**, 824 (2007);
A. Anabalon, D. Astefanesei and C. Martinez, \[arXiv:1407.3296\].
D. Kastor, Class. Quantum Gravit. **25**, 175007 (2008)
J. D. Brown, J. Creighton and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D **50**, 6394 (1994).
[^1]: email address: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider a quaternately generalized Pfaffian QGPf$(\frac{1}{J(z_i,z_j,z_k,z_l)})[J(z_1,\cdots,z_N)]^2$ in which the square of Vandermonde determinant, $[J(z_1,\cdots,z_N)]^2$, implies the upmost Landau level is half filled. This wave function is the unique highest density zero energy state of a special short range interacting Hamiltonian. One can think this quaternate composite fermion liquid as a competing ground state of Moore-Read (MR) Pfaffian state at $\nu=5/2$. The degeneracy of the quasihole excitations above the QGPf is higher than that of Moore-Read even Read-Rezayi quasiholes. The QGPf is related to a unitary conformal field theory with $Z_2\times Z_2$ parafermions in coset space $SU(3)_2/U(1)^2$ . Because of the level-rank duality between $SU(3)_2$ and $SU(2)_3$ in conformal field theory, these quasiholes above this QGPf state obeying non-abelian anyonic statistics are expected to support the universal quantum computation at $\nu=5/2$ as Read-Rezayi quasiholes at $\nu=13/5$. The edge states of QGPf are very different from those of the Pfaffian’s.'
author:
- Yue Yu
title: 'Quaternate generalization of Pfaffian state at $\nu=5/2$ '
---
[*Introduction —*]{} Fractional quantum Hall (FQH) states in the second Landau level exhibit a very complicated behavior because of the competition among many nearly degenerate states [@exp1; @exp2]. There are two very interesting FQH states with $\nu=\frac{5}2$ and $\frac{12}5$ whose quasihole excitations are expected to obey the non-abelian anyonic statistics [@mr; @rr], which is thought as the key to open the door to topological quantum computation [@kit; @fre].
The $\nu=\frac{5}2$ FQH state may possibly be explained by Moore-Read(MR) Pfaffian state [@mr]. It is two-electron cluster liquid state and can be thought as a $p_x+ip_y$ weak pairing state of the composite fermions [@gww; @gr]. The electron cluster states are not strange in a perpendicular magnetic fields. At higher Landau levels, say $3<\nu<4$, there are multi-electron bubble crystals away from the half filling. The electron number within a bubble may exceed two as the filling factor gradually goes to a half and a unidirectional charge density wave appears near the half filling [@kfs]. Experimental evidence was already seen [@Lilly]. At $\nu=5/2$, experiments found a transition from the FQH state to a unidirectional charge density wave when an in-plane magnetic field is applied [@inp].
Although it is widely believed that the FQH state at $\nu=5/2$ is a $p$-wave weak paired composite fermion state, none of experimental data confirms it. Moreover, if the $\nu=13/5$ and 12/5 FQH states are described by three-electron cluster Read-Rezayi state [@rr], the pairing state in $\nu=5/2$ seems to be contrary to the appearing order of number of electrons in a single cluster in higher Landau level in which the electron number in a single cluster increases as the filling factor closes to the half filling. The physical origin of these electron clusters appearing is the same: The lower fully filled Landau levels’ screening supplies an effective attraction between electrons in the partially filled upmost Landau level. Therefore, one may raise a question: Is it possible that the electron number in a cluster exceeds two at $\nu=5/2$?
Numerically, although Morf gave a nice evidence that the MR Pfaffian state is energetically favored comparing to other competing states [@morf], only the even total number of electrons was examined because MR state pairing state is for even number of electrons. For the odd total electron number, the extra unpairing electron restricts the boundary condition of the finite system [@gr] and there is no numerical study.
It was known that the non-abelian statistics of MR quasiholes is not sufficiently dense for a universal quantum computer [@fre]. The Read-Rezayi quasiholes are dense to realize the universal quantum computing but the FQH state at $\nu=13/5$ (or 12/5) is more delicate. Is it possible that the quasiholes of the multi-electron clustered state at $\nu=5/2$ provide a base of the universal quantum computation? This is another motivation to consider the 4-electron cluster state at $\nu=5/2$.
In this paper, we propose a quaternately generalized Pfaffian (QGPf) state if the electron number is integer times of 4. The pairing picture of composite fermions for the Pfaffian is naturally generalized to quaternate composite fermions. We find that the QGPf state may be the unique highest density zero energy state of a special Hamiltonian with short range interaction. The quasihole wave functions are the higher flux zero energy states of the special Hamiltonian. The quasihole degeneracy is much higher than that of MR even Read-Rezayi quasiholes. The QGPf state is related to a $c=6/5$ unitary conformal field theory(CFT) with $Z_2\times Z_2$ parafermions in coset space $SU(3)_2/U(1)^2$ [@nov]. Due to the level-rank duality between $SU(3)_2$ and $SU(2)_3$ in CFT, these quasiholes obeying non-abelian anyonic statistics are expected to support the universal quantum computation. We also discuss the edge states of the QGPf and find that they are very different from those of Pfaffian.
QGPf [*Wave Functions —*]{} We consider two-dimensional spin polarized electron gas in the second Landau level. The mixing between Landau levels is neglected and the second Landau level is treated as the lowest Landau level (LLL) except the interaction between electrons is renormalized due to the screening of the electrons in the LLL. We focus on the half filling, i.e., $\nu=5/2$. For even number of electrons, we recall the MR Pfaffian state [@mr], e.g., for 8-electrons, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal
S}[(z_1-z_3)(z_1-z_4)(z_1-z_5)(z_1-z_6)(z_1-z_7)(z_1-z_8)\nonumber\\
&&(z_2-z_3)(z_2-z_4)(z_2-z_5)(z_2-z_6)(z_2-z_7)(z_2-z_8)\nonumber\\
&&(z_3-z_5)(z_3-z_6)(z_3-z_7)(z_3-z_8)\nonumber\\
&&(z_4-z_5)(z_4-z_6)(z_4-z_7)(z_4-z_8)\nonumber\\
&&(z_5-z_7)(z_5-z_8)(z_6-z_7)(z_6-z_8)]J(z_1,\cdots,z_8)\nonumber\\&&={\rm
Pf}(\frac{1}{z_i-z_j})[J(z_1,\cdots,z_8)]^2\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal S}$ denotes the symmetrization of $1,\cdots,8$ and $J(z_1,\cdots,z_8)=\prod_{i<j\leq 8}(z_i-z_j)$ is the Vandermonde determinant. Pf$(\frac{1}{z_i-z_j})={\cal
A}(\frac{1}{(z_1-z_2)(z_3-z_4)(z_5-z_6)(z_7-z_8)})$ with ${\cal A}$ denoting the anti-symmetrization. For simplicity, we have omitted the Guassian factor of the wave function.
The Read-Rezayi state [@rr] is a generalization of the MR Pfaffian. This wave function is for electron number $3n$ and is a possible competing ground state of spin polarized electron gas at $\nu=13/5$. There is another generalization of the MR state to $N=4n$-electrons ($n>1)$, say $N=8$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal S}[(z_1-z_5)(z_1-z_6)(z_1-z_7)(z_1-z_8)
\nonumber\\ &&(z_2-z_5)(z_2-z_6)(z_2-z_7)(z_2-z_8)\label{6wf}
\\ &&(z_3-z_5)(z_3-z_6)(z_3-z_7)(z_3-z_8)
\nonumber\\ &&(z_4-z_5)(z_4-z_6)(z_4-z_7)(z_4-z_8)]
J(z_1,\cdots,z_8).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The symmetrizing part of this wave function allows 4-particles occurring the same position but not 5-particles. The Vandermonde determinant $J(z_1,\cdots,z_8)$ leads to the total wave function is anti-symmetric and electrons obey Pauli principle. This state may be rewritten as $
{\rm QGPf}(\frac{1}{
J(z_i,z_j,z_k,z_l)})[J(z_1,\cdots,z_8)]^2
$ where the generalized Pfaffian (QGPf) is defined by ${\cal
A}(\frac{1}{ J(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)J(z_5,z_6,z_7,z_8)})$ and $J(z_i,z_j,z_k,z_l)$ is the Vandermonde determinant for $z_i,z_j,
z_k$ and $z_l$. Generalizating to the system with $N=4n$ ($n>1$) electrons, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm
QGPf}\biggl(\frac{1}{J(z_i,z_j,z_k,z_l)}\biggr)[J(z_1,\cdots,z_N)]^2,
\label{N}\end{aligned}$$ where the QGPf is defined by ${\cal
A}(\frac{1}{J(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)}
\cdots\frac{1}{J(z_{N-3},z_{N-2},z_{N-1},z_{N})}).$ The filling factor of this state is, $\nu=\frac{N}{N_\phi}$ for $N_\phi=2(N-1)-3$, which tends to 1/2 as $N\to\infty$ and coincides with $\nu=2+1/2$ in the second Landau level.
[*Special Hamiltonian —*]{} It was known that the MR Pfaffian state is the highest density zero energy state of the Hamiltonian $H_{MR}=V\sum_{i<j<k}\delta'(z_i-z_j)\delta'(z_j-z_k)$ [@gww]. The Hamiltonian, whose highest density zero energy state is the Read-Rezayi state, is given by $
H_{RR}=V\sum_{i<j<k<l}\delta'(z_i-z_j)\delta'(z_j-z_k)\delta'(z_k-z_l).$ Therefore, the MR Pfaffian state and Read-Rezayi state are the corresponding ground states of these special Hamiltonians [@rr], according to Haldane’s highest density criteria [@haldane].
The QGPf is zero energy state of $H_{RR}$ but not the highest density one. It is not zero energy state of $H_{MR}$. Can the QGPf state be a ground state of a special short range interacting Hamiltonian? For $N=4n$ electrons, we consider the following Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&V~\sum_{P_{4n}}[\delta'(z_{i_1}-z_{i_2})\delta'(z_{i_2}-z_{i_3})]
\cdots\nonumber\\&&
[\delta'(z_{i_{4n-3}}-z_{i_{4n-2}})\delta'(z_{i_{4n-2}}-z_{i_{4n-1}})]
\nonumber\\&&\delta'(z_{i_{4a}}-z_{i_{4b}}),\label{gpfh}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{4n}$ is a permutation of $1,\cdots,4n$ with $i_1<i_2<i_3;\cdots;i_{4n-3}<i_{4n-2}
<i_{4n-1}$, and $i_{4a}< i_{4b}$ with $a\ne b\leq n$. Here, we divide electrons into $n$-groups with 4 electrons in each group. Take three in each group and let them interacting with a three-body short range potential. Left electrons belong to the distinct groups and the last pair in the Hamiltonian comes from them. Then make all these electrons interacting simultaneously. This $H$ outwardly is a $3n+2$-electron interaction and in principle can be treated by means of the method developed in a recent work by Simon et al [@simon] but it is hard to handle when electron number becomes large. However, since it has been fractionized to independent $n$-three-body interaction and a two-body interaction, this special form of the interaction here in fact reflects the three-body interaction physics and it helps us to attract the lowest flux (i.e., the highest density) zero energy state. Taking $N=8$ as an example, the Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&H_8=V~[\delta'(z_1-z_2)\delta'(z_2-z_3)\delta'(z_5-z_6)\delta'(z_6-z_7)\nonumber\\&&\delta'(z_4-z_8)
+{\rm other~terms~by~cycling~(1\cdots8)]},\label{6h}\end{aligned}$$ The zero energy wave function is written as $
\Psi_{electron}(z_1,\cdots,z_8)=\Psi_{symm}(z_1,\cdots,z_8)J(z_1,\cdots,z_8).
$ If we consider only the symmetric part $\Psi_{symm}$, the $\delta'$-function should be replaced by the $\delta$-function. In order to find the lowest flux zero energy state, we divide eight electrons into two groups, say, (1234) and (5678). The relevant terms in the Hamiltonian are the terms including an inter group pair, say the pair $z_4-z_8$ in the first term of $H_8$. Thus, the most economic way to get the lowest flux is to include only this pair in $\Psi_{symm}$ which then includes a term $\prod_{i,j=1}^4 (z_i-z_{4+j})$. One can check that all other terms in (\[6h\]) (for $\delta$-function) act on it vanishing and if taking away any factor from it, one can always have a non-zero acting. Therefore, this is a lowest flux zero energy state. When regrouping the electrons, the lowest flux state also changes correspondingly. Due to the total symmetry of $\Psi_{symm}$, regrouping leads to a unique lowest flux state, i.e., $
\Psi_{symm}(z_1,\cdots,z_8)={\cal S}[\prod_{i,j=1}^4
(z_i-z_{4+j})],
$ which is exactly the symmetric factor in (\[6wf\]). This is the unique lowest flux zero energy state of $H_8$. This argument for eight electrons is also true for arbitrary $4n$ electrons because one can always think each term in the Hamiltonian (\[gpfh\]) contains only one inter group electron pair. Therefore, the QGPf wave function is the ground state of the special Hamiltonian (\[gpfh\]). The MR Pfaffian is also the zero energy state but has a higher flux.
[*Quasiholes —*]{} Since the wave function must be totally antisymmetric, similar to MR quasiholes in pairs[@mr; @nw], the quasiholes create in quaternions, e.g., the $4$-quasihole wave function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm
QGPf}\biggl(\frac{f(z_i,z_j,z_k,z_l;w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4)}{J(z_i,z_j,z_k,z_l)}\biggr)
,\label{quasi}\end{aligned}$$ where $
f(z_i,z_j,z_k,k_l;w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4)
=(z_i-w_1)(z_j-w_2)(z_k-w_3)(z_l-w_4)+(ijkl)~{\rm cycle}$. This is a zero energy state of the Hamiltonian (\[gpfh\]) with the flux increasing to $N_\phi=2N-2$ [@nick]. Note that if $w_1=w_2=w_3=w_4$, it gives a Laughlin quasihole with charge $1/2$. Therefore, the quasihole charge is $1/8$. The $4m$-quasihole wave function can be defined in a similar way with $$\begin{aligned}
&&f(z_i,z_j,z_k,z_l;w_1,\cdots,w_{4m})
\nonumber\\
&&=(z_i-w_1)\cdots(z_i-w_m)(z_j-w_{m+1})\cdots(z_j-w_{2m})\nonumber\\
&&\times(z_k-w_{2m+1})\cdots (z_k-w_{3m})\nonumber\\
&&\times(z_l-w_{3m+1})\cdots (z_l-w_{4m})+(ijkl)~{\rm cycle}. \label{quasig}\end{aligned}$$ By exchanging the coordinates of quasiholes among four different sets $(w_{am+1},\cdots,w_{(a+1)m})$ ($a=0,1,2,3$), we can have $C^{4m-1}_{m-1}C^{3m-1}_{m-1}C^{2m-1}_{m-1}$ states. However, these quasihole states are not all independent. For example, for $m=2$, we have eight quasiholes and 35 different quasihole wave functions. A key relation to pick out the independent states reads [@nw] $$\begin{aligned}
[12]_i[34]_j-[14]_i[23]_j=x([12]_i[34]_j-[13]_i[24]_j),\end{aligned}$$ where $[12]_i=(z_i-w_1)(z_i-w_2)$, $x=\frac{w_{13}w_{24}}{w_{14}w_{23}}$ and $w_{12}=w_1-w_2$, etc. If we fix 4 in 8 $w_i$, one can follow Ref. [@nw] step by step to check this relation is also correct when it is put into the QGPf. This means we have 3 different wave functions and only 2 of them are independent. If we fix two $w_i$, there are 15 different wave functions and 5-indenpendent ones. For 35 different wave functions of total 8 quasiholes, there are 13 linearly independent. In general, according to exclusion statistics point of view [@shouten], this degeneracy is equal to a generalized Finobacci number $F^g_{4m-3}$ which is defined by $F^g_n=F^g_{n-1}+F^g_{n-2}+F^g_{n-3}$ with $F^g_0=F^g_1=1$ and$F^g_2=F^g_1+F^g_0$. $F^g_1=1$ and $F^g_5=13$ is consistent with $m=1$ and $m=2$ calculations.
There are three kinds of twisted states: (1) Take $w_1=0$ and $w_2=w_3=w_4=\infty$ in the three quasihole wave function; (2) Take $w_1=w_2=0$ and $w_3=w_4=\infty$; (3) Take $w_1=w_2=w_3=0$ and $w_4=\infty$.
[*Conformal Field Theory —*]{} A unitary CFT may related to the QGPf state is a $Z_2\times Z_2$ parafermion theory with coset space $SU(3)_2/U(1)^2$ and $c=\frac{kD}{k+g}-2=6/5$ ($D=8,k=2,g=3$) [@nov]. The $Z_3$ parafermion theory with coset space $SU(2)_3/U(1)$ supports the universal quantum computation [@fre]. Because of the level-rank duality between $SU(3)_2$ and $SU(2)_3$, we expect the parafermion theory in coset space $SU(3)_2/U(1)^2$ also supports the universal quantum computation.
There are three Majorana fermions $\psi^\alpha$, $\alpha=1,2,3$, which are parafermions graded by $Z_2\times Z_2$ (with the identity). The OPEs are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\psi^\alpha(z)\psi^\alpha(w)=\frac{1}{z-w}+O((z-w)^0) \\
&&\psi^\alpha(z)\psi^\beta(w)
=\frac{c_{\alpha\beta}\psi^\gamma(w)}{(z-w)^{1/2}}
+O((z-w)^{1/2}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha\ne\beta\ne\gamma$ in the second equation and $c_{12}=c_{23}=c_{31}=e^{-i\pi/4}/\sqrt{2}$ and $c_{\beta\alpha}=c_{\alpha\beta}^*$. Three point parafermion correlation function for $\alpha\ne \beta\ne \gamma$ is give by [@nov] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\psi^\alpha(z_1)\psi^\beta(z_2)\psi^\gamma(z_3)\rangle
=\frac{e^{-i\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}\pi/4}}
{z_{12}^{1/2}z_{13}^{1/2}z^{1/2}_{23}} \label{paraexp}\end{aligned}$$ Three twisted primary fields $\sigma^{12},\sigma^{23},\sigma^{13}$ have conformal dimension 1/10. When acting $\psi^\alpha $ to $\sigma^{\alpha\beta}$, it behaves like the Ising spin field $\sigma^\alpha$. Using the OPEs, one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}\{\langle{\cal N}[\prod_{\alpha=1}^3(:\prod_{i=1}^4\psi^\alpha(z_i):)]\rangle\}
=\frac{1}{J(z_1,\cdots,z_4)},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal N}$ is defined by subtracting the singularity from, e.g., $\psi^1(z_1)\psi^2(z_1)$, etc. That is, let all $\psi^2=\psi^2(z+\epsilon)$ and $\psi^3=\psi^3(z+2\epsilon)$. Then subtract the divergence with a term $O(1/\epsilon^{1/2})$ and take $\epsilon\to 0$ at the end of calculations. The normal ordering is $:\psi^\alpha(z)\psi^\alpha(w):
=\psi^\alpha(z)\psi^\alpha(w)-\frac{1}{z-w}$, and so on. That is, we forbid the direct contraction between the same type Majorana fermions. Notice that this result is a branch cut-free generalization to (\[paraexp\]). To get the QGPf, we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal A}
\{\langle{\cal N}[ \prod_{\alpha=1}^3(:\prod_{i=1}^N\psi^\alpha(z_i):)]\rangle\}
={\rm QGPf}(G_4)\\&&
+{\cal A}[G_4^{N-8}G_3G_5+G_4^{N-12}(G_5G_7+G_3G_9)+\cdots],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $G_3=1/J(z_i,z_j,z_k);
G^s_4=1/[J(z_{i_1},z_{i_2},z_{i_3},z_{i_4})\cdots
J(z_{i_{s-3}},z_{i_{s-2}},z_{i_{s-1}},z_{i_s})];$ $ G_{2a+1}(z_1,\cdots,z_{2a+1})
=1/[z_{12}z_{23}\cdots z_{2a+1,1}z^{1/2}_{13}
\cdots z^{1/2}_{2a,1}z^{1/2}_{2a+1,2}]$ for $2a+1\geq 5$ . All terms in square brackets on the right side include branch cut factors which can not be cancelled by multiplying a Jastraw factor $[J(z_1,\cdots,
z_N)]^{p/q}$. Projecting them away implies projecting to the LLL. Therefore, the lowest Landau level projection leaves the QGPf only.
We notice that not all quasihole wave functions (\[quasig\]) can be fallen under a correlations function of this CFT. Using the twisted primary field what we can get is the following correlation function: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}
\{\langle\sigma^{12}(w_1)\sigma^{12}(w_2)\sigma^{12}(w_3)
\sigma^{12}(w_4){\cal N}[\prod_{\alpha=1}^3:\prod_{i=1}^N\psi^\alpha(z_i):]
\rangle\}_{LLL}
\nonumber\\\sim {\rm QGPf}(\frac{f_4(z_i,z_j,z_k,z_l;w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4)}
{J(z_i,z_j,z_k,z_l)}),~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $f_4=(z_i-w_1)^4(z_j-w_2)^4(z_k-w_3)^4(z_l-w_4)^4+(ijkl)~{\rm cycle}$. This is a 16 quasihole wave function with four at the same position.
[*Edge Excitations –*]{} The edge excitations can also be discussed by a parallel way to those in the Pfaffian state [@edge]. The Laughlin-type charge edge excitations are exactly the same as those in the Pfaffian state, which can be obtained by timing symmetric polynomials to the QGPf state. However, the neutral edge excitations are very different from those of the Pfaffian state, which are given by replacing the QGPf state by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}(z_1^{p_1}\cdots
z_{4m'}^{p_{4m'}}\frac{1}{J(z_{4m'+1},z_{4m'+2},z_{4m'+3},z_{4m'+4})}\cdots)\end{aligned}$$ These edge states gain the momentum $\Delta
M=\sum_{i=1}^{4m'}(p_i+3/2)$, instead of $\sum_i (p_i+1/2)$ for Majorana fermions.
For twisted states, the edge excitations are given by $
{\cal A}(z_1^{p_1}\cdots z_{4m'}^{p_{4m'}}
\frac{z_{4m'+1}+z_{4m'+2}+z_{4m'+3}+z_{4m'+4}}{J(z_{4m'+1},z_{4m'+2},z_{4m'+3},z_{4m'+4})}\cdots)
$ with $\Delta M$ $=\sum_{i=1}^{4m'}(p_i+13/8)$ and other two raise momentum $\Delta M=\sum_{i=1}^{4m'}(p_i+7/4)$ and $\Delta M=\sum_{i=1}^{4m'}(p_i+15/8)$ .
[*Experimental Implication –*]{} Experimentally, the charge of the quasiparticle may be measured by the shot noise in a point contact tunnelling experiment, as measuring the fractional charge of the Laughlin quasiparticle [@charge]. For the MR Pfaffian state, the quasihole charge is $\frac{e}4$ while it is $\frac{e}8$ for the QGPf state. Recent proposed quasiparticle interferometry may measure the non-abelian statistics of the quasiparticles [@stat]. The different non-abelian statistical property will be reflected in this kind of experiments.
[*Conclusions —*]{} We have constructed a competing wave function of four-electron cluster in $\nu=5/2$ , the quaternate generalization of the pairing of composite fermions. This incompressible liquid state may challenge the MR Pfaffian state. The corresponding special Hamiltonian and the CFT were studied. The conformal field related to this QGPf state is dual to that of the Read-Rezayi quasiholes at $\nu=13/5$. Therefore, we expect a universal quantum computation in $\nu=5/2$. The finite electron calculations with powerful computational methods are definitely required to compare with the MR Pfaffian. Because the system is particle-hole symmetric for the Landau level mixing is neglected, an anti-QGPf state is expected like the anti-Pfaffian state competing to the Pfaffian state [@ap].
The author thanks Boris Noyvert, Zhenghan Wang, Xiao-Gang Wen and Zhongyuan Zhu for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by Chinese NNSF, the national program for basic research of MOST of China and a fund from CAS.
[*Note added*]{} The wave function (\[N\]) may be a member of a class of possible FQH wave functions recently proposed by Wen and Wang [@wenwang].
J. S. Xia et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 176809 (2004). W. Pan et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3530 (1999). G. Moore, and N. Read, Nucl. Phys. B [**360**]{}, 362 (1991). N. Read and E. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 8084 (1999). A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. [**303**]{}, 2(2003). M. H. Freedman, M. Larsen, Z. H. Wang, Commun. Math. Phys. [**227**]{}, 605(2002). M. Greiter, X. G. Wen, and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B [**374**]{}, 567 (1992). N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 10267 (2000). A. A. Koulakov, M. M. Fogler, and B. I. Shklovskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 499(1996); M. M. Fogler, A. A. Koulakov, and B. I. Shklovskii, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 1853(1996); M. M. Fogler and A. A. Koulakov, [*ibid*]{}, [**55**]{}, 9326(1997). M. P. Lilly et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 394 (1999). R. R. Du et al, Solid State Commun. [**109**]{}, 389 (1999). W. Pan et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 820(1999). M. P. Lilly et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 824(1999). R. H. Morf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1505 (1998).
B. Noyvert, J.High Energy Phys. [**0702**]{}, 074 (2007). D. Gepner, Nucl. Phys. B [**290**]{}, 10 (1987).
F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{}, 605 (1983).
S. H. Simon, E. H. Rezayi, and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 195306 (2007).
A. Cappelli, L. S. Georgiev, and I. T. Todorov, Comm. Math. Phys. [**205**]{}, 657 (1999). E. Ardonne and K. Schoutens, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**322**]{}, 221 (2007). N. Read, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 245334 (2006).
C. Nayak and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B [**479**]{}, 529 (1996).
N. Read, arXiv:0711.0543. To split the quasihole excitations from the ground state, one may add a term proportional to the angular momentum.
P. Bouwknegt, K. Schoutens, Nucl.Phys. B [**547**]{}, 501 (1999).
M. Milovanovic and N. Read, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 13559 (1996). P. Fendley et al, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 045317 (2007).
L. Saminadayar et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2526 (1997). R. de-Picciotto et al, Nature, [**389**]{}, 162 (1997). F. E. Camino et al, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 075342 (2005). P. Bonderson et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 016803 (2006). S. Das Sarma et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 166802 (2005). E. Fradkin et al, Nucl. Phys. B [**516**]{}, 704 (1998). A. Stern and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 016802 (2006).
S. S. Lee et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 236807 (2007). M. Levin et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 236806 (2007).
X. -G. Wen and Z. H. Wang, ArXiv:0801.3291.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In a recent paper Goriely considers the one–dimensional scalar reaction–diffusion equation $u_t = u_{xx} + f(u)$ with a polynomial reaction term $f(u)$ and conjectures the existence of a relation between a global resonance of the hamiltonian system $ u_{xx} + f(u)
= 0$ and the asymptotic speed of propagation of fronts of the reaction diffusion equation. Based on this conjecture an explicit expression for the speed of the front is given. We give a counterexample to this conjecture and conclude that additional restrictions should be placed on the reaction terms for which it may hold.
address: |
Facultad de Física\
P. Universidad Católica de Chile\
Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile
author:
- 'J. Cisternas and M. C. Depassier'
title: ' On a Conjecture of Goriely for the Speed of Fronts of the Reaction–Diffusion Equation'
---
Introduction
============
The one dimensional scalar reaction-diffusion equation $$u_t = u_{xx} + f(u) \label{eq:pde}$$ with $f(0) = f(u_+) = 0$ has been the subject of much study not only because it models different phenomena [@Britton; @Showalter; @Volpert], but also because it is the simplest reaction-diffusion equation for which rigorous results can be obtained [@Volpert; @KPP37; @HR75; @Fife1; @AW78; @Fife2; @BD1; @BD2; @BD3]. Depending on the situation being considered the reaction term $f(u)$ satisfies additional properties. It has been shown for different classes of reaction terms that suitable initial conditions $u(x,0)$ evolve in time into a monotonic front joining the state $u=u_+$ to $u=0$. The asymptotic speed at which the front travels is the minimal speed for which a traveling monotonic front $u(z) = u( x - c t)$ exists [@Fife1; @AW78]. Traveling fronts are a solution of the ordinary differential equation $u_{zz} + c u_{z} + f(u) = 0$. In the present case we shall be concerned with two types of reaction terms, the classical case $f > 0 $ in $(0,u_+)$ with $f'(0) > 0$ and the bistable case $f < 0$ in $(0,a)$, $f>0$ in $(a,u_+)$ with $\int_0^{u_+} f > 0$ and $f'(0) < 0$. In the classical case there is a continuum of speeds $c \ge c^*$ for which monotonic fronts exist. The system evolves into the front of speed $c^*$. In the bistable case there is a unique isolated value of the speed $c^*$ for which a monotonic front exists, the system evolves into this front. The problem is to determine the speed of propagation of the front. In the classical case, if in addition $f'(0) > f(u)/u$ the speed of propagation $c^*$ is the so called linear or KPP value $c_{KPP} = 2
\sqrt{f'(0)}$ [@KPP37]. In the other cases (as well as in the bistable case) there exist variational principles both local and integral from which the speed can be calculated with any desired accuracy for arbitrary $f$ [@Volpert; @HR75; @BD2; @BD3].
In a recent paper [@Gor95] Goriely proposes a new method for the determination of the speed. Based on an observed property of some exactly solvable cases, namely reaction terms of the form $f(u) = \mu
u + \nu u^n - u^{2 n -1}$ he conjectures that for polynomial reaction terms of the form $$f(u) = \mu u + g(u) \qquad
\label{eq:fhyp}$$ where $g(0) = g'(0) = 0$ and the polynomial $g$ independent of $\mu$, the speed of the front can be calculated from the knowledge of the heteroclinic orbit of the Hamiltonian system $$u_{zz} + f(u) = 0.$$ This property of solvable cases had not been observed before. The purpose of this article is to show by means of a counterexample that this conjecture is not true in general for the above class of polynomial reaction terms. However, considering that the conjecture is indeed true for a large class of reaction terms (the solvable cases mentioned above), it is a very interesting unsolved problem to characterize the class of functions for which it is valid. For the sake of clarity we state the conjecture here. The conjecture makes use of the fact the front approaches the equilibrium state $u = 0$ as ${\rm e}^{\lambda_- z}$, a well established fact, and approaches the equilibrium point $u= u_+$ as $u = u_+ - L {\rm e}^{\gamma_+ z}$, an assumption which is not always satisfied. Then the global resonance, defined as $$\delta = -{\gamma_+ \over \lambda_-} \label{eq:delta}$$ is conjectured to be a constant, for a general class of polynomial reaction terms, at all values of $\mu$ for which the nonlinear front exists. Explicit expressions are known for the rates of approach $\gamma_+$ and $\lambda_-$ in terms of $c$ and $f$ therefore, if $\delta$ can be calculated at any point, then an analytic formula for the speed can be obtained. There is such a point where it can be calculated, and that is the point at which $c=0$ and the system is hamiltonian. There is a unique value $\mu < 0$ for which such a front exists, (we shall label it as $\mu_h$ and the corresponding equilibrium point as $u_h$) and therefore the speed is completely determined. In the following section we consider a specific polynomial reaction term and show that it fails to satisfy the conjecture.
The Counterexample
==================
Consider the reaction term $
f(u) = \mu u + 2 u^2 - 7 u^3 + {20\over 3} u^4 - 2 u^5.
$ This is of the form $f(u) = \mu u + g(u)$ where the polynomial $g(u)
= 2 u^2 - 7 u^3 + 20 u^4/3 - 2 u^5$ satisfies the properties $g(0) =
g'(0) = 0$ and is independent of $\mu$ as requested by the conjecture. For the hamiltonian system $$u_{zz} + \mu u + 2 u^2 - 7 u^3 + {20\over 3} u^4 - 2 u^5 = 0$$ a heteroclinic orbit joining two equilibrium points exists at the value $\mu = \mu_h = -0.153897$. In Fig. 1 the reaction term $f(u)$ is shown together with the (scaled) potential. It is clear that a heteroclinic solution joining the point $u = 0$ to $ u_+ = u_h = 0.262156$ exists. In this case the resonance $\delta$ can be calculated. Its value is given by $$\delta = \delta_h = \sqrt{{f'(u_h)\over \mu_h} } = 0.865558. \label{eq:deltah}$$ Let us now consider the propagating fronts which are a solution of $$u_{zz} + c u_z + \mu u + 2 u^2 - 7 u^3 + {20\over 3} u^4 - 2 u^5 = 0.$$ Before giving the results of the numerical and analytical calculations we show the plot of the function $f$ at several values of $\mu$ which will make clear the numerical and analytical results that follow. As $\mu$ increases the equilibrium point $u_+$ increases until at $\mu = 1/3$ it reaches the value $u_+ = 1$ where $f' = 0$. Above this value of $\mu$ there is a discontinuous jump in $u_+$, the front joins the origin $u = 0$ to a new fixed point which corresponds to a different root of the polynomial $f(u)$. In Fig. 2 we show the function $f$ at different values of $\mu$. At $\mu = 1/3$ the fixed point $u_+ = 1$ and the derivative $f'(u_+) = 0$. At $\mu = 0.4$, we see that the value of $u_+$ is now the new root of $f$ which did not exist at low values of $\mu$.
First we describe the results of the numerical integrations of the initial value problem for Eq(\[eq:pde\]) with sufficiently localized initial value perturbations $u(x,0)$. The speed is obtained numerically and the value of $\delta$ is then computed from Eq.(\[eq:delta\]) which can be expressed as [@Gor95] $$\delta = {-c + \sqrt{c^2 - 4 f'(u_+)} \over c + \sqrt{c^2 - 4 f'(0)} }.
\label{eq:fordel}$$ In Fig. 3 we show the asymptotic speed of the front as a function of $\mu$. The solid line gives the numerical results and the dashed line corresponds to the linear or KPP value $2 \sqrt{\mu}$. First we observe that the KPP value is lower than the calculated speed in the range of $\mu$ shown which means that the transition to the linear or KPP regime occurs at larger values of $\mu$. Even though the value of $u_+$ is discontinuous, the speed is a continuous function of $\mu$.
And finally the graph of the resonance $\delta$ as a function of $\mu$ is shown in Fig. 4. At $\mu = \mu_h$ it adopts the analytically calculated value from the hamiltonian case, decreases to a value $\delta = 0$ at $\mu = 1/3$ jumps discontinuously to a larger value and increases from there on. This discontinuity can be attributed to the discontinuity in $u_+$. At the value of $\mu = 1/3$ where $f'(u_+) = 0$ it is evident from Eq (\[eq:fordel\]) that $\delta =
0$. As we will show below, at this value of $\mu$ the speed and the asymptotic behavior for the front can be calculated analytically and it is found that the front does not approach the fixed point $u_+ =
1$ exponentially, therefore one of the assumptions of the conjecture does not hold. Indeed we shall show that at $\mu = 1/3$ the front approaches $u= 1$ as $ u \sim 1 - A/z$.
In order to determine the speed we shall make use of variational principles. It is known that the speed of the front is given by [@BD2] $$c = \max 2 { \int_0^{u_+} \sqrt{ - f \phi \phi'} \,du \over
\int_0^{u_+} \phi \, du} \label{eq:var1}$$ where the maximum is taken over positive decreasing functions $\phi
(u)$. Taking as a trial function $$\phi(u) = { ( 1 -u)^{7/2} \over \sqrt{u} } {\rm e}^{- 3/[(2 (1 -u)]}$$ the integrals in Eq.(\[eq:var1\]) can be performed. We obtain for $\mu = 1/3$ $$c \ge \sqrt{{3\over 2}} > 2 \sqrt{\mu}.$$ To obtain an upper bound we make use of the local variational principle [@HR75] $$c = \inf_\rho \sup_u \left( \rho'(u) + {f(u)\over
\rho(u) }\right)$$ where the trial function $\rho(u) > 0$ and $\rho'(0) > 0$. Choosing as a trial function $
\rho(u) = \sqrt{ {2/ 3} }\, u \,( 1 - u)^2
$ we obtain the upper bound $$c\le \sqrt {{3\over 2}}$$ which combined with the above lower bound implies that the speed is exactly $c = \sqrt{3/2}$ in agreement with the results of the numerical integration. The exact value of the speed could be obtained analytically from the variational principles due to the fact that for $\mu = 1/3$ the derivative of the front can be calculated exactly. The derivative of the front as a function of $u$, $ p (u) =
- d u/d z$ satisfies the equation $ p(u) p'(u) - c p(u) + f(u) = 0$ and the exact solution at $\mu = 1/3$ is given by $ p (u) = \sqrt{
{2/ 3} }\, u\, ( 1 - u)^2$. With this expression for $p$ we may calculate the approach to the fixed point $u = 1$. Near $u = 1$, $p
\sim
\sqrt{2/3}\, (1 - u)^2$ so that $${du \over dz} \sim -\sqrt{{2\over 3}} \,(1 - u)^2$$ from where it follows that $$u(z) \sim 1 - \sqrt{{3\over 2}}\, {1\over z}.$$ We see then that at this point $\delta = 0$ since the rate of approach is not exponential but algebraic and one of the assumptions of the conjecture is not satisfied. We conclude from this example that the conjecture does not hold for general polynomials of the form given by Eq.(\[eq:fhyp\]).
Conclusion
==========
We have seen by means of a counterexample that the conjecture put forward that relates certain properties of the hamiltonian system $u_{zz} + f(u) = 0$ with the speed of the front solution of $u_{zz}
+ c u_z + f(u) = 0$ is not satisfied by general polynomial reaction terms $f(u)$. As observed by Goriely, there is a class of reaction terms for which it does hold, those for which an exact solution for the front $u(z)$ can be given explicitly. Numerical evidence has been given [@Gor95] in at least one case where the conjecture seems to hold in a case where the front cannot be calculated explicitly. On the other hand, we have given a counterexample to this conjecture. It is an interesting problem to establish precisely the conditions under which the proposed conjecture holds. This would lead to a classification of systems in at least three classes, those for which the speed is given in terms of the derivative at one fixed point, that is the KPP value $c = 2\sqrt{f'(0)}$, those in which the speed would be determined by the derivatives at the two fixed points (the expression given by Goriely would hold) and the rest, for which the speed depends on integral properties of the reaction term.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was partially supported by Fondecyt project 1960450.
[10]{}
N. F. Britton, [*Reaction-Diffusion Equations and Their Applications to Biology*]{} (Academic Press, London, 1986).
K. Showalter, Nonlinear Science Today [**4**]{}, 1–10 (1995).
A.I. Volpert, V. A. Volpert and V. A. Volpert, [*Traveling Wave Solutions of Parabolic Systems*]{} (Mathematical Monograph vol. [**140**]{} of the American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1994).
A. Kolmogorov, I. Petrovsky, and N. Piskunov, , 1–72, (1937).
P. C. Fife and J. B. McLeod, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. [**65**]{}, 335–361 (1977).
Hadeler K. P., Rothe F., J. Math. Biol [**2**]{}, 251–263 (1975)
D. G. Aronson and H. F. Weinberger, , 33–76 (1978).
P. C. Fife [ *Mathematical Aspects of Reacting and Diffusing Systems*]{} (Lecture Notes in Biomathematics vol. [**28**]{}, Springer Verlag, New York, 1979).
R. D. Benguria and M. C. Depassier, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2272–2274 (1994).
R. D. Benguria and M. C. Depassier, Commun. Math. Phys. [**175**]{}, 221–227 (1996).
R. D. Benguria and M. C. Depassier, preprint, 1995.
A. Goriely, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 2047–2050 (1995).
[ [**Figure Captions**]{}]{}
Graph of the reaction term $f$ and the corresponding scaled potential at the value of $\mu$ for which the speed of the front vanishes and the system is hamiltonian.
[**Figure 2**]{}
Graph of the reaction term at different values of $\mu$. The value of the stable point increases with $\mu$ until $\mu$ reaches $1/3$. A discontinuous jump in the stable point occurs at that value.
[**Figure 3**]{}
Graph of the speed obtained from the numerical integration of the initial value problem. The speed of the front is a continuous function of $\mu$. In the range of $\mu$ shown the speed is greater than the linear or KPP value.
[**Figure 4**]{}
Value of the resonance $\delta$ as a function of $\mu$ obtained from the numerical integrations.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
\[section\] \[th\][Lemma]{} \[th\][Proposition]{} \[th\][Corollary]{} \[th\][Definition]{}
\[th\][Remark]{}
\[th\][Example]{}
addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{} 24.5cm 16.5cm -0.4cm -0.4cm
[Mukut Mani Tripathi]{}
Department of Mathematics
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi 221 005, India.
Email: [[email protected]]{}
> [**Abstract.**]{} In $N(k)$-contact metric manifolds and/or $\left(
> k,\mu \right) $-manifolds, gradient Ricci solitons, compact Ricci solitons and Ricci solitons with $V$ pointwise collinear with the structure vector field $\xi $ are studied.
>
> [**Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{} 53C15, 53C25, 53A30.
>
> [**Keywords:**]{} Ricci soliton; $N(k)$-contact metric manifold; $(k,\mu )$-manifold; $K$-contact manifold; Sasakian manifold.
Introduction\[sect-intro\]
==========================
A Ricci soliton is a generalization of an Einstein metric. In a Riemannian manifold $\left( M,g\right) $, $g$ is called a Ricci soliton [Hamilton-88]{} if $${\pounds }_{V}g+2\,Ric+2\lambda g=0, \label{eq-Ricci-soliton}$$where $\pounds $ is the Lie derivative, $V$ is a complete vector field on $M$ and $\lambda $ is a constant. Metrics satisfying (\[eq-Ricci-soliton\]) are interesting and useful in physics and are often referred as quasi-Einstein (e.g. [@Chave-Valent-1], [@Chave-Valent-2], [Friedan-85]{}). Compact Ricci solitons are the fixed point of the Ricci flow $$\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\,g=-\,2\,Ric$$projected from the space of metrics onto its quotient modulo diffeomorphisms and scalings, and often arise as blow-up limits for the Ricci flow on compact manifolds. The Ricci soliton is said to be shrinking, steady, and expanding according as $\lambda $ is negative, zero, and positive respectively. If the vector field $V$ is the gradient of a potential function $-f$, then $g$ is called a gradient Ricci soliton and equation ([eq-Ricci-soliton]{}) assumes the form $${\frak \nabla \nabla }f=Ric+\lambda g. \label{eq-Ricci-soliton-grad}$$A Ricci soliton on a compact manifold has constant curvature in dimension $2$ (Hamilton [@Hamilton-88]), and also in dimension $3$ (Ivey [@Ivey-93]). For details we refer to Chow and Knoff [@Chow-Knoff] and Derdzinski [@Derdzinski]. We also recall the following significant result of Perelman [@Perelman]: [*A Ricci soliton on a compact manifold is a gradient Ricci soliton*]{}.
On the other hand, the roots of contact geometry lie in differential equations as in 1872 Sophus Lie introduced the notion of contact transformation (Berührungstransformation) as a geometric tool to study systems of differential equations. This subject has manifold connections with the other fields of pure mathematics, and substantial applications in applied areas such as mechanics, optics, phase space of a dynamical system, thermodynamics and control theory (for more details see [@Arnold-89], [@Blair-02], [@Geiges-01], [@MacLane] and [Naz-Shat-Ster]{}).
It is well known [@Sasaki-62] that the tangent sphere bundle $T_{1}M$ of a Riemannian manifold $M$ admits a contact metric structure. If $M $ is of constant curvature $c=1$ then $T_{1}M$ is Sasakian [Tashiro-69]{}, and if $c=0$ then the curvature tensor $R$ satisfies $R(X,Y)\xi =0\,$ [@Blair-77]. As a generalization of these two cases, in [@BKP-95], Blair, Koufogiorgos and Papantoniou started the study of the class of contact metric manifolds, in which the structure vector field $\xi$ satisfies the $\left( k,\mu \right) $-nullity condition. A contact metric manifold belonging to this class is called a $(k,\mu)$-manifold. Such a structure was first obtained by Koufogiorgos [@Koufog-93] by applying a $D_{a}$-homothetic deformation [@Tanno-68] on a contact metric manifold satisfying $R(X,Y)\xi =0$. In particular, a $(k,0)$-manifold is called an $N(k)$-contact metric manifold ([@BBK-92], [@BKT-05], [@Tanno-88]) and generalizes the cases $R(X,Y)\xi =0$, $K$-contact and Sasakian.
In [@Sharma-07], Sharma has started the study of Ricci solitons in $K$-contact manifolds. In a $K$-contact manifold the structure vector field $\xi $ is Killing, that is, ${\pounds }_{\xi }g=0$; which is not in general true in contact metric manifolds. Motivated by these circumstances, in this paper we study Ricci solitons in $N(k)$-contact metric manifolds and $\left( k,\mu \right) $-manifolds. In section \[sect-contact-mfd\], we give a brief description of $N(k)$-contact metric manifolds and $\left(
k,\mu \right) $-manifolds. In section \[sect-main-results\], we prove main results.
Contact metric manifolds \[sect-contact-mfd\]
=============================================
A $1$-form $\eta $ on a $\left( 2n+1\right) $-dimensional smooth manifold $M$ is called a [*contact form*]{} if $\eta \wedge (d\eta )^{n}\neq 0$ everywhere on $M$, and $M$ equipped with a contact form is a [*contact manifold*]{}. For a given contact $1$-form $\eta $, there exists a unique vector field $\xi $, called the [*characteristic vector field*]{}, such that $\eta (\xi )=1$, $d\eta (\xi ,\cdot )=0$, and consequently ${\pounds }_{\xi
}\eta =0$, ${\pounds }_{\xi }d\eta =0$. In 1953, Chern [@Chern-53] proved that the structural group of a $\left( 2n+1\right) $-dimensional contact manifold can be reduced to ${\cal U}\left( n\right) \times 1$. A $(2n+1)$-dimensional differentiable manifold $M$ is called an [*almost contact manifold*]{} [@Gray-59] if its structural group can be reduced to ${\cal U}\left( n\right) \times 1$. Equivalently, there is an [*almost contact structure*]{} $\left( \varphi ,\xi ,\eta \right) $ [@Sasaki-60] consisting of a tensor field $\varphi $ of type $\left( 1,1\right) $, a vector field $\xi $, and a $1$-form $\eta $ satisfying $$\varphi ^{2}=-I+\eta \otimes \xi ,\quad \eta (\xi )=1,\quad \varphi \xi
=0,\quad \eta \circ \varphi =0. \label{eq-phi-eta-xi}$$First and one of the remaining three relations of (\[eq-phi-eta-xi\]) imply the other two relations. An almost contact structure is [*normal*]{} [@SH-61] if the torsion tensor $\left[ \varphi ,\varphi \right] +2d\eta
\otimes \xi $, where $\left[ \varphi ,\varphi \right] $ is the Nijenhuis tensor of $\varphi $, vanishes identically. Let $g$ be a compatible Riemannian metric with $\left( \varphi ,\xi ,\eta \right) $, that is, $$g\left( X,Y\right) =g\left( \varphi X,\varphi Y\right) +\eta \left( X\right)
\eta \left( Y\right) ,\qquad X,Y\in TM. \label{eq-metric-1}$$Then, $M$ becomes an [*almost contact metric manifold*]{} equipped with an [*almost contact metric structure*]{} $\left( \varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,g\right) $. The equation (\[eq-metric-1\]) is equivalent to $$g\left( X,\varphi Y\right) =-g\left( \varphi X,Y\right) \quad {\rm alongwith}\quad g\left( X,\xi \right) =\eta \left( X\right) . \label{eq-metric-2}$$An almost contact metric structure becomes a contact metric structure if $g\left( X,\varphi Y\right) =d\eta (X,Y)$ for all $X,Y\in TM$. In a contact metric manifold $M$, the $\left( 1,1\right) $-tensor field $h$ defined by $2h={\pounds }_{\xi }\varphi $, is symmetric and satisfies $$h\xi =0,\qquad h\varphi +\varphi h=0, \label{eq-cont-h}$$$$\nabla \xi =-\ \varphi -\varphi h, \label{eq-cont-del-xi}$$where $\nabla $ is the Levi-Civita connection. A contact metric manifold is called a $K$-[*contact manifold*]{} if the characteristic vector field $\xi $ is a Killing vector field. An almost contact metric manifold is a $K$[*-contact manifold*]{} if and only if $\nabla \xi =-\varphi $. A $K$-contact manifold is a contact metric manifold, while the converse is true if $h=0$. A normal contact metric manifold is a [*Sasakian manifold*]{}. A contact metric manifold $M$ is Sasakian if and only if the curvature tensor $R$ satisfies $$R(X,Y)\xi =\eta (Y)X-\eta (X)Y,\qquad X,Y\in TM. \label{eq-Sas-2}$$A contact metric manifold $M$ is said to be $\eta $[*-Einstein*]{} ([Okumura-62]{} or see [@Blair-02] p. 105) if the Ricci tensor $Ric$ satisfies $Ric=ag+b\eta \otimes \eta $, where $a$ and $b$ are some smooth functions on the manifold. In particular if $b=0$, then $\,M\,$ becomes an [*Einstein manifold*]{}.
A Sasakian manifold is always a $K$-contact manifold. The converse is true if either the dimension is three ([@Blair-02], p. 76), or it is compact Einstein (Theorem A, [@Boyer-Galicki]) or compact $\eta $-Einstein with $a>-2$ (Theorem 7.2, [@Boyer-Galicki]). The conclusions of Theorems A and 7.2 of [@Boyer-Galicki] are still true if the condition of compactness is weakened to completeness (Proposition 1, [Sharma-07]{}).
In [@BKP-95], Blair, Koufogiorgos and Papantoniou introduced a class of contact metric manifolds $M$, which satisfy $$R(X,Y)\xi =\left( kI+\mu h\right) \left( \eta \left( Y\right) X-\eta \left(
X\right) Y\right) ,\qquad X,Y\in TM, \label{eq-km}$$where $k$, $\mu $ are real constants. A contact metric manifold belonging to this class is called a $\left( k,\mu \right) $[*-manifold*]{}. If $\mu =0$, then a $(k,\mu )$-manifold is called an $N(k)$-[*contact metric manifold*]{} ([@BBK-92], [@BKT-05], [@Tanno-88]). In a $(k,\mu )$-manifold $M$, one has [@BKP-95] $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{X}h)Y &=&\left( \left( 1-k\right) g\left( X,\varphi Y\right)
+g\left( X,\varphi hY\right) \right) \xi \nonumber \\
&&+\,\eta \left( Y\right) \left( h\left( \varphi X+\varphi hX\right) \right)
-\mu \eta \left( X\right) \varphi hY \label{eq-derivative-h}\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\in TM$. The Ricci operator $Q$ satisfies $Q\xi =2nk\xi $, where $\dim (M)=2n+1$. Moreover, $h^{2}=\left( k-1\right) \varphi ^{2}$ and $k\leq
1$. In fact, for a $(k,\mu )$-manifold, the conditions of being a Sasakian manifold, a $K$-contact manifold, $k=1$ and $h=0$ are all equivalent. The tangent sphere bundle $T_{1}M$ of a Riemannian manifold $M$ of constant curvature $c$ is a $(k,\mu )$-manifold with $k=c(2-c)$ and $\mu =-2c$. Characteristic examples of non-Sasakian $(k,\mu )$-manifolds are the tangent sphere bundles of Riemannian manifolds of constant curvature not equal to one and certain Lie groups [@Boeckx-00]. For more details we refer to [@Blair-02] and [@BKP-95].
Main results\[sect-main-results\]
=================================
Let $(M,\varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,g)$ be a $\left( 2n+1\right) $-dimensional non-Sasakian $\left( k,\mu \right) $-manifold. Then the Ricci operator $Q$ is given by [@BKP-95] $$Q=2nkI+\left( 2\left( n-1\right) +\mu \right) h-\left( 2\left( n-1\right)
-n\mu +2nk\right) \varphi ^{2}. \label{eq-Q-1}$$We also have $$\left( \nabla _{X}\varphi ^{2}\right) Y=\left( X\eta \left( Y\right) \right)
\xi -\eta \left( \nabla _{X}Y\right) \xi -\eta \left( Y\right) \varphi
X-\eta \left( Y\right) \varphi hX, \label{eq-der-phi-sq}$$where first equation of (\[eq-phi-eta-xi\]) and equation ([eq-cont-del-xi]{}) are used. Using (\[eq-derivative-h\]) and ([eq-der-phi-sq]{}) from (\[eq-Q-1\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \nabla _{X}Q\right) Y &=&\left( 2\left( n-1\right) +\mu \right)
\left\{ \left( 1-k\right) g\left( X,\varphi Y\right) \xi +g\left( X,\varphi
hY\right) \xi -\mu \eta \left( X\right) \varphi hY\right\} \\
&&-\left( 2(n-1)-n\mu +2nk\right) \left\{ \left( X\eta \left( Y\right)
\right) \xi -\eta \left( \nabla _{X}Y\right) \xi \right\} \\
&&+\left( 2\left( 2n-1\right) k-\left( n+1\right) \mu +k\mu \right) \eta
\left( Y\right) \varphi X+\left( \left( n+1\right) \mu -2nk\right) \eta
\left( Y\right) h\varphi X.\end{aligned}$$Consequently, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \nabla _{X}Q\right) Y-\left( \nabla _{Y}Q\right) X &=&\left( 2\left(
n+1\right) \mu -4\left( 2n-1\right) k-2k\mu \right) d\eta \left( X,Y\right)
\xi \nonumber \\
&&+\left( 2\left( 2n-1\right) k-\left( n+1\right) \mu +k\mu \right) \left(
\eta \left( Y\right) \varphi X-\eta \left( X\right) \varphi Y\right)
\nonumber \\
&&+\left( \left( \mu +3n-1\right) \mu -2nk\right) \left( \eta \left(
Y\right) \varphi hX-\eta \left( X\right) \varphi hY\right) ,
\label{eq-Q-der}\end{aligned}$$where (\[eq-metric-2\]) has been used.
We also recall the following results for later use.
\[th-Tanno-88\] [(Theorem 5.2, Tanno [@Tanno-88])]{} An Einstein $N(k )$-contact metric manifold of dimension $\ge 5$ is necessarily Sasakian.
\[th-non-Sas-Einstein\] [(Theorem 1.2, Tripathi and Kim [Tri-Kim-04]{})]{} A non-Sasakian Einstein $(k,\mu )$-manifold is flat and $3$-dimensional.
Now we prove the following
\[th-grad-soliton\] If the metric $g$ of an $N(k)$-contact metric manifold $(M,g)$ is a gradient Ricci soliton, then
1. either the potential vector field is a nullity vector field,
2. or $g$ is a shrinking soliton and $(M,g)$ is Einstein Sasakian,
3. or $g$ is a steady soliton and $(M,g)$ is $\,3$-dimensional and flat.
[**Proof.**]{} Let $(M,g)$ be a $\left( 2n+1\right) $-dimensional $N(k)$-contact metric manifold and $g$ a gradient Ricci soliton. Then the equation (\[eq-Ricci-soliton-grad\]) can be written as $$\nabla _{Y}Df=QY+\lambda Y \label{eq-Ricci-soliton-grad-2}$$for all vector fields $Y$ in $M$, where $D$ denotes the gradient operator of $g$. From (\[eq-Ricci-soliton-grad-2\]) it follows that $$R\left( X,Y\right) Df=\left( \nabla _{X}Q\right) Y-\left( \nabla
_{Y}Q\right) X,\qquad X,Y\in TM. \label{eq-R(X,Y)Df}$$We have $$g\left( R\left( \xi ,Y\right) Df,\xi \right) =g\left( k\left( Df-\left( \xi
f\right) \xi \right) ,Y\right) ,\qquad Y\in TM, \label{eq-R(xi,Y)Df}$$where (\[eq-km\]) with $\mu =0$ is used. Also in an $N\left( k\right) $-contact metric manifold, it follows that $$g\left( \left( \nabla _{\xi }Q\right) Y-\left( \nabla _{Y}Q\right) \xi ,\xi
\right) =0,\qquad Y\in TM. \label{eq-Q-der-xi}$$From (\[eq-R(X,Y)Df\]), (\[eq-R(xi,Y)Df\]) and (\[eq-Q-der-xi\]) we get $$k\left( Df-\left( \xi f\right) \xi \right) =0,$$that is, either $k=0$ or $$Df=\left( \xi f\right) \xi . \label{eq-Df}$$ If $k=0$, then putting $k=0=\mu $ in (\[eq-Q-der\]), it follows that $Q$ is a Codazzi tensor, that is, $$\left( \nabla _{X}Q\right) Y-\left( \nabla _{Y}Q\right) X=0,\qquad X,Y\in
TM,$$which in view of (\[eq-R(X,Y)Df\]) gives $$R\left( X,Y\right) Df=0,\qquad X,Y\in TM,$$that is, the potential vector field $\,{Df}\,$ is a nullity vector field (see [@Clift-Malt] and [@Tanno-78] for details).
Now, we assume that (\[eq-Df\]) is true. Using (\[eq-Df\]) in (\[eq-Ricci-soliton-grad-2\]) we get $$Ric\left( X,Y\right) +\lambda g\left( X,Y\right) =Y\left( \xi f\right) \eta
\left( X\right) -\left( \xi f\right) g\left( X,\varphi Y\right) -\left( \xi
f\right) g\left( X,\varphi hY\right) ,$$where (\[eq-cont-del-xi\]) is used. Symmetrizing this with respect to $X$ and $Y$ we obtain $$2\,Ric\left( X,Y\right) +2\lambda g\left( X,Y\right) =X\left( \xi f\right)
\eta \left( Y\right) +Y\left( \xi f\right) \eta \left( X\right) -2\left( \xi
f\right) g\left( \varphi hX,Y\right) . \label{eq-2Ric}$$Putting $Y=\xi $, we get $$X\left( \xi f\right) =\left( 2nk+\lambda \right) \eta \left( X\right) .
\label{eq-X(xi-f)}$$From (\[eq-2Ric\]) and (\[eq-X(xi-f)\]) we get $$Ric\left( X,Y\right) +\lambda g\left( X,Y\right) =\left( 2nk+\lambda \right)
\eta \left( X\right) \eta \left( Y\right) -\left( \xi f\right) g\left(
\varphi hX,Y\right) . \label{eq-Ric}$$Using (\[eq-Ric\]) in (\[eq-Ricci-soliton-grad-2\]), we get $$\nabla _{Y}Df=\left( 2nk+\lambda \right) \eta \left( Y\right) \xi -\left(
\xi f\right) \varphi hY. \label{eq-Ricci-soliton-grad-3}$$Using (\[eq-Ricci-soliton-grad-3\]) we compute $R\left( X,Y\right) Df$ and obtain $$g\left( R\left( X,Y\right) \left( \xi f\right) \xi ,\xi \right) =4\left(
2nk+\lambda \right) d\eta \left( X,Y\right) , \label{eq-R(X,Y)(xi-f)xi}$$where equations (\[eq-Df\]) and (\[eq-cont-del-xi\]) are used. Thus we get $$2nk+\lambda =0 \label{eq-2nk-plus-lambda}$$Therefore from equation (\[eq-X(xi-f)\]) we have $$X\left( \xi f\right) =0,\qquad X\in TM,$$that is, $$\xi f=c,$$where $c$ is a constant. Thus the equation (\[eq-Df\]) gives $$df=c\,\eta \,.$$Its exterior derivative implies that $$c\,d\eta =0,$$that is, $\,c=0$. Hence $f$ is constant. Consequently, the equation ([eq-Ricci-soliton-grad-2]{}) reduces to $$Ric=-\lambda g=2nkg,$$that is, $M$ is Einstein. Then in view of Theorem \[th-non-Sas-Einstein\] and Theorem \[th-Tanno-88\], it follows that either $M$ is Sasakian or $M$ is $3$-dimensional and flat. In case of Sasakian, $\lambda =-2n$ is negative, and therefore the soliton $g$ is shrinking. In case of $3$-dimensional and flat, $\lambda =0$, and therefore the soliton $g$ is steady. $\blacksquare $
\[cor-grad-soliton\] Let $(M,g)$ be a compact $N(k)$-contact metric manifold with $k\neq 0$. If $g$ is a Ricci soliton, then $g$ is a shrinking soliton and $(M,g)$ is Einstein Sasakian.
[**Proof.**]{} The proof follows from Theorem \[th-grad-soliton\] and the following significant result of Perelman [@Perelman]: A Ricci soliton on a compact manifold is a gradient Ricci soliton. $\blacksquare $
In [@Sharma-07], a corollary of Theorem 1 is stated as follows: If the metric $g$ of a compact $K$-contact manifold is a Ricci soliton, then $g$ is a shrinking soliton which is Einstein Sasakian. In Corollary [cor-grad-soliton]{}, the assumptions are weakened.
Next, we have the following
In a non-Sasakian $\,\left( k,\mu \right) \,$-manifold $(M,g)$ if $g$ is a compact Ricci soliton, then $(M,g)$ is $3$-dimensional and flat.
[**Proof.**]{} In a non-Sasakian $\left( k,\mu \right) $-manifold, the scalar curvature $r$ is given by [@BKP-95] $$r=2n\left( 2n-2+k-n\mu \right) . \label{eq-scalar}$$Consequently, the scalar curvature is a constant. If $g$ is a compact Ricci soliton, then by Proposition 2 of [@Sharma-07], which states that a compact Ricci soliton of constant scalar curvature is Einstein, it follows that the non-Sasakian $\left( k,\mu \right) $-manifold is Einstein. Then by Theorem \[th-non-Sas-Einstein\], it becomes $3$-dimensional and flat. $\blacksquare $
Given a non-Sasakian $(\kappa ,\mu )$-manifold $M$, Boeckx [Boeckx-00]{} introduced an invariant $$I_{M}=\frac{1-\mu /2}{\sqrt{1-\kappa }}$$and showed that for two non-Sasakian $(\kappa ,\mu )$-manifolds $(M_{i},\varphi _{i},\xi _{i},\eta _{i},g_{i})$, $i=1,2$, we have $I_{M_{1}}=I_{M_{2}}$ if and only if up to a $D$-homothetic deformation, the two manifolds are locally isometric as contact metric manifolds. Thus we know all non-Sasakian $(\kappa ,\mu )$-manifolds locally as soon as we have for every odd dimension $2n+1$ and for every possible value of the invariant $I$, one $(\kappa ,\mu )$-manifold $(M,\varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,g)$ with $I_{M}=I$. For $I>-1$ such examples may be found from the standard contact metric structure on the tangent sphere bundle of a manifold of constant curvature $c $ where we have $I=\frac{1+c}{|1-c|}$. Boeckx also gives a Lie algebra construction for any odd dimension and value of $I\leq -1$.
In the following, we recall Example 3.1 of [@BKT-05].
\[example-BKT\] For $n>1$, the Boeckx invariant for a $(2n+1)$-dimensional $\left( 1-\frac{1}{n},0\right) $-manifold is $\sqrt{n}>-1$. Therefore, we consider the tangent sphere bundle of an $(n+1)$-dimensional manifold of constant curvature $c$ so chosen that the resulting $D_{a}$-homothetic deformation will be a $\left( 1-\frac{1}{n},0\right) $-manifold. That is for $k =c(2-c)$ and $\mu =-2c$ we solve $$1-\frac{1}{n}=\frac{k +a^{2}-1}{a^{2}},\quad 0=\frac{\mu +2a-2}{a}$$for $a$ and $c$. The result is $$c=\frac{\left( \sqrt{n}\pm 1\right) ^{2}}{n-1},\quad a=1+c$$and taking $c$ and $a$ to be these values we obtain a $N\left( 1-\frac{1}{n}\right) $-contact metric manifold.
In [@Sharma-07], Sharma noted that if a $K$-contact metric is a Ricci soliton with $V=\xi $ then it is Einstein. Even in more general case, he showed that if a $K$-contact metric is a Ricci soliton with $V$ pointwise collinear with $\xi $ then $V$ is a constant multiple of $\xi $ (hence Killing) and $g$ is Einstein. Here we prove the following
Let $\,(M,g)\,$ be a non-Sasakian $($or non-$K$-contact$)$ $\,N\left(
k\right) $-contact metric manifold. If the metric $\,g\,$ is a Ricci soliton with $V$ pointwise collinear with $\xi $, then $\dim (M)>3$, the metric $g$ is a shrinking Ricci soliton and $M$ is locally isometric to a contact metric manifold obtained by a $D_{\left( 1+\frac{\left( \sqrt{n}\pm 1\right)
^{2}}{n-1}\right) }$-homothetic deformation of the contact metric structure on the tangent sphere bundle of an $\left( n+1\right) $-dimensional Riemannian manifold of constant curvature $\frac{\left( \sqrt{n}\pm 1\right)
^{2}}{n-1}$.
[**Proof.**]{} Let $(M,g)$ be a $\left( 2n+1\right) $-dimensional contact metric manifold and the metric $g$ a Ricci soliton with $V=\alpha
\xi $ ($\alpha $ being a function on $M$). Then from (\[eq-Ricci-soliton\]) we obtain $$2Ric\left( X,Y\right) =-2\lambda g\left( X,Y\right) +2\alpha g\left( \varphi
hX,Y\right) -g\left( \left( X\alpha \right) \xi ,Y\right) -g\left( X,\left(
Y\alpha \right) \xi \right) , \label{eq-Ric-01}$$where (\[eq-cont-del-xi\]) and (\[eq-metric-2\]) are used. Now let $(M,g)
$ be an $N\left( k\right) $-contact metric manifold. Putting $X=\xi =Y$ in (\[eq-Ric-01\]) and using $h\xi =0$ and $Q\xi =2nk$ we get $$\xi \alpha +2nk+\lambda =0. \label{eq-xi-alpha}$$Again putting $X=\xi $ in (\[eq-Ric-01\]) and using $h\xi =0$, $Q\xi =2nk$ and (\[eq-xi-alpha\]) we get $$d\alpha =\left( 2nk+\lambda \right) \eta , \label{eq-d-alpha}$$which shows that $\alpha $ is a constant and $\lambda =-2nk$; and consequently (\[eq-Ric-01\]) becomes $$Ric\left( X,Y\right) =2nkg\left( X,Y\right) +\alpha g\left( \varphi
hX,Y\right) . \label{eq-Ric-02}$$At this point, we assume that $(M,g)$ is also non-Sasakian. It is known that in a $(2n+1)$-dimensional non-Sasakian $(k,\mu )$-manifold $M$ the Ricci tensor is given by [@BKP-95] $$\begin{aligned}
Ric\left( X,Y\right) &=&\left( 2\left( n-1\right) -n\mu \right) g\left(
X,Y\right) +\left( 2\left( n-1\right) +\mu \right) g\left( hX,Y\right)
\nonumber \\
&&+\ \left( 2\left( 1-n\right) +n\left( 2k+\mu \right) \right) \eta \left(
X\right) \eta \left( Y\right) . \label{eq-Ric-curvature}\end{aligned}$$Consequently, putting $\mu =0$ in (\[eq-Ric-curvature\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
Ric\left( X,Y\right) &=&2\left( n-1\right) g\left( X,Y\right) +2\left(
n-1\right) g\left( hX,Y\right) \nonumber \\
&&+\left( 2\left( 1-n\right) +2nk\right) \eta \left( X\right) \eta \left(
Y\right) . \label{eq-Ric-03}\end{aligned}$$Replacing $X$ by $\varphi X$ in equations (\[eq-Ric-02\]) and ([eq-Ric-03]{}) and equating the right hand sides of the resulting equations we get $$\left( 2nk-2\left( n-1\right) \right) g\left( \varphi X,Y\right) =\alpha
g\left( hX,Y\right) +2\left( n-1\right) g\left( \varphi hX,Y\right) .
\label{eq-Ric-04}$$If $n=1$, from (\[eq-Ric-04\]) we get $$2kg\left( \varphi X,Y\right) =\alpha g\left( hX,Y\right) ,$$which gives $h=0$, a contradiction. If $n>1$, anti-symmetrizing the equation (\[eq-Ric-04\]) we get $$nk-n+1=0,$$which gives $k=1-1/n$. Using $n>1$ and $k=1-1/n$ in $\lambda =-2nk$, we get $\lambda =2\left( 1-n\right) <0$, which shows that $g$ is a shrinking Ricci soliton. Finally, in view of $n>1$, $k=1-1/n$ and the Example [example-BKT]{}, the proof is complete. $\blacksquare $
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} The author is thankful to Professor Ramesh Sharma, University of New Haven, USA for some useful discussion during the preparation of this paper.
[99]{} V.I. Arnold, [*Contact geometry*]{}:[* the geometrical method of Gibb’s thermodynamics*]{}, Proceedings of the Gibbs Symposium, Yale University, (May 15-17, 1989), American Mathematical Society, 1990, 163-179.
D.E. Blair, [*Two remarks on contact metric structures*]{}, Tôhoku Math. J. 29 (1977), 319–324.
D.E. Blair, [*Riemannian geometry of contact and symplectic manifolds*]{}, Progress in Mathematics, 203. Birkhauser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2002.
C. Baikoussis, D.E. Blair and T. Koufogiorgos, [*A decomposition of the curvature tensor of a contact manifold satisfying*]{} $R(X,Y)\xi =k(\eta (Y)X-\eta (X)Y)$, Mathematics Technical Report, University of Ioannina, Greece, 1992.
D.E. Blair, T. Koufogiorgos and B.J. Papantoniou, [*Contact metric manifolds satisfying a nullity condition*]{}, Israel J. Math. 91 (1995), no. 1-3, 189-214.
D.E. Blair, J.-S. Kim and M.M. Tripathi, [*On the concircular curvature tensor of a contact metric manifold*]{}, J. Korean Math. Soc. 42 (2005), no. 5, 883-892.
E. Boeckx, [*A full classification of contact metric*]{} $\left( k ,\mu \right) $[*-spaces*]{}, Illinois J. Math. 44 (2000), no. 1, 212-219.
C.P. Boyer and K. Galicky, Einstein manifolds and contact geometry, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 129 (2001), 2419-2430.
T. Chave and G. Valent, [*Quasi-Einstein metrics and their renoirmalizability properties*]{}, Helv. Phys. Acta 69 (1996), 344-347.
T. Chave and G. Valent, [*On a class of compact and non-compact quasi-Einstein metrics and their renoirmalizability properties*]{}, Nuclear Phys. B 478 (1996), 758-778.
S.S. Chern, [*Pseudo-groups continus infinis*]{}, colloques Internationaux du C. N. R. S., Strassbourg, 119-136.
B. Chow and D. Knoff, [*The Ricci flow: An introduction*]{}, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 110, American Math. Soc., 2004.
Y.H. Clifton and R. Maltz, [*The*]{} $k$[*-nullity space of curvature operator*]{}, Michigan Math. J. 17 (1970), 85-89.
A. Derdzinski, [*Compact Ricci solitons*]{}, Preprint.
D.H. Friedan, [*Nonlinear models in*]{} $2+\varepsilon $ [*dimensions*]{}, Ann. Physics 163 (1985), 318-419.
H. Geiges, [*A brief history of contact geometry and topology*]{}, Expo. Math. [**19**]{}(2001), no. 1, 25-53.
J.W. Gray, [*Some global properties of contact structures*]{}, Ann. of Math. 69 (1959), 421-450.
R.S. Hamilton, [*The Ricci flow on surfaces*]{}, Mathematics and general relativity (Santa Cruz, CA, 1986), 237-262, Contemp. Math. [**71**]{}, American Math. Soc., 1988.
T. Ivey, [*Ricci solitons on compact*]{} $3$[*-manifolds*]{}, Differential Geom. Appl. 3 (1993), 301-307.
T. Koufogiorgos, [*Contact metric manifolds*]{}, Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 11 (1993), 25–34.
S. MacLane, [*Geometrical mechanics*]{} II, Lecture notes, University of Chicago, 1968.
V.E. Nazaikinskii, V.E. Shatalov and B.Y. Sternin, [*Contact geometry and linear differential equations*]{}, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1992.
M. Okumura, [*Some remarks on space with a certain contact structure*]{}, Tôhoku Math. J. 14 (1962), 135-145.
G. Perelman, [*The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications*]{}, Preprint, http://arXiv.org/abs/Math.DG/0211159.
S. Sasaki, [*On differentiable manifolds with certain structures which are closely related to almost contact structure*]{}. I, Tôhoku Math. J. (2) 12 (1960), 459-476.
S. Sasaki, [*On the differential geometry of tangent bundles of Riemannian manifolds*]{} II, Tôhoku Math. J. (2) 14 (1962), 146-155.
S. Sasaki, Y. Hatakeyama, [*On differentiable manifolds with certain structures which are closely related to almost contact structure*]{}. II, Tôhoku Math. J. (2) 13 (1961), 281-294.
R. Sharma, [*Certain results on*]{} $K$[*-contact and*]{} $(k,\mu)$[*-contact manifolds*]{}, to appear in J. Geom.
S. Tanno, [*The topology of contact Riemannian manifolds*]{}, Illinois J. Math. 12 (1968), 700-717.
S. Tanno, [*Some differential equations on Riemannian manifolds*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan 30 (1978), 509-531.
S. Tanno, [*Ricci curvatures of contact Riemannian manifolds*]{}, Tôhoku Math. J. 40 (1988), 441-448.
Y. Tashiro, [*On contact structure of tangent sphere bundles*]{}, Tôhoku Math. J. 21 (1969), 117-143.
M.M. Tripathi and J.-S. Kim, [*On the concircular curvature tensor of a $(\kappa,\mu)$-manifold*]{}, Balkan J. Geom. Appl. 9 (2004), no. 1, 114-124.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Trustworthiness is a central requirement for the acceptance and success of human-centered artificial intelligence (AI). To deem an AI system as trustworthy, it is crucial to assess its behaviour and characteristics against a gold standard of Trustworthy AI, consisting of guidelines, requirements, or only expectations. While AI systems are highly complex, their implementations are still based on software. The software engineering community has a long-established toolbox for the assessment of software systems, especially in the context of software testing. In this paper, we argue for the application of software engineering and testing practices for the assessment of trustworthy AI. We make the connection between the seven key requirements as defined by the European Commission’s AI high-level expert group and established procedures from software engineering and raise questions for future work.'
author:
- Mohit Kumar Ahuja
- 'Mohamed-Bachir Belaid'
- Pierre Bernabé
- |
\
Mathieu Collet
- Arnaud Gotlieb
- Chhagan Lal
- |
\
Dusica Marijan
- Sagar Sen
- Aizaz Sharif
- Helge Spieker
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: Opening the Software Engineering Toolbox for the Assessment of Trustworthy AI
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has increasing relevance for many aspects of the current and future everyday life. Many of these aspects interfere directly with the personal space of humans, their perception, actions, and, more generally, their data, both online and offline. Due to this close integration, it is therefore crucial to develop the AI systems in a human-centered fashion such that they are trustworthy and can be accepted by providers, who develop and deploy the AI systems, users, who operate the AI systems, regulatory bodies, who oversee the usage and effects of the AI systems, and affected humans, who are act in cooperation with or next to the AI systems or who’s data is subject to processing via the AI systems.
To define the extent and more specific definition of a trustworthy AI, a high-level expert group (AI-HLEG) that was set up by the European Commission, identified guidelines and requirements for an AI system that need to be sufficiently fulfilled to be regarded as trustworthy [@AIHLEG2019-EthicsGuidelines]. On the highest level, an AI system is deemed trustworthy if it behaves according to four ethical principles: respect for human autonomy, prevention of harm, fairness, and explicability [@AIHLEG2019-EthicsGuidelines p. 12]; on a more technical level, requirements have been formulated that are supposed “to be continuously evaluated and addressed throughout the AI system’s life cycle” [@AIHLEG2019-EthicsGuidelines p. 15].
Having a definition of trustworthy formulates a goal for the development of AI systems. The second step is to evaluate whether a system fulfills the definition criteria sufficiently and can be deemed trustworthy. This evaluation should be transparent and accessible to understand its results, robust and reproducible, and both automated and generic as much as possible to allow a low barrier for application to new AI systems. At the same time, since there is no single trustworthiness criterion or even metric, a single evaluation technique is not sufficient or maybe even possible. Instead, the trustworthiness assessment has to consist of multiple techniques, each appropriate for some of the requirements of trustworthy AI and each robust and mature enough to be reliable.
Tools and techniques for the assessment of trustworthy AI can be taken from the established methods of software engineering research and especially the subarea of software testing. For 50 years, these communities have proposed methods for the realization and assessment of large-scale, complex software systems. While the criteria for trustworthy AI do cover more than technical aspects, the AI system itself is still mostly a software system. Even though their are differences in their engineering, many of the software engineering principles apply to them or are transferable [@Amershi2019; @Breck2017]. Recently, motivated through the recent breakthroughs of AI and especially deep learning, the software engineering community has increased the attention on machine learning, both as a tool within software engineering and an area for the application of software engineering principles.
Through the remainder of this short paper, we argue to open the software engineering toolbox with its wide range of methods for the realization and assessment of trustworthy AI systems. Following the structure of the key requirements for trustworthy AI [@AIHLEG2019-EthicsGuidelines], we link existing techniques with the goals for the fulfillment of these requirements. It is important to note, that even though there are already many methods available, the research on trustworthy AI is by far not complete. Our current toolbox, however, provides a strong starting position but needs adjustments and further experiences to be adapted for the specific characteristics of modern AI.
TRUSTWORTHY AI
==============
This section discusses an overview of approaches related to the key requirements for Trustworthy AI from the HLEG’s Ethics Guidelines from software engineering and adjacent subfields. We aim to analyse how to map system engineering onto the requirements, and to show examples for techniques, case studies, that have already been explored. At the same time allows a discussion of existing techniques to identify where future research is required or areas where the software engineering toolbox might be insufficient to properly address aspects of a given requirement.
Human agency and oversight
--------------------------
The first of the requirements is the necessity for the AI to support human autonomy and the option for the human to inspect and influence the AI’s actions. Human agency directly affects the collaboration between AI and human and to support this interaction, it is important to take appropriate design measures, such as ergonomic and accessible user interfaces (UI) and an excellent user experience (UX). Human oversight requires the inspection of the AI decision making, either by having interpretable models or having access to design decision documents, source code, or data, depending on the level of expertise of the inspecting party.
It is also one of the main challenges in AI to find a perfect balance between enhancing human agency and preserving a degree of responsibility [@floridi2018ai4people]. Some “black box” AI techniques prevent the human from understanding the embraced process and thus prevent him from the control. We believe that software engineering and testing frameworks can contribute in achieving a better degree of human understanding and control of AI techniques. Software testing techniques are often based around the goal to design the simplest test cases to determine a system’s quality. Having these tests for AI systems will improve the ability to understand the AI behaviour and its deviations from it. While there is already work on applying and adopting current testing techniques on AI [@Zhang2020], future work is required to ease their capabilities and expressiveness for human oversight.
Technical Robustness and safety
-------------------------------
The technical robustness of AI systems is central to their reliability. While performing well in their main performance metrics, e.g. the classification accuracy, additional safety, and robustness metrics and the resilience to attacks often remain open challenges [@Papernot2018a]. Of particular relevance are adversarial inputs which are specially crafted to attack an AI system, for example, to cause misclassification or to extract internal information about training data.
These challenges have recently been identified by several software testing techniques and have been adopted towards the testing of AI systems, especially for deep learning. To highlight two techniques that have been successfully applied towards the testing of deep learning, we briefly discuss *differential* and *metamorphic* testing (see Figure \[fig:dl\_testing\_techniques\]). In differential testing, a system is evaluated by comparing its behaviour against a set of reference implementations for the same task. For the same inputs, it is expected that all systems provide similar outputs and if a system diverges it is an indicator of faulty behaviour. The advantage of differential testing is that the specific test oracles for the inputs, i.e. the precise expected outputs, are not required which allows easier setup of the test cases, especially when defining the test oracles is too costly or complex. DeepXplore [@pei2017deepxplore] first explored differential testing for deep learning. The paper proposes a controlled way to generate test inputs, similar to adversarial examples, that are likely to identify diverging behaviours and showed promising results on multiple datasets and models.
Metamorphic testing also alleviates the problem of defining precise test oracles. Here, new test cases are generated with the help of metamorphic relations. These relations allow to describe a property of the behaviour, e.g. the output, when a change in the input is made. For example, for an AI-based HR system to rank resumes of applicants, adding relevant keywords should improve the ranking, even though there is no precise definition of the final expected ranking. In the context of testing AI, metamorphic testing has been applied for testing of autonomous driving systems [@Zhang2018], image classifiers [@dwarakanath2018identifying], or ranking algorithms [@Murphy2008].
Privacy and data governance
---------------------------
Privacy protection of individuals who contribute with their personal data towards development of AI is of paramount importance in human-centered AI. Any party that curates datasets needs to ensure that the data does not provide means of re-identifying individuals while, at the same time, being effective at predicting patterns of business/societal value. Secure data-intensive systems storing personal data typically contain identifying, quasi-identifying, non-identifying and sensitive attributes about individuals.
Software tools such as ARX [@prasser2015putting] can anonymize and perform re-identification risk analysis on large datasets to quantify the risk of prosecutor, journalist, and marketer attacks before the data is used in AI. ARX can be used to anonymize data based on criteria [@dangi2012privacy] such as k-anonymization (personal attributes are suppressed or generalized until each row is identical with at least k-1 other rows), l-diversity (entails reducing granularity of data), and t-closeness (a refined reduction of granularity by maintaining an underlying data distribution). However, in specific cases, quasi-identifying attributes such as the birth date of an individual are required to train AI models. Therefore, controlled fuzzification of quasi-identifying attributes [@ursin2017protecting] can minimize the risk of re-identification while maintaining underlying patterns of interest in the data. For instance, in cervical cancer screening, attributes such as birth date or screening exam date can be perturbed within certain bounds. This is primarily due to the fact that the human papillomavirus has an average latency period of 3 months. Therefore, database commands can fuzzy all dates to the 15th of a month (middle), and move months by $\pm 2$ months without affecting disease progression patterns and increasing risk of re-identification.
Transparency
------------
The transparency of an AI system is closely related to its interpretability and explainability, but also to the documentation of its purpose and how it has been designed. An approach for transparency documentation is the concept of *model cards* [@Mitchell2019], which aims to provide accessible overview of a model for people of different expertise, including all of developers, testers, and technical end-users, similar to a package insert in pharmaceutical products.
Lower level measures for transparency can be achieved via strict traceability and static analysis [@urban2019static] to allow the documentation of system behaviour, e.g. in autonomous vehicles [@borg2017traceability] in combination with requirements engineering [@8491154]. These techniques allow higher transparency of the AI during development, evaluation, and certification tasks, where they serve mostly technical needs for the development and integration of the AI component.
Diversity, non-discrimination and fairness
------------------------------------------
Adequate diversity in data to train AI systems is necessary to avoid discrimination and maintain fairness in human-centered AI. History has taught us that bias in using personal data has harmed several generations of ethnic minorities. Lundy Braun [@braun2014breathing] reports the implications of biased data in spirometers that measure a person’s lung function after a forced exhale. The predicted values of a lung’s forced vital capacity (in litres of air exhaled) for black people for over a century been lower than white people. One of the reasons was that the data was collected from black men working in cotton fields where lint from cotton severely damaged lung function. This has resulted in black people receiving very little help from medical insurance companies for several generations. Even today, race and not socio-economic factor is used as a parameter to predict lung capacity in spirometers used worldwide. This unfortunate trend continues in AI systems where a recent study [@ledford2019millions] shows that millions of black people are victims of biased decision making in health care systems.
Data needs to be carefully curated for training AI systems such that variation in human attributes such as different ethnic groups, genders, ages, weights, heights, geographical areas, and medical histories are taking into account for unbiased decision making. However, discovering if a data set satisfies all possible combinations of attributes is often computationally intractable. Combinatorial interaction testing (CIT) of software has been very effective in finding over 95% of all faults in a wide range of software systems using a very small set of tests covering all 2-wise/pairwise combinations of features [@kuhn2002investigation]. CIT has been extended to verify if data in a large relational database contains all pairwise interactions between attribute values of interest [@sen2016modeling]. Verifying the presence of all pairwise interactions in human attribute values in data set can clarify limitations or guarantee adequate diversity in human-centered AI systems.
The importance of fairness in software received attention as a dedicated topic in software engineering research [@8452913] with close connections for the assessment via software testing methodology [@10.1145/3236024.3264838].
Societal and environmental well-being
-------------------------------------
Human-centered AI systems need to benefit society and not cause harm. It is necessary to see an AI system as not merely a software system but as a socio-technical system where the interaction between people the system is used to evaluate its benefit. Learning from epidemiology, we can evaluate an AI system as if it were an intervention on the public. For instance, in [@sen2017portinari], the authors visualize the paths a patient takes after different screening exams for cervical cancer. Similarly, there is a need to understand how decisions made by the AI system affect the decisions made by people and the paths they take in life. Are people making healthier life choices, environmentally conscious, or giving a helping hand in society after an AI intervention? Evidence-based software engineering [@kitchenham2004evidence] inspired by epidemiology and clinical studies presents numerous approaches to evaluate the impact of AI on people. These approaches include randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and focus group discussions to name a few. All these approaches however require careful data collection after a target audience has been exposed to an AI system.
Accountability
--------------
Access to personal data used in AI systems should be controlled by its owner in human-centered AI. The owner can give consent of use and take away access to personal data whenever he/she wants to. This implies that the AI system would need to be re-trained with or without a specific person’s data. The proof of this operation should be made known to the owner to ensure accountability. The *blockchain* has the potential to facilitate the accountability of such transactions between a data owner and an AI system. The blockchain is a *distributed ledger* which was initially designed to record financial transactions. Numerous models of using the blockchain and smart contracts have now been proposed for data access control [@drosatos2019blockchain] and AI [@salah2019blockchain]. Tal Rapke [@linn2016blockchain] suggests that people own and access their health and life record on a decentralized blockchain that does not rely on a central storage facility. This will liberate organizations from the liability of storing personal data. The data will reside on the latest secure technology and using verifiable cryptography and owners of the data will be empowered to decide who they share their data with.
THE SOFTWARE ENGINEERING TOOLBOX
================================
The discussion of the key requirements on trustworthy AI [@AIHLEG2019-EthicsGuidelines] shows that there are many challenges to be addressed, but also a set of methods available that can embraced and extended. As a general approach towards these challenges, we propose to adopt three main considerations (see Figure \[fig:setoolbox\]): First, since the expectations on trustworthy AI cannot be presented as a strict set of guidelines and rules only, it is recommended to understand their impact on the AI that is developed. Performing thorough requirements analysis helps to gather these requirements in a systematic way [@Belani2019] and to formalize the requirements’ impact on the AI including final acceptance criteria and whether they can be assessed automatically or require manual intervention. One method to guide the requirements analysis at this point could be to formulate checklists for each of the requirements, e.g. similar to this proposition for fairness [@Madaio2020].
![Concepts from the Software Engineering toolbox for the preparation, monitoring and evaluation of trustworthiness in AI projects.[]{data-label="fig:setoolbox"}](figures/setoolbox.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Second, the realization of a trustworthy AI should be continuously accompanied by regular monitoring instruments. The goal of this monitoring is to ensure the awareness of trustworthiness measures during development. These monitoring instruments can include dedicated questions to consider during code and data reviews, as well as retrospective meetings.
Third, automated testing should be used to allow automated, repeated, and comparable assessment of trustworthiness. Where possible, testable acceptance criteria should be defined or test process that can quantify the behaviour of the AI system. For example, the technical robustness of an AI systems against adversarial inputs can be assessed through automatic techniques.
Finally, in all cases does the qualitative and quantitative summary of the results, e.g. via a score or a badge to attest the quality of an AI system, provides valuable information to the different stakeholder groups, e.g. the providers, their customers, or the users. A common scoring scheme, similar to the maturity levels in engineering projects, could allow for comparability and accessibility of the results.
CONCLUSION
==========
The realization of trustworthy AI systems is one of the big challenges for the success of ethical and human-centered AI. This has been acknowledged by both politics [@AIHLEG2019-EthicsGuidelines] and academia. For the implementation of trustworthiness principles, we argue for the adoption of methods and technologies from software engineering. Software engineering has a long-standing tradition on the principled construction of complex systems and has already much of the fundamental work available, as shown throughout this paper.
Still, further work is necessary to cover all the requirements on trustworthy AI and to provide the tools and guidelines necessary for the widespread realization of trustworthy AI. Are the current software engineering tools sufficient to assess AI systems? Or do we need to develop dedicated tools? How can we converge on a set of acceptance criteria for trustworthiness? How many of the requirements can effectively be assessed in a mostly automated way? What are the challenges for assessing trustworthy AI by non-specialists or external users? How can we present the results in an accessible way?
The software engineering community has already taken up the challenge of software engineering for AI/ML, but often with a focus on the general system engineering, maintenance requirements, and general validation. However, as the requirements discussed in this paper showed, the engineering efforts need to cast a wider need and address more concerns in the context of trustworthy AI. This will be an interdisciplinary challenge and the software engineering toolbox can be of central relevance during its development.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
\
[A.R. Gover\
]{}
[ *Department of Mathematics, The University of Auckland, New Zealand\
[[email protected]]{}* ]{}\
[K. Hallowell and A. Waldron\
]{}
[ *Department of Mathematics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA\
[hallowell,[email protected]]{}* ]{}\
[Abstract]{}\
> Gravitational interactions of higher spin fields are generically plagued by inconsistencies. We present a simple framework that couples higher spins to a broad class of gravitational backgrounds (including Ricci flat and Einstein) consistently at the classical level. The model is the simplest example of a Yang–Mills detour complex, which recently has been applied in the mathematical setting of conformal geometry. An analysis of asymptotic scattering states about the trivial field theory vacuum in the simplest version of the theory yields a rich spectrum marred by negative norm excitations. The result is a theory of a physical massless graviton, scalar field, and massive vector along with a degenerate pair of zero norm photon excitations. Coherent states of the unstable sector of the model do have positive norms, but their evolution is no longer unitary and their amplitudes grow with time. The model is of considerable interest for braneworld scenarios and ghost condensation models, and invariant theory.
Introduction
============
Massless, massive, and partially massless free higher spin fields propagate consistently in maximally symmetric backgrounds ([*i.e.*]{}, Minkowski, de Sitter and Anti de Sitter spaces) [@Singh:1974qz; @Vasiliev:1986td; @Deser:1983tm]. Allowing generic curved backgrounds introduces various inconsistencies. Firstly, introducing general curvatures $R_{\mu\nu}{}^\#=[D_\mu,D_\nu]$ can destroy the gauge invariances or constraints which ensured the correct physical degree of freedom count of maximally symmetric backgrounds [@Aragone:1979bm; @Buchbinder:1999ar]. Secondly, even in benign backgrounds ensuring correct degrees of freedom, signals may propagate at superluminal speeds [@Velo:1969bt; @Deser:2001dt] In this Article we display a simple mechanism for maintaining the gauge invariances of higher spins in a broad class of gravitational backgrounds.
Much mathematical insight into the structure of manifolds has been gained by studying the equations of mathematical physics. Notable examples include the self-dual Yang–Mills equations and Donaldson’s four manifold theory, and ensuing simplifications based on the monopole equations of its supersymmetrization [@Donaldson:1990kn]. In self-dual Yang-Mills theory an important [*rôle*]{} is played by a class of two operator complexes that are sometimes termed Yang-Mills complexes. In [@GSS] it is observed that there is a closely related 3 operator complex for each full Yang-Mills connection. These are there termed Yang-Mills detour complexes since there are intimate links with conformal geometry and in dimension four the complexes fall into a class of complexes called conformal detour complexes [@Br-BrGodeRham]. The Yang-Mills detour complexes are related to an idea that has been extant in the Physics literature for some time. Namely, it is well known that massless vectors couple consistently to an onshell Yang–Mills background if a non-minimal coupling is included [@Deser:1987uk]. Unwrapping this in mathematical terms yields a Yang-Mills detour complex. Here we propose to study a Yang-Mills detour complex in one of the simplest possible settings in order to expose and explore, for a physics audience, the issues of consistency at both the classical and quantum level. On a dimension 4 Lorentzian background we obtain a theory of higher spins by taking the Poincaré group as Yang–Mills gauge group and the vectors transforming in any finite dimensional representation.
The first objection, that this simple model mixes spacetime and internal symmetries, and so violates the Coleman–Mandula theorem [@Coleman:1967ad], is evaded because we propose only a theory of non-interacting free fields whereas the theorem pertains to triviality of an interacting $S$-matrix. The second complaint that finite dimensional representations of the non-compact Poincaré group are non-unitary and therefore imply the likelihood of ghost states is, however borne out. (We note that an infinite dimensional unitary representation ought yield an infinite tower of consistent higher spin interactions and comment further in the Conclusions.) In the trivial field theory vacuum we indeed find a pair of degenerate, zero norm photons. Nonetheless, the model is of considerable interest because
1. Ghost states can simply indicate instability of the trivial Lorentz invariant vacuum. The model is useful as both a laboratory to study these excitations plus there exists the possibility of finding a (possibly non-Lorentz invariant) stable vacuum (especially if interactions were included).
2. The model can be used to study properties of the background manifold in which the higher spin fields propagate. Higher spin gauge invariances can provide new invariants of the background manifold [@Gover]. Moreover, finding physical states amounts to computing the cohomology of the twisted Maxwell complex.
3. Backgrounds other than the simplest Minkowski one, may permit a physical scattering spectrum.
For the simplest non-trivial spin 2 example in a four dimensional Minkowski background we find the following spectrum[^1]:
Spin Mass Norm
------ ------------- ------
2 0 +ve
1 $\sqrt 2 m$ +ve
1 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 +ve
The Lorentz invariant Lagrangian for these excitations depends on (i) a 2-index symmetric tensor, (ii) a 2-form, and (iii) a vector field. However a detailed Hamiltonian helicity analysis is required to determine the graviton, massive vector, two photon, and massless scalar spectrum quoted above. Interestingly, the photon states correspond to generalized eigenvector solutions of the wave equations of motion. Physically this amounts to resonance states with amplitudes growing linearly in time. Moreover, in the unstable photon subspace of the Hilbert space, only zero norm states diagonalize the Hamiltonian. Coherent states of these photon excitations have norms which grow with time, in violation of unitarity, and signify the instability of the model.
This Article is arranged as follows. In Section \[twist\] we explain how to formulate higher spins as a complex and present the twisted Maxwell complex. In Section \[Minkowski\] we specialize the underlying vector matter fields to the fundamental representation of the Poincaré Yang–Mills gauge group. The Hamiltonian analysis of this model is given in Section 4 while Section \[Danger\] concentrates on the dangerous helicity one excitations. The quantization of the model is given in Section 6. In Section \[coherent\_state\] we compute coherent states and their evolution. Our conclusions and further speculations are given in Section \[Conclusions\].
Yang–Mills Detour Complex {#twist}
=========================
An obvious, yet powerful, observation is that in any dimension we can view a classically consistent higher spin gauge theory as a complex 0 {
[cc]{}\
} { } {
[cc]{}\
} {
[cc]{}\
} 0 . \[Maxwell\] Here where we write “Field Equations” is really of course the vector bundle where these equations take values and a similar comment applies to the “Bianchi Identities” which give the integrability condition for the field equations. The simplest example is the Maxwell (detour) complex where the space of fields are one forms $V\in \Gamma
(\Lambda^1M)$, and ${\cal D}=d$ the Poincaré differential, its dual is ${}^*{\cal D}=*d*$ and Maxwell’s equations are simply V d V = 0 . In this case the statement that is a complex so that ${\cal G}\, {\cal D} = 0 = {}^*{\cal D} \, {\cal G}$ amounts to the gauge invariance $V\rightarrow V+d\alpha$ and the Bianchi identity $\delta \, {\cal G} V=0$.
The Maxwell complex can be twisted by coupling to a vector bundle connection over the manifold $M$. In general then fails to be a complex reflecting the usual problem of adding curvature to a flat theory. However, if the connection satisfies the Yang-Mills equations then remarkably it turns out that we still obtain a complex called a Yang–Mills detour complex [@GSS] . Let us review, in our current notation and on a spacetime background, this simple construction. In this setting, the space of fields are one-forms taking values in a representation $R$ of the Yang-Mills gauge group $G$. We work locally, so for the purposes of the calculations the manifold may be taken to be $\mathbb{R}^4$ and the bundle carrying the representation may be taken trivial (as a vector bundle). Let D=d+A , be the Yang–Mills connection (so the Yang–Mills potential $A$ is a ${\mathfrak g}$-valued one-form). Then we set &=&D ,\
\^\*[D]{}&=&\* D\* ,\
[G]{}&=&\* D\*D-\*(\^\*F) , where $F=D^2$ is the Yang–Mills curvature. Now we find that is a complex so long as the Yang–Mills connection obeys the Yang–Mills equations =0 . Physicists would summarize this information in terms of the action (valid in any spacetime dimension and signature) S=12 \_M V\_\^T (g\^D\^D\_- D\^D\^+ F\^) V\_ , \[Indices\] with gauge invariance $V_\mu\rightarrow V_\mu+D_\mu \alpha$ valid whenever $D^\mu F_{\mu\nu}=0$ (suppressing indices corresponding to the representation $R$).
The existence and origin of this model is also clear from a physical standpoint. Yang-Mills theory itself can be constructed iteratively by coupling vectors to vectors [@Deser:1987uk]. The first step of coupling abelian vector fields $V$ to the non-abelian vector field $A$ requires that the field $A$ is on-shell.
The model is a consistent one for any compact gauge group $G$ and unitary representation $R$. Our proposal is simply to relax compactness of $G$ and take it to be the spacetime Poincaré symmetry algebra, and to begin our study with finite dimensional representations $R$. The ghost difficulties that the model faces are all hidden in the superscript “$T$” on the field $V_\mu$ in , indicating an inner product on vectors in the representation space $R$.
Nonetheless, the proposal is rather fruitful since taking the gauge group $G$ to be the Poincaré one amounts to coupling the model to gravity. This idea is well known both in mathematics and physics (called the Cartan connection or Palatini formalism, respectively). Let us concentrate on four dimensions and adopt the 5$\times$5 matrix representation of the Poincaré Lie algebra so that the background Yang–Mills potential reads A = (
[cc]{} \^m\_n & e\^m\
0 & 0
), where indices $m,n,..$ take values $0,1,2,3$ and are raised and lowered with the flat Minkowski metric $\eta_{mn}={\rm diag}(-1,1,1,1)_{mn}$. Here, we view $e$ as the vierbein for the underlying spacetime and $\omega$ as the spin connection. The Yang–Mills curvature $F$ then becomes F = (
[cc]{} R\^[m]{}\_n & T\^m\
0 & 0
). where $R = d \omega + \omega \wedge \omega$ is the Riemann curvature and $T = d e + \omega \wedge e$ is the torsion of the connection. We may work either with torsion-free $T = 0$ spacetimes or include it according to the physics being probed. In the absence of torsion, the spin connection can be solved for as a function of the vierbein and the Yang–Mills equations become the equations of harmonic curvature D\^R\_=2D\_[\[]{} R\_[\]]{}=0 . This requirement is weaker than Einstein’s equations. Obvious solutions are Ricci flat, Einstein and self-dual backgrounds so the model clearly has a wide physical applicability.
Finally, now that the model couples to gravitational backgrounds, we obtain higher spin fields by taking the vector field $V$ to be a tensor representation of the Poincaré group. These can be decomposed in terms of tensor representations of the Lorentz subgroup, so generically we find theories of higher spin fields $(f_\mu{}^{m_1\ldots m_s}, v_\mu{}^{m_1\ldots m_{s-1}}, \ldots , v_\mu )$.
Minkowski Twisted Maxwell {#Minkowski}
==========================
We make two simplifications. The background space is Minkowski ${\mathbb R}^{3,1}$ and the representation $R$ is the fundamental of the Yang–Mills Poincaré gauge group $G = SO(3,1) \rtimes {\mathbb R}^4$. In this case the Yang–Mills curvature vanishes so there no non-minimal coupling in the detour operator ${\cal G}$. So we simply have what is known as a twisted Maxwell complex. The fundamental representation acts naturally on a 5-vector of 1-forms, V = (
[c]{} f\^\
v
) = (
[c]{} f\_\^\
v\_
) dx\^, and we no longer distinguish between flat (Lie algebra) and curved (spacetime) indices using the latter in both cases. Moreover, for a flat background the Riemann curvature, torsion, and spin connection all vanish and the Yang-Mills potential is simply A = (
[cc]{} 0 & \_\^\
0 & 0
)dx\^ . A simple computation yields the Lagrangian L = - ( F\_ )\^2 - (G\_ \^ )\^2, \[CurvaturesS\] where the “Maxwell” curvatures (not to be confused with their background Yang–Mills counterpart in the previous Section) F\_ && \_v\_-\_v\_ ,\
G\_ \^ && \_ f\_ \^[ ]{} -\_ f\_ \^[ ]{} + \^ \_ v\_ -\^ \_ v\_ .
The gauge invariance $V\rightarrow V+ D\alpha$ becomes f\_\^&& f\_\^+\_\^+\_\^ ,\
v\_&& v\_ + \_ . In 4 dimensions there are twenty fields $(f_\mu{}^\rho,v_\mu)$ and five gauge invariances with parameters $(\alpha^\rho,\beta)$ so the model certainly describes a total of $20-2\times 5=10$ physical degrees of freedom. (This is also obvious from the standpoint of five massless Yang–Mills vector matter fields.) However, the partition of these modes into the irreducible Poincaré representations of Wigner [@Wigner:1939cj] is hardly clear from the Lagrangian . To emphasize this point we expand this equation out as L &=& - 12 (\_f\_\^ )\^2 +12 (. f\^)\^2 -12 (\_v\_)\^2 +12 (. v)\^2\
&-& m v\^ (\^ f\_ - \_f\^\_[ ]{}) + (d-1) m\^2 v . v . The top line is a sum of Maxwell actions but the second line includes cross terms and an apparent mass term (here we have given the general result valid in $d$-dimensions). We have included a mass parameter $m$ by naïve dimensional analysis. It can clearly take any value we so choose and we will work in units $m=1$ for the remainder of the Article. It is important to note that this is a freedom peculiar to flat space. Upon considering more general curved backgrounds, the parameter $m$ must be tuned to the gravitational coupling[^2].
Hamiltonian Helicity Analysis
=============================
To determine the spectrum of the model we make a Hamiltonian analysis and helicity decomposition. We treat the time coordinate on a separate footing and denote spatial indices by $i,j,k,...=1,2,3$. The following computation is completely standard (excellent references are [@Arnowitt:1960es]), but we sketch some details for completeness.
Firstly, introduce canonical momenta $P^j$ and $\pi^j_{~\rho}$ by P\^j &= =&F\_0\^[ j]{} = \^j - \^j v\_0 \[pi\^j\] ,\
\^j\_[ ]{} &= =&G\_0\^[ j]{} \_ = \^j\_[ ]{} - \^j f\_[0 ]{} - 2 \_\^[ \[0]{} v\^[j\]]{} \[pi\^jr\] . Noting that the first order Lagrangian obtained by Legendre transformation must take the form $L^{(1)}=P^jF_{0j}+\pi^j{}_\rho F_{0j}{}^\rho - \widehat H$ we rapidly find (suppressing spatial integrations $\int d^3x$) L\^[(1)]{}&=& P\^j \_j + \^j\_[ ]{} \_j\^[ ]{} - H ,\
H&=& + - \^j\_[ 0]{} v\_j\
&+& v\_0 - f\_0\^[ ]{} \_j \^j\_[ ]{} . Clearly, $v_0$ and $f_0^{~\rho}$ are Lagrange multipliers imposing primary constraints \^j\_[ j]{} - \_j P\^j & = & 0 ,\
\_j \^j\_[ ]{} & = & 0 . \[eom2\]
We now proceed by making a helicity decomposition, solving the constraints and computing an action principle for physical degrees of freedom only. Our helicity decomposition for general 1- and 2-index tensors is Y\_i &=& Y\^T \_i + \_i Y\^L ,\
X\_[ij]{} &=& X\^[Tt]{} \_[ij]{} + 2 \_[(i]{} X\^T \_[j)]{} + (\_[ij]{} - ) X\^S + X\^L + \_[ijk]{} \^k X\^A + 2 \_[\[i]{} X\^[AT]{} \_[j\]]{}.\
(where, for example, transverse objects are divergence free, so $\partial^i Y_i^T=0$). We also heavily employ their inner products under a $\int d^3x$ integration Y’\_i Y\^i&=& Y’\_i\^[T]{} Y\^[T i]{} -Y’\^[L]{}Y\^L ,\
X’\_[ij]{}X\^[ij]{}&=& X’\_[ij]{}\^[Tt]{}X\^[Tt ij]{}-2X’\^[T]{}\_jX\^[T j]{} +X’\^S X\^S+X’\^L X\^L\
&-&2 X’\^A X\^A -2 X’\^[AT]{}\_jX\^[AT j]{} .\
Here the negative definite operator $\Delta=\partial_i\partial^i$ denotes the spatial Laplacian which we take invertible. A useful mnemonic is that the number of indices on fields now labels their helicity. Written out helicity by helicity the primary constraints are solved via
[|c|c|]{} &\
& \
&\
1 & \^[AT]{} \_k = -\^T \_k\
&\
& \^L = 0\
0 & \^L \_0 = 0\
\[1mm\] &P\^L = \^S\
\[constraints\] There are, of course, no constraints on the leading helicity $\pm 2$ sector whose action reads L\^[(1)]{} \_[2]{}& = & \^[Ttij]{} \^[Tt]{}\_[ij]{} - . This consistently describes a physical massless spin two graviton. The helicity zero sector is not much more difficult. Upon substituting the constraints, $f_0^L$ decouples and making field redefinitions q\_0 &=& \^S ,\
p\_0 &=& (v\^L - f\^S) ,\
&=& \^A ,\
&=& f\^A , we find L\^[(1)]{}\_0 &=& -\
& +& p\_0\_0 - . This describes a pair of physically consistent scalar fields, one massless and one with mass $\sqrt{2}$. As we shall see in the following Section, the latter forms the zero helicity component of a physical massive vector field.
Helicity 1 Hamiltonian Analysis {#Danger}
===============================
The helicity 1 sector is more subtle. Although classically consistent, the model displays negative norm states when expanded about the trivial Lorentz invariant field theoretic background. Firstly we perform the classical constraint analysis.
Imposing the helicity $\pm 1$ constraint as in (\[constraints\]), we find that the combination $f^T_j + f^{AT} _j$ decouples and L\^[(1)]{}\_[1]{} &=& \^t - H\^[(1)]{}\_[1]{},\
H\^[(1)]{}\_[1]{} &=& (\^t + \^t + ) ,\[action1\] where we have made field redefinitions packaged as a vector of $SO(2,1)$ \^T\_j=(
[c]{} v\_j\^T\
f\_[0j]{}\^[ T]{}\
(f\_j\^T-f\^[AT]{}\_j)
) ,\_j\^T= (
[c]{} P\_j\^T\
\_[0j]{}\^[ T]{}\
2 \_j\^T
) , and $$\wt{M} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1&0&0\\[2mm]
0&-1&0\\[2mm]
0&0&1
\end{array}
\right)\, ,\qquad
\wt{N} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0&0&0\\[2mm]
-2&0&0\\[2mm]
0&0&0
\end{array}
\right)\, ,$$ = (
[ccc]{} -+2& 0 &-\
0&&0\
-&0&-
) . Throughout this and the following Sections we suppress the helicity $\pm1$ labels “$\ {}^T_j\ $”. The dynamics are most easily analyzed via the second order form[^3] of the action L\^[(2)]{}\_[1]{} = \^tM + \^t N + P , where now $$M = \left (
\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0 \\[2mm]
0 &-1 & 0 \\[2mm]
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right )\, ,\qquad \qquad
N = \left (
\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & -\half & 0 \\[2mm]
\half & 0 & 0 \\[2mm]
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right )\, ,$$ P = (
[ccc]{} - 3 & 0 &\
0 &-& 0\
& 0 &
) . The equations of motion \[odeForm\] -M -2N + P = 0. are a second order matrix ODE. Working in the eigenspace $\Delta=-k^2$ and considering wave solutions $\Phi = \lambda e^{i \omega t}$, then (\[odeForm\]) becomes ( M \^2 - 2i N + P ) &=& 0 . The determinant of this matrix must vanish which yields (k\^2 -\^2 + 2)(k\^2 -\^2)\^2 &=& 0 . The zeros are precisely the relativistic dispersion relations of a single mass $\sqrt{2}$ and two massless vector fields. Observe that this mass eigenvalue agrees with that found in the zero helicity sector so we obtain a pair of photons and a massive vector. This is the spectrum quoted in the Introduction, we now analyze its quantization and stability.
Quantization and Stability {#quantization}
==========================
To quantize the model we expand the on-shell fields on plane wave solutions &=& \_[i=1]{}\^3 (f\_i \_i\^+ \_i),\
where f\_1 =54 (
[c]{} 0\
1\
i
) e\^[ikt]{} ,f\_2 = f\_1+ ik (
[c]{} 1\
t\
\[2mm\] i2 t
) e\^[ikt]{} , are photon solutions and the massive vector solution is f\_3 = (
[c]{} 1\
-i\
- k
) e\^[i t]{} . As we shall see, the massive vector subspace of the Hilbert space is perfectly physical while the photon subspace is pathological. Already we see that the solution $f_2$ has amplitude growing linearly in time. Mathematically this is a generalized eigenvector solution to our system of PDEs. Physically it can be interpreted in terms of a resonance between highly tuned wave solutions and indicates an instability. Similar behavior has already been observed in the ghost condensation mechanism of [@Arkani-Hamed:2003uy] employed to obtain infra-red modifications of Einstein gravity.
We now promote the Fourier coefficients $(\alpha_i,\alpha^\dagger_i)$ to operators in a Fock space. Positivity of the classical energy and in turn stability can be studied through the energy eigenvalues of single particle states. We will also analyze unitarity of the model by computing norms of quantum states.
Imposing canonical equal time commutation relations of the fields and their momenta &=& -i **[1]{} , fixes the commutation relations of the creation and annihilation operators to =(**
[cc|c]{} - & - & 0\
- &0 & 0\
0& 0 &
) . (the right hand side of this equation is the Wronskian of the solutions above). As promised this is block diagonal and positive definite in the massive vector block. The zero on the diagonal already signals the presence of zero norm states in the photonic Fock space.
The Hamiltonian may be expressed also in terms of Fock operators as H=\^ ,\[Qham\] with matrix =(
[cc|c]{} 0& -5k\^2 & 0\
-5k\^2 & 2k\^2(k\^2-1) & 0\
0 & 0 & 2(k\^[2]{} + 2)
) . Taking into account the normalization of the symplectic form $\Omega$ we see that massive vectors states have both positive norms and energies with single particle, relativistic dispersion relation E= .\[mass2\] The photonic Fock space is much more subtle. Interestingly enough the eigenvalues of the matrix $\cal M$ can become negative but are actually bounded below. However, consider a single particle state |1= \^|0 , where $|0\rangle$ is the Fock vacuum and $\lambda$ is some constant, complex $3$-vector of coefficients. Requiring $|1\rangle$ to be an energy eigenstate implies that H |1= \^ \^|0=\^ |0=E|1and in turn the equality = E . , we must diagonalize the effective Hamiltonian matrix ${\cal H}\equiv {\cal M}\Omega$ rather than simply ${\cal M}$. Explicitly =(
[cc|c]{} k & 0 & 0\
& k & 0\
0\^ & 0 &
) . \[effham\] Again we see that the massive vector decouples with dispersion relation . While the only photon single particle energy eigenstate is |a\_2\^|0 ,with energy $E=k$ which is the correct Lorentz invariant dispersion relation for massless excitations. The norm of this state $\langle \gamma|\gamma\rangle=0$, vanishes however.
We can also consider a general photonic single particle state $(\nu a_1^\dagger + \mu a_2^\dagger)|0\rangle$. Then denoting $\rho=\nu/\mu$ we find that states with $\rho$ inside the disc |+|< , \[bound\]have positive norm, those on the boundary zero norm and those exterior to the disc negative norm (the state $a^\dagger_1|0\rangle$ with $\rho=\infty$ also has negative norm). The only single particle state diagonalizing the Hamiltonian is the zero norm state $|\gamma\rangle$ corresponding to $\rho=0$.
Observe that positivity properties of norms are improved in the non-relativistic limit $k\rightarrow 0$, for which any $\rho$ in the upper half plane solves . Nonetheless even in this limit the non-unitarity difficulty persists. Another mechanism available to cure the instability is to truncate the model by restricting physical states further to the cohomology of an appropriate nilpotent operator. Explicitly, call the top 2$\times$2 block of the effective Hamiltonian in $\wh{\cal H}$. Then since any matrix obeys its own characteristic polynomial, the matrix ${\cal N}\equiv \wh{\cal H}-k$ is nilpotent \^2=0 ,and commutes with $\wh {\cal H}$. The cohomology of ${\cal N}$ in the malevolent photonic single particle Fock space is trivial, which is promising. We have not computed its cohomology for multiparticle states, but instead remark that this mechanism is unlikely to respect Lorentz invariance.
The presence of zero and negative norm states signals the breakdown of unitary evolution, as evidenced by the non-hermitean effective Hamiltonian matrix ${\cal H}$, commensurate with resonant classical single particle wave-functions growing linearly in time. Whether this instability indicates the existence of other stable but possibly non-Lorentz invariant vacua, or is a runaway instability is an open problem deserving further study. It seems likely that the addition of interparticle interactions is necessary to support a stable vacuum.
Coherent State Evolution. {#coherent_state}
=========================
Let us consider coherent states in the photonic Fock space[^4] Denoting $\wh\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ and similarly employing hats to denote the top 2$\times$2 photonic block for matrices, coherent states diagonalizing the annihilation operators |z=z|z ,are simply |z=(\^\^[-1]{}z)|0 . Here $z$ is a complex 2-vector and the coherent state associated with the photon single particle state $|\gamma\rangle$ corresponds to $z_\gamma=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right)$.
Its time evolution, given by[^5] |z(t)=e\^[iHt]{}|z , is easily computed to be z(t)=(
[c]{} z\_1\
z\_2+ z\_1
) e\^[ikt]{} , which is the classical solution found above. Therefore, as usual, coherent states are maximally classical. The inner product for these states is w|z=(w\^\^[-1]{} z) . Since $\wh \Omega$ is a real symmetric matrix, norms of photonic coherent states z|z=(z\^\^[-1]{} z) , are always positive. However, they are are not conserved in time since evolution is no longer unitary (observe that the effective Hamiltonian ${\cal H}$ in is not Hermitean). Instead we find that norms for the time evolved states $|z(t)\rangle$ obey z(t)|z(t)=(z\^(
[cc]{} & -\
- & 2 k\^3
) z ) . Observe that the photon coherent state $|z_\gamma\rangle$ has a time independent norm $\Big|\Big||z_\gamma\rangle\Big|\Big|^2=\exp(2k^3)$. In general, however, unitary evolution is violated. In particular the state with $z=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\0\end{array}\right)$, corresponding to $\rho=\infty$ in the notation of the previous Section, has norm behaving as $\exp(4t^2k^5/25)$ for large times. This indicates that coherent combinations of the negative norm single particle states dominate the large time behavior of the model and are primarily responsible for its instability.
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
The Yang–Mills detour complex, obtained from an on-shell Poincaré Yang–Mills twist of the Maxwell complex along with a non-minimal coupling, yields a novel mechanism for coupling higher spins to gravitational backgrounds. Even the simplest, flat, fundamental representation version of the model, analyzed in depth here, has a rich spectrum though photon states have nonpositive norms.
There are many open questions and directions the model can taken in. Firstly, vacua other than the usual Lorentz invariant background, where all fields vanish, might be stable. Secondly, the Yang–Mills gauge group $G$ can be enlarged. Obvious generalizations are to situations with conformal symmetry or supersymmetry where $G$ can be the conformal or super Poincaré algebra [@GSS].
In general, given a complex, it often is possible to search for projections to a smaller one where the projections and differentials commute. ([*I.e.*]{}, one forms a commutative diagram.) Hence, one can search for a smaller complex in which the zero norm and negative norm states are excised [@GSS].
Another extremely interesting direction is to study models with infinite towers of fields by taking Maxwell fields labeled by infinite dimensional yet unitary representations of the Yang-Mills algebra ${\mathfrak g}$. These present the possibility of a fundamental theory with quantum consistency in the Lorentz invariant vacuum. Moreover, one might even hope that genuine interparticle interactions (rather than just ones to the background) would be possible with the infinite number of fields as the loophole in the Coleman–Mandula theorem.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to thank Stanley Deser and Nemanja Kaloper for discussions and encouragement. A.W. is indebted to the University of Auckland for its warm hospitality. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant PHY01-40365.
[99]{}
L. P. S. Singh and C. R. Hagen, Phys. Rev. D [**9**]{}, 898 (1974).\
C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{}, 3624 (1978).\
T. Curtright, Phys. Lett. B [**85**]{}, 219 (1979). M. A. Vasiliev, Fortsch. Phys. [**35**]{}, 741 (1987) \[Yad. Fiz. [**45**]{}, 1784 (1987)\]; Nucl. Phys. B [**301**]{}, 26 (1988). S. Deser and R. I. Nepomechie, Phys. Lett. B [**132**]{}, 321 (1983); Annals Phys. [**154**]{}, 396 (1984).\
A. Higuchi, J. Math. Phys. [**28**]{}, 1553 (1987).\
S. Deser and A. Waldron, Nucl. Phys. B [**607**]{}, 577 (2001); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 031601 (2001); Phys. Lett. B [**508**]{}, 347 (2001); Phys. Lett. B [**513**]{}, 137 (2001); Nucl. Phys. B [**662**]{}, 379 (2003).\
K. Hallowell and A. Waldron, Nucl. Phys. B [**724**]{}, 453 (2005). C. Aragone and S. Deser, Nuovo Cim. B [**57**]{}, 33 (1980). I. L. Buchbinder, D. M. Gitman, V. A. Krykhtin and V. D. Pershin, Nucl. Phys. B [**584**]{}, 615 (2000); I. L. Buchbinder, D. M. Gitman and V. D. Pershin, Phys. Lett. B [**492**]{}, 161 (2000)
K. Johnson and E. Sudarshan, Annals of Physics, [**13**]{} 126 (1961).\
G. Velo and D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. [**186**]{}, 1337 (1969). S. Deser and A. Waldron, Nucl. Phys. B [**631**]{}, 369 (2002)
S. K. Donaldson, Topology [**29**]{}, 257 (1990).\
N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B [**426**]{}, 19 (1994) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**430**]{}, 485 (1994)\]. A. Rod Gover, Petr Somberg and Vladimír Souček, [*Yang-Mills detour complexes and conformal geometry*]{}, \[math.DG/0606401\].
T. Branson, [*$Q$-curvature and spectral invariants*]{}. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) Suppl. No. 75 11 (2005).\
T. Branson, and A.R. Gover, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, [**30**]{}, 1611 (2005).
S. Deser, Class. Quant. Grav. [**4**]{}, L99 (1987).
S. R. Coleman and J. Mandula, Phys. Rev. [**159**]{}, 1251 (1967). R. Gover and A. Waldron, in preparation.
E. P. Wigner, Annals Math. [**40**]{}, 149 (1939) \[Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**6**]{}, 9 (1989)\]. R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, Phys. Rev. [**117**]{}, 1595 (1960). P. Dirac, Lecture on Quantum Mecahnics, Dover 2001.
N. Arkani-Hamed, H. C. Cheng, M. A. Luty and S. Mukohyama, JHEP [**0405**]{}, 074 (2004)
A. Albrecht, P. Ferreira, M. Joyce and T. Prokopec, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 4807 (1994).\
C. Kiefer, J. Lesgourgues, D. Polarski and A. A. Starobinsky, Class. Quant. Grav. [**15**]{}, L67 (1998).\
N. Kaloper and M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 123522 (2003).
[^1]: For flat backgrounds, the mass parameter $m$ is freely tunable (save to vanishing values). In general spaces it depends on the gravitational coupling. A parameter space study as in [@Deser:2001dt] is then required.
[^2]: This could be either a curse or blessing, see [@Deser:2001dt] for a detailed analysis of this issue.
[^3]: An interesting rewriting of this action is in terms of an $SO(2,1)$ covariant derivative $D=d+MN$, so that $$S_{\pm 1}^{(2)}=\frac12\ \frac{D\Phi^t}{dt} M \frac{D\Phi}{dt} +\frac12\ \Phi^t (P+NMN)\Phi\, .$$ The second term does, however, break the $SO(2,1)$ invariance.
[^4]: This analysis is similar in spirit to [@Albrecht:1992kf], where models with wrong sign potentials and squeezed states are analyzed.
[^5]: In quantum mechanics coherent states evolve classically up to a phase corresponding to the zero point energy. As evidenced by , we have made the usual field theoretic normal ordering renormalization so this factor is absent.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The spin gauge field formalism has been used to explain the emergence of out of plane spin accumulation in two-dimensional spin orbit interaction (SOI) systems in the presence of an in-plane electric field. The adiabatic alignment of the charge carrier spins to the momentum dependent SOI field, which changes in time due to the electric field, can be mathematically captured by the addition of a gauge term in the Hamiltonian. This gauge term acts like an effective, electric field dependent magnetization. In this work we show that this effective magnetization can be generalized to systems which include additional discrete degrees of freedom to real spin, such as the pseudospin and/or valley degrees of freedom in emerging materials like molybdenum sulphide and silicene. We show that the generalized magnetization recovers key results from the Sundaram-Niu formalism as well as from the Kubo formula. We then use the generalized magnetization to study the exemplary system of a topological insulator thin film system where the presence of both a top as well as a bottom surface provides an additional discrete degree of freedom in addition to the real spin.'
author:
- Zhuo Bin Siu
- 'Mansoor B. A. Jalil'
- Seng Ghee Tan
title: Gauge field in systems with spin orbit interactions and additional discrete degrees of freedom to real spin
---
Introduction
============
In the Spin Hall Effect (SHE) [@SHE1; @SHE2; @SHE3; @SHE4; @SHE5], the passage of an in-plane electric field in a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) with spin orbit interactions (SOIs) leads to the appearance of an out of plane spin accumulation.
Murakami [@Murakami] and Fujita [@Grp1; @Grp2; @Grp3; @Grp4; @SGTSciRep], and their respective coauthors, had independently studied the SHE. They showed that the out of plane spin accumulation can be understood as the response of the charge carriers as their spins align adiabatically with the momentum dependent SOI field. The direction of the SOI field changes in time due to the change in the momentum of the charge carriers as they accelerate under the electric field. Mathematically, the electric field gives to an effective magnetization term in the Hamiltonian which we shall, for short, call the Murakami-Fujita (MF) potential.
Many emerging material systems in interest in spintronics, for example silicene [@Sil1; @Sil2; @Sil3; @Sil4] and [@Mo1; @Mo2; @Mo3], possess discrete degrees of freedom (DoFs) such as the pseudospin and / or valley degrees of freedom, in addition to their real spins. In this work, we show in the following sections that the MF potential can be readily extended to incorporate these additional degrees of freedom (DoF) which we shall for simplicity refer to collectively as pseudospin. To first order in the electric field, the MF potential accounts for the effects of a constant, in-plane electric field for the purposes of calculating spin / charge currents and spin accumulations to first order in the electric field.
We illustrate the application of the MF potential on a system with a spin$\otimes$pseudospin degrees of freedom through the example of the topological insulator (TI) thin film system [@PRB80_205401; @PRB81_041307; @PRB81_115407]. Unlike a semi-infinite TI slab, a TI thin film has both a top and a bottom surface which, due t the finite thickness, couple to each other. The low energy effective Hamiltonian for can be written as $$H = v(\vec{k}\times\vec{\sigma})\cdot\hat{z} \tau_z + \lambda \tau_x + \vec{M}\cdot\vec{\sigma} \label{TIham1}$$ Besides the real spin denoted as $\vec{\sigma}$ of the charge carriers there is another discrete degree of freedom $\vec{\tau}$ associated with whether the charge carriers are localized nearer the upper ( $|+\tau_z\rangle\langle +\tau_z|$ ) or lower ($|-\tau z \rangle\langle -\tau_z|$) surface of the film. The $\tau_x$ term then represents the coupling between the two surfaces of the film due to the finite thickness.
This paper is organized as follows. We first revisit the emergence of the MF potential in a spin 1/2 SOI system. We then generalize the MF potential to include other discrete DoFs, and provide three evidences to support our claim that the MF potential accounts for the effects of the electric field in the sense that an effective Hamiltonian can be constructed by replacing the $\vec{E}\cdot\vec{r}$ term in the original Hamiltonian can be replaced by the position-*independent* MF potential.
We first show that taking the momentum derivative of the effective Hamiltonian in the Heisenberg equation of motion for the position operator reproduces the usual Berry curvature expression for the anomalous Hall velocity. As part of their paper on the microscopic origin of spin torque [@ChengRan], Cheng Ran and Niu Qian had extended the original Sundaram-Niu wavepacket formalism [@ChioGoo1], which gave only the time variation of the position and momentum expectation values, to now include the time variation of the spin expectation values. We show that Ran and Niu’s expressions for the time evolution of the spin expectation values can be readily extended to incorporate the other discrete degrees of freedom present, and that the time evolution of these operators can be derived from applying the Heisenberg equation of motion to the MF potential. Finally, we show that the Kubo expression for non equilibrium expectation of spin$\otimes$pseudospin quantities can be interpreted as the first order time independent perturbation theory response to the MF potential.
We then move on to apply the MF potential formalism to study the emergence of a TI thin film system subjected to an in-plane magnetization and electric field. We first illustrate the effects of the interlayer coupling on the in-plane magnetization and the dispersion relations. We then show that the direction of the out of plane spin accumulation resulting from an in-plane electric field can be explained in terms of how the direction of the momentum dependent in-plane SOI field rotates with the change in momentum direction resulting from the electric field. The anti-symmetry of the out of plane spin accumulation in $k$ space can be broken with the application of an out of plane electric field in order to yield a finite spin accumulation after integrating over the Fermi surface.
Spin 1/2 systems {#spinhalf}
================
To familarize the reader with the MF potential, we first review its appearance in spin 1/2 SOI systems without any additional discrete degrees of freedom. The Hamiltonian for a homogenous 2DEG with SOI and an electric field $E_x$ in the $x$ direction can be generically written as $$H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + \vec{B}(\vec{k})\cdot\vec{\sigma} + E_x x$$ where the $\vec{B}(\vec{k})$ represents a momentum dependent spin orbit interaction. We define a unitary transformation $U(\vec{k})$ which diagonalizes $\vec{B}.\vec{\sigma}$ in spin space so that after the unitary transformation, we have $$UHU^\dagger = \frac{p^2}{2m} + |\vec{B}|\sigma_z + E_x (x - i U \partial_{k_x} U^\dagger).$$
Mathematically, the effect of $U$ can be interpreted as rotating the spin space coordinates so that in the rotated frame, the spin $z$ axis points in the direction of the SOI field $\vec{B}(\vec{k})$. The non commutation between $x$ and the momentum dependent $U$ results in the appearance of the $-i E_x (U \partial_{k_x} U^\dagger)$ term which acts as an effective magnetization $M'_i \tilde{\sigma}_i$ in the rotated frame where the tilde on the $\tilde{\sigma}_i$ indicates that the index $i$ refers to the $i$th spin direction in the rotated frame. To determine what *lab* frame direction this effective magnetization points in, we perform the inverse unitary transformation $U^\dagger (-i U \partial_{k_x}U^\dagger) U = -i (\partial_{k_x}U^\dagger)U$. This expression can be evaluated without an explicit form for $U$. To do this, we first note that by definition $U\hat{b}\cdot\vec{\sigma}U^\dagger = \sigma_z$ where $\hat{b} = \vec{B}/|\vec{B}|$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
&& U^\dagger\sigma_zU = \hat{b}\cdot\vec{\sigma} \\
&\Rightarrow& (\partial_{k_x}U^\dagger)\sigma_z U + U^\dagger\sigma_z(\partial_{k_x}U) = \partial_{k_x}\hat{b}\cdot\vec{\sigma} \\
&\Rightarrow& [(\partial_{k_x}U^\dagger)U, \hat{b}\cdot\vec{\sigma}] = \partial_{k_x}\hat{b}\cdot\vec{\sigma} \\\end{aligned}$$ In going from the first to second line, we differentiated the first line with respect to $k_x$ and then inserted $\mathbb{I}_\sigma=UU^\dagger$ in the appropriate places. From the last line, we use the fact that $[\vec{a}\cdot\vec{\sigma}, \vec{b}\cdot\vec{\sigma}] = i (\vec{a}\times\vec{b})\cdot\vec{\sigma}$ to conclude that $$-i E_x U\partial_{k_x}U^\dagger = E_x (\hat{b}\times\partial_{k_x}\hat{b})\cdot\vec{\sigma}.$$
This is the MF potential for a spin 1/2 system with an electric field in the $x$ direction.
Notice that although $U$ is not unique, the lab frame direction of $-i U\partial_{k_x}U^\dagger$ is independent of the specific choice of $U$. $E_x(-i U\partial_{k_x}U^\dagger)$ can then be thought as as an electric field dependent effective magnetization which confers a spin accumulation in the $(\hat{b}\times\partial_{k_x}\hat{b})\cdot\vec{\sigma}$ direction. Taking the specific example of the Rashba SOI where $\vec{B} = \alpha( p_y, -p_x)$ both $\vec{B}$ and $\partial_{k_x}\vec{B}$ lie on the $xy$ plane. $E_x(\hat{b}\times\partial_{k_x}\hat{b})$ thus points in the out of plane spin direction, and confers an out of plane spin accumulation to the charge carriers
Physically, the origin of the $(\hat{b}\times(E_x \partial_{k_x}\hat{b})$ term can be explained by assuming that the spins of the charge carriers adiabatically follow the direction of the SOI field. As shown in Fig. \[gA2SOIfield\], $\vec{B}(\vec{k})\cdot\vec{\sigma}$ associates each point in $k$ space with a SOI field pointing in the $\hat{b}(\vec{k})$ direction. Assume that the electric field is initially switched off and consider a carrier with a definite $\vec{k}$. As the electric field is switched on, the field causes the charge carrier to accelerate in the direction of the field so that the momentum changes and the carrier traces out a trajectory along $k$ space. We assume that the electric field is weak enough so that the spin of the carrier rotates along with the direction of the SOI field as it successively moves through different $k$ points. The resulting rotation of the spin can be thought of as being due to an effective magnetic field pointing along the $\hat{b}\times\partial_t \hat{b} = E_x \hat{b}\times\partial_{k_x} \hat{b}$ direction which both provides the torque necessary to rotate the spin as well as confers a spin accumulation in the direction of the torque.
![ The arrows at each point in $k$ space indicate the direction of the Rashba SOI field there. The application of the electric field causes the momentum of the charge carrier to trace out the trajectory in $k$ space indicated by the dotted line. The spin of the charge carrier adiabatically follows the direction of the SOI field at each point in $k$ space. The rotation of the spin can be thought of as being due to an effective magnetization which both creates the torque necessary to rotate the spin as shown in the inset, as well as confers an out of plane spin accumulation. []{data-label="gA2SOIfield"}](A2SOIfield.eps)
We now proceed to a general description of the MF potential generalized to include other discrete degrees of freedom.
The Murakami-Fujita potential
=============================
Consider now a generic Hamiltonian $$H_0 = b_i(\vec{k})\kappa_i \label{H0}$$ where the $\kappa_i$s are finite sized matrices representing the discrete degrees of freedom. For example, in a spin 1/2 system with SOC, the 4 $\kappa_i$s are the Pauli matrices and the identity matrix. In the TI thin film Hamiltonian Eq. \[TIham1\] the $\kappa_i$s represent the 16 $\vec{\sigma}\otimes\vec{\tau}$ matrices.
In order to write the Hamiltonian Eq. \[H0\] as a numerical matrix, we need to express the matrix elements in terms of basis. For example, for spin 1/2 system it is common to adopt the usual representation of the Pauli matrices so that, for instance $H_0 = \vec{b}\cdot\vec{\sigma} \simeq \begin{pmatrix} b_z & b_x - i b_y \\ b_x + i b_y & -b_z \end{pmatrix}$. The numerical matrix on the rightmost side of the equal sign is written in the $|\pm z \rangle$ basis. We refer to the basis which $H_0$ as a ‘numerical matrix’ is in as the ‘laboratory frame’ with basis states $|\lambda_i\rangle$ ($\lambda$ for *l*aboratory. ) Label now the $i$th eigenstates of $H_0$ by $|\epsilon_i\rangle$. We assume that the laboratory basis is fixed, i.e. it has no dependence on any parameter in the Hamiltonian so that, for instance $\partial_{k_x} |\lambda_i\rangle = 0$. Instead of using the laboratory basis, we can also expand our states and operators in terms of the eigenbasis, and convert between the two basis through the unitary transformation $U$. Defining the $U$s so that $UH_0 U^\dagger$ is diagonal in the eigenbasis representation, we have $$U = \sum_{i,j} |\epsilon_i \rangle \langle \epsilon_i|\lambda _j\rangle \langle j|$$, i.e. the matrix $i,j$th elements in the numerical representation of $U$ is $\langle \epsilon_i|\lambda_j\rangle$. Notice that since the phase factor $\exp(i\phi)$ can be introduced to $|\tilde{\epsilon}_a \rangle = |\epsilon_i\rangle\exp(i\phi_a)$ arbitrarily the values of the matrix elements $\langle \tilde{\epsilon}_i | \lambda_j \rangle$ will vary with the phase of $|\epsilon_i\rangle$s. Now consider adding a perturbative electric field . The Hamiltonian then becomes $H = H_0 + E_x x$, and we have $UHU^\dagger = UH_0U^\dagger + E_x ( x + i U\partial_{k_x} U^\dagger)$ where, in this rotated frame, $H_0$ is diagonal, and we have an additional $i U\partial_{k_x}U^\dagger$. In order to figure out the lab frame spin$\otimes$pseudospin ‘direction’ where this contribution points to, we transform the $i U\partial_{k_x}U^\dagger$ piece *without the diagonal elements* back to the laboratory frame . The reason for the removal of the diagonal elements will become apparent later. With the diagonal elements in place, we have $U^\dagger (i U\partial_k U^\dagger) U = -i U^\dagger\partial_k U$. (We have dropped the suffix $x$ from $k_x$ and $E_x$ for notational simplicity)
We stress that $-i U^\dagger\partial_k U$ has the same numerical matrix elements in the laboratory frame regardless of the phases of the $\langle \lambda_i | \epsilon_j \rangle$. This is because
$$\begin{aligned}
&& -i U^\dagger \partial_k U \\
&=& -i |\lambda_a \rangle \langle \lambda_a|\epsilon_b \rangle \langle \partial_k \epsilon_b|\lambda_c \rangle \langle \lambda_c | \\
&=& -i |\epsilon_a \rangle \langle \partial_k \epsilon_a| \end{aligned}$$
The second line gives the numerical values of the laboratory frame $ac$th matrix elements, and the third line the simplification using a resolution of identity. Notice that we have the combination $|\epsilon_b \rangle \langle \partial_k \epsilon_b|$ with the same state index $b$ occurring together so that any phase factor $\exp(i \phi_b)$ introduced in $|\epsilon_b\rangle \rightarrow |\epsilon_b \rangle\exp(i \phi_b)$ cancels out.
Returning now to the diagonal elements of the rotated frame $i U\partial_k U^\dagger$, we see that they correspond to $i |\epsilon_i \rangle \langle \epsilon_i|\partial_k |\epsilon_i\rangle\langle \epsilon_i|$. Subtracting them off from $-i U^\dagger\partial_k U$ gives the MF potential $H_{MF}$ where $$H_{MF} = -i \sum_{a \neq b} |\epsilon_a \rangle \langle \partial_k \epsilon_a|\epsilon_b \rangle \langle \epsilon_b| E.$$
We argue that, at least for the purposes of calculating currents and spin$\otimes$pseudospin accumulations the effects of the electric field $E_i$ to the first order in $E$ can be incorporated by replacing $E_i x_i$ with $H_{MF}$ so that the effective Hamiltonian reads $$H' = H_0 + H_{MF} = b_i(\vec{k})\kappa_i - i \sum_{a \neq b} |\epsilon_a \rangle \langle \partial_{k_i} \epsilon_a|\epsilon_b \rangle \langle \epsilon_b| {E_i}. \label{Heff}$$
In order to support our claim, we list three examples where the use of $H'$ recovers well-known results.
Anomalous velocity
------------------
In the presence of an electric field, charge carriers can acquire an anomalous velocity [@AV1; @AV2; @AV3] proportional to the Berry curvature [@AV4; @AV5; @ChioGoo1; @ChioGooRev]. We show that this result can be recovered via the Heisenberg equation of motion on Eq. \[Heff\]. Under the Heisenberg equation of motion, we have $\partial_t \vec{r} = -i ( [\vec{r}, H_0] + [\vec{r}, H_{MF}] = \nabla_{\vec{k}} (H_0 + H_{MF}) $ The first term is the usual velocity. We shall show that the second gives the usual Berry curvature anomalous contribution to the velocity. Taking the expectation value of the second with respect to the $i$th eigenstate of $H_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& -i \langle \epsilon_i | [x_b, H_{MF}] |\epsilon_i \rangle \\
&=& -i E_b \langle \epsilon_i| \partial_{k_b} \Big( \sum_{\substack{jk \\ j\neq k}} |\epsilon_j \rangle \langle \partial_{k_a}\epsilon_j| \epsilon_k \rangle\langle\epsilon_k| \Big) |\epsilon_i \rangle \\
&=&-i E_b \sum_j (\langle \epsilon_i |\partial_{k_b} \epsilon_j \rangle \langle \partial_{k_a}\epsilon_j|\epsilon_i\rangle + \langle \partial_{k_a} \epsilon_i | \epsilon_j\rangle\langle \partial_{k_b} \epsilon_j|\epsilon_i \rangle) \\
&=& 2 E_b \mathrm{Im} ( \langle \partial_{k_a} \epsilon_i|\partial_{k_b} \epsilon_i \rangle).\end{aligned}$$
The third line is simply the expansion of the $\partial_{k_b}$ differential. Notice that the requirement that $j \neq k$ stemming from the removal of the diagonal terms of the rotated frame $-i U^\dagger \partial_k U$ results in the absence of terms $\langle \partial_{k_a}\partial_{k_b} \epsilon_i|\epsilon_i\rangle$ and $\langle \partial_{k_b} \epsilon_i|\partial_{k_a} \epsilon_i\rangle$ due to the $\partial_{k_b}$ acting on the second and third terms in the big bracket in the second line. The last line is the usual Berry curvature term for the anomalous velocity.
Spin and other discrete DoFs
----------------------------
As part of their paper on explaining the microscopic origin of spin torque, Cheng and Niu extended the original Sundaram-Niu formalism, which described only the spatial evolution of position and velocity, to now cover the time evolution of spin 1/2 as well. Their formalism can be easily extended to cover the time evolution of operators with finite discrete spectra. We describe the extension in the appendix, and simply state the end result here.
For a state $$|\psi\rangle = \sum_i |\epsilon_i \rangle \eta_i$$ where the summation $i$ runs over the discrete DoFs (e.g spin up / down for spin 1/2, and the upper / lower surfaces for a TI thin film) and the continuous quantum numbers (e.g. $\vec{k}$ in SOI systems) and the $\eta_i$s are the weightages of the $i$th basis state, we show in the appendix that for an operator $O$ in the discrete DoFs that
$$d_t \langle \psi | O | \psi \rangle = 2E_a \mathrm{Re} ( \eta_i^* \langle \epsilon_i|\partial_{k_a} \epsilon_j \rangle \langle \epsilon_j |O|\epsilon_k \rangle \eta_k$$
It is straightforward to show that this expression is $-i \langle \psi [ O, H_{MF}] |\psi\rangle$.
Recovery of the Kubo formula
----------------------------
Treating $H_{MF}$ as a perturbation to $H_0$ and applying the standard non-degenerate time-independent perturbation theory to the $i$th eigenstate of $H_0$, $|\epsilon_i\rangle$, the first order correction to $|\epsilon_i\rangle$ which we denote as $|\epsilon_i^{(1)}\rangle$ reads $$|\epsilon_i^{(1)}\rangle = \sum_j |\epsilon_j \rangle \frac{ \langle \epsilon_j|H_{MF}|\epsilon_i\rangle}{E_i - E_j}$$ so that to the correction to the expectation value of an observable $O$ for state $|\epsilon_i\rangle$ to first order in $\vec{E}$, $\delta \langle i| O | i \rangle$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&& \delta \langle i| O|i \rangle \\ \nonumber
&=& 2\mathrm{Re} (\langle \epsilon_i|O|\epsilon_i^{(1)}\rangle ) \\ \nonumber
&=& 2\mathrm{Re} \sum_j \frac{ \langle \epsilon_i |O| \epsilon_j \rangle \langle \epsilon_j |H_{MF}|\epsilon_i\rangle}{E_i - E_j}. \label{c1oe}\end{aligned}$$
However, since $$\begin{aligned}
&& \partial_k \langle \epsilon_i | H_0 |\epsilon_i \rangle = 0 \\
&\Rightarrow& \langle \partial_k \epsilon_i |\epsilon_j \rangle (E_i-E_j) = \langle \epsilon_i|\partial_k H_0 |\epsilon_j \rangle \\
&\Rightarrow& \langle \partial_k \epsilon_i|\epsilon_j \rangle = \frac{ \langle \epsilon_i| \partial_k H_0 |\epsilon_j \rangle}{E_i - E_j},\end{aligned}$$ we can rewrite $$\begin{aligned}
H_{MF} &=& -i E_i \sum_{a \neq b} |\epsilon_a \rangle \langle \partial_{k_i} \epsilon_a|\epsilon_b \rangle \langle \epsilon_b|. \\
&=&-i \sum_{a \neq b} |\epsilon_a\rangle \frac{ \langle \epsilon_a| \partial_{k_i} H_0 |\epsilon_b \rangle}{E_a - E_b} \langle \epsilon_b|.\end{aligned}$$
A common form of the Kubo formula is $$\delta \langle O \rangle \propto \sum_{\vec{k}} \sum_{a= \neq b} \frac{n(E_a)-n(E_b)}{(E_a-E_b)^2} \mathrm{Im} ( \langle a|O|b\rangle \langle b| (\partial_k H_0)|a \rangle \label{kuboPaper}.$$
Substituting this back into Eq. \[c1oe\] gives a result similar to the Kubo expression for the change in an expectation value of $O$ under an electric field – $$\delta \langle i| O|i \rangle = 2 \mathrm{Im} \sum_j \vec{E}\cdot\frac{ \langle \epsilon_i |O| \epsilon_j \rangle \langle \epsilon_j |\nabla_{\vec{k}} H_0 |\epsilon_i\rangle}{(E_i - E_j)^2}. \label{c2oe}$$
Our result Eq. \[c2oe\] corresponds to Eq. \[kuboPaper\] with the occupancy factor $n$ set to 1 for the $i$th state we are interested in and 0 for the other states, and without a second summation over all states.
Having established the link between the MF potential and the Kubo formula, we now proceed to use Eq. \[c2oe\] to study the exemplary system of a topological insulator thin film system.
TI thin films
=============
The effective Hamiltonian for the surface states of a TI thin film of infinite dimensions along the $x$ and $y$ directions, and small finite thickness along the $z$ direction, can be written as $$H = (\vec{k}\times\vec{\sigma})\cdot\hat{z}\tau_z + M_y\sigma_y + \lambda \tau_x. \label{tfHam0}$$
We use units where $e=\hbar=v_f=1$.
We first highlight the influence of the inter-surface coupling term $\lambda$ on the energy spectrum. Consider the limit where $\lambda \rightarrow 0$,$M_y \neq 0$. In this case, the upper and lower surfaces may be considered separately, and the energy spectrum consists of two Dirac cones. The states localized near the upper surface have $\langle \tau_z \rangle = +1$, while the state localized near the lower surface have the opposite sign of $\langle \tau_z \rangle$. The $M_y\sigma_y$ term, however, has the same sign for both the upper and lower surfaces. The Dirac points for the Dirac cones for the upper surface states and the lower surface states are hence displaced in opposite directions in $k$ space.
![ Panel (a) shows the dispersion relations for the two values of $\lambda$ indicated in the legend at $k_y = 0$ for $\vec{M} = 0.5\hat{y}$. The three horizontal dotted lines correspond to the values of energies at which the EECs in panels (b) to (d) at $E = 0.5,\ 1$ and $1.5$ are plotted respectively. Panels (c) and (d) show the EECs and the in-plane spin accumulation directions at the two values of $\lambda$ indicated by different colors in panel (b). The inset of panel (d) shows a zoomed in view of the EECs near the intersection of the two Fermi ‘circles’ showing that the inter surface coupling leads to a breaking away of the lens shaped region where the two circles overlap into separate EEC curves.[]{data-label="glambdaComb2"}](lambdaComb2.eps)
We now turn on the inter-surface coupling. Fig. \[glambdaComb2\] shows the dispersion relations and equal energy contours (EECs) at two values of $\lambda < |\vec{M}|$. At these small (relative to $|\vec{M}|$) values of $\lambda$ the two Dirac cones corresponding to the surface states localized at the upper and lower surfaces of the thin film are still distinctly evident. At low values of energy where the two cones do not overlap (panel (b) ), the EECs consist of two almost circular curves that correspond to the cross sections of the two Dirac cones. As the energy increases and the two almost-circular cross sections begin to almost touch each other, the inter-surface coupling pushes the EECs outwards in $k$-space so that the cross sections link up with each other and form a single curve ( panel (c) ). A further increase in energy causes the the two Dirac cones overlap with each other the anti crossing of the energy levels due to the inter surface coupling causes the $k$ space lens-shaped region where the Dirac cones overlap to break away from the outer perimeter of the overlapping ‘circles’ and form a second closed curve. Despite the distortions of the EECs from the perfectly circular profiles in the absence of inter-surface coupling, the directions of the in-plane spin accumulation along the EECs in the presence of inter-surface coupling still roughly follow those of the original Dirac cones. Returning now to panel (a) of the figure, it is evident that as the inter-surface coupling increases, the energy of the lowest energy particle (hole) band at $\vec{k}=0$ increases (decreases).
![ Panel (a) shows the dispersion relations for progressively larger values of $\lambda$ indicated by the colors in the legend relative to the fixed value of $\vec{M} = 0.5\hat{y}$. Panels (b) and (c) show the EECs (in solid lines) and in-plane spin accumulation directions for $\lambda = 0.7$ at the two values of energies (0.5 and 1.5 respectively) indicated by the horizontal dotted liens in panel (a). The two dotted circles in panels (b) and (c) are indicative of the Fermi circles for $\pm +(\vec{k}\times\vec{\sigma})\cdot\hat{z}$ Dirac cones which provide rough indications of the in-plane spin accumulation directions at the $k$ space points on the EECs. []{data-label="gbigLambdaComb1"}](bigLambdaComb1.eps)
Fig. \[gbigLambdaComb1\] shows the dispersion relations and the EECs as $\lambda$ increases further relative to $|\vec{M}|$. As $\lambda$ is increased from 0, the energy of the lowest energy particle band at $\vec{k}=0$ is pushed downwards and that of the highest energy hole band pushed upwards until the two bands touch each other when $\lambda = |\vec{M}|$. At this point ($\lambda=0.5$ in panel (a)) we no longer have two the well-resolved Dirac cones with two separate Dirac points in $\lambda = 0.2$ in panel (a) of the figure. A further increase in $\lambda$ leads to a bandgap opening up between the particle and hole bands. Panels (b) and (c) of the figure show the EECs at two values of energy for $\lambda > |\vec{M}|$. The in-plane spin accumulations at various $k$ space points can still be roughly understood as the spin accumulations of two overlapping circular cross sections of perfect Dirac cones.
![ The EECs, in-plane spin accumulation directions and out of plane spin accumulation at two representative values of energy in the $\lambda < |\vec{M}|$ regime ( (a) and (b) ) and $\lambda > |\vec{M}|$ regime ( (c) and (d) ) for electric fields applied in the $x$ ( (a) and (c) ) and $y$ ( (b) and (d) ) directions. The sizes on the circles on the EECs are indicative of the magnitudes of the out of plane spin accumulations due to the electric field (the sizes of the circles are *not* scaled linearly to the spin accumulation magnitudes) with green (red) circles indicating out of plane spin accumulations in the negative (positive) $z$ directions. The two dotted circles in the left panels are indicative of the Fermi circles for $\pm +(\vec{k}\times\vec{\sigma})\cdot\hat{z}$ Dirac cones which provide rough indications of the in-plane spin accumulation directions at the $k$ space points on the EECs. $E=1.5R$ for all panels; $\lambda = 0.1, \vec{M} = \hat{y}$ for (a) and (b) and $\lambda = 0.7, \vec{M} = 0.5 \hat{y}$ for (c) and (d). []{data-label="gspinZpoln"}](spinZpoln.eps)
We now turn our attention to the out of plane spin accumulation generated by an electrical field which we calculate using Eq. \[c2oe\] . Fig. \[gspinZpoln\] shows the out of plane spin $z$ accumulation generated at various $k$ space points on the EECs of a TI thin film with $\lambda > |\vec{M}|$ (panels (a) and (b) ), and $\lambda > |\vec{M}|$ (panels (c) and (d) ) for electrical fields applied in the $x$ ( panels (a) and (c) ) direction perpendicular to the magnetization, and the $y$ direction ( panels (c) and (d) ) parallel to the magnetization. The sign of the resulting spin $z$ accumulation can be understood in terms of how the applied electric field changes the direction of the SOI field experienced by the charge carriers. We noted in our earlier discussion in Sect. \[spinhalf\] that each point on the EECs may be associated with the Fermi circle of either the $+(\vec{k}\times\vec{\sigma})\cdot\hat{z}$ Dirac cone, or the $-(\vec{k}\times\vec{\sigma})\cdot\hat{z}$ cone. This is also indicated on the left panels of Fig. \[gspinZpoln\] where the two Fermi circles are indicated by dotted circles of different colors. Consider now the $k$ space region denoted in the inset of panel (b). The inset shows the spin accumulations on two points in $k$ space with the red (blue) arrows denoting the spin accumulation direction for a point on the + (-) Fermi circle. The passage of an electric field in the $y$ direction causes $\langle p_y \rangle$ to increase while $\langle p_x \rangle$ remains constant, so that the SOI field $\pm (\vec{k}\times\hat{z})$ as well as the spin accumulation rotates in opposite directions for the $\pm$ Fermi circles. Reminiscent of our earlier discussion on spin 1/2 systems, this rotation in turn indicates the existence of an out of plane effective magnetic field which in turn imparts an out of plane spin accumulation. Applying the same argument to most of the other $k$-space points on the EECs in the figure explains the *sign* of the out of plane spin accumulation there. The *magnitude* of the spin $z$ accumulation depends on how much relative change in the SOI field direction the application of the electric field leads to. For example, in the right panels of the figure, the largest spin $z$ accumulation are on those EEC segments where the in-plane spin accumulation are in the $\pm y$ directions so that the small increment in the SOI field in the $\pm x$ directions due to the $y$ electric field is a large increment compared to other $k$ space points on the EECs where the spin accumulations already have large $x$ components.
The out of plane spin $z$ accumulations in the preceding figures are antisymetrically distributed in $k$ space on the EECs. This antisymmetry results there being no net out of plane spin accumulation in $k$ space after integrating over the entire Fermi surface. In order to break the antisymmetry, we now introduce a term $E_z \tau_z$ to the Hamiltonian Eq. \[tfHam0\] so that the Hamiltonian now reads $$H = (\vec{k}\times\vec{\sigma})\cdot\hat{z}\tau_z + \vec{M}\cdot\vec{\sigma} + \lambda \tau_x + E_z\tau_z. \label{tfHam1}$$
The $E_z\tau_z$ term introduces an asymmetry between the upper and lower surfaces. This asymmetry may physically result from the fact that in experimentally grown TI thin films the bottom surface of the film is in contact with the usually non-ferromagnetic substrate, and the upper surface either in contact with the vacuum (for $\vec{M}\cdot\vec{\sigma}$ being due to magnetic doping [@PRL102_156603; @Sci329_659; @NatPhy7_32] ) or with a FM layer (for $\vec{M}\cdot\vec{\sigma}$ being due to the proximity effect with a FM layer [@PRL104_146802; @PRL110_186807; @PRB88_081407] ) .
![ Panel (a) and (b) show the EECs at various energies in the (a) absence and (b) presence of $E_z$ for $\lambda < |\vec{M}|$. Panels (c) and (d) show the EECs at various energies in the (c) absence and (d) presence of $E_z$ for $\lambda > |\vec{M}|$. ( $\vec{M} = 0.5\ \hat{y}$, $\lambda = 0.2$ in (a) and (b); $\vec{M} = 0.2 \hat{y}$ in (c) and (d). $E_z = 0.1$ in (b) and (d). ) []{data-label="gEZeec"}](EZeec.eps)
Fig. \[gEZeec\] compares the EECs in both the $\lambda < |\vec{M}|$ regime as well as the $\lambda > |\vec{M}|$ regimes in the presence and absence of the $E_z \tau_z$ term. The asymmetry between the upper and lower surfaces of the TI film due to the $E_z\tau_z$ term results in the states stemming from the Dirac cones corresponding to the two surfaces being shifted in opposite directions along the energy axis. The dispersion relations become ‘tilted’, and the EECs at a given value of energy becoming asymmetrical in $k$ space.
This asymmetry then results in a net out of plane spin accumulation after integrating over all the $k$ space points spanned by the EECs. Evidently, the spin accumulation increases with the magnitude of $\vec{M}$ and $E_z$. What is perhaps more interesting is the variation of $\langle \sigma_z (E) \rangle $, the out of plane spin accumulation integrated over the EECs at a given value of $E$, with the inter surface coupling $\lambda$ for a fixed value of $\vec{M}$ and $E_z$. Fig. \[gjyzEz\] shows
![ Panel (a) shows the $\log |\langle \sigma_z(E) \rangle|$, the logarithm of the out of plane spin accumulation integrated over the EEC at energy $E$ as a function of $E$ and $\lambda$ at $E_z = 1.1$ and $\vec{M} = 0.5\hat{y}$ for an electrical field in the $y$ direction. The dotted line in panel (a) corresponds to the value of $\lambda$ in panel (b), which shows the dispersion relation at $k_y = 0$ and $\lambda = 0.8$. The ‘tilting’ of the dispersion relations due to $E_z$ is evident from the plot. The two dotted lines in panel (b) in turn correspond to the energies for which the EECs and the out of plane accumulation at each $k$ space point is plotted in panel (c) for $E = 2$, and (d) for $E = 1.7$ respectively. []{data-label="gjyzEz"}](jyzEz.eps)
Panel (a) of Fig. \[gjyzEz\] shows the (*logarithm* of ) the $\langle \sigma_z \rangle$. $\langle \sigma_z \rangle$ is *symmetrical* (in contrast to anti symmetrical) about $E = 0,$ (The asymmetry present at small $\lambda$ and large $|E|$ are numerical artifacts. ) The values of $\lambda$ plotted spans the range from being smaller than $|\vec{M}|$ to larger than $|\vec{M}|$. The patch of 0 $\langle \sigma_z (E) \rangle$ centered around $E=0$ for $\lambda > |\vec{M}| = 0.5$ corresponds to the bandgap opened up by large $\lambda$ where no propagating states exist. For a given value of $\lambda$, there exists a value of $|E|$ at which $\langle \sigma_z (|E|) \rangle$ peaks. Panel (b) shows the dispersion relation at $k_y=0$ at a given value of $\lambda = 0.8$. At this value of $\lambda$, $\langle \sigma_z(E) \rangle$ peaks at around $E = 1.4$. This corresponds to the energy below the vicinity of the lower horizontal dotted line in panel (b) where the tilted Dirac ‘cones’ touch and begin to intersect with each other.
The intersection of the two Dirac ‘cones’ results in the emergence of the smaller elliptical EEC curves enclosed with the larger EEC ellipses in panels (c) and (d) of the figure at the energies of the two horizontal dotted lines in panel (b). The out of plane spin accumulation is asymmetrical across the smaller EEC ellipses so there is a net out of plane spin accumulation. These smaller EEC ellipses may be thought of as comprising the $k$ points with small values of $|\vec{k}|$ so that the in-plane spin accumulation direction is dominated by the $\vec{M}\cdot\vec{\sigma}$ term in the Hamiltonian rather than the SOI $(\vec{k}\times\vec{\sigma})\cdot\hat{z}\tau_z$ term. Due to the small $|\vec{k}|$ in the smaller ellipses, the same $\delta k_y$ caused by an electrical field and the resulting change in the SOI field direction has a far larger impact on the in-plane spin accumulation direction in the smaller EEC ellipses than in the larger ones at a given value of energy. Comparing between panels (c) and (d), the relative impact of the same $\delta k_y$ increases with decreasing $|\vec{k}|$ of the smaller EEC ellipses. The out of plane spin accumulation thus peak near the energy value at which the smaller EEC ellipses emerge where the two Dirac cones begin to intersect each other in panel (a). (There is a tradeoff between the $k$-space perimeter of the EECs over which the out of spin accumulation is integrated over, and the maximum magnitude of the spin accumulation as the smaller $k$ space ellipses decrease in size so that the peak value of $\lambda \sigma_z (E) \rangle$ occurs slightly above the energy value where the two Dirac cones intersect. )
Conclusion
==========
In the first half of this work, we introduced the Murakami-Fujita potential firstly for a spin half system and then more generally for systems with real spin coupled to other discrete degrees of freedom.
We argued that the effects of a constant electric field can, to first order in the field, be modeled by replacing the electric potential $\vec{E}\cdot\vec{r}$ by the Murakami-Fujita potential. We showed that the anomalous velocity and Cheng’s extension of the Sundaram-Niu formalism can be recovered from the Heisenberg equation of motion on the MF potential, and that the result of the Kubo equation for the non-equilibrium distribution of an observable be recovered by treating the MF potential as a perturbation and then using standard time-independent non-degenerate perturbation theory.
This formalism can be readily applied to emerging material systems of interest to spintronics with pseudospin and / or valley degrees of freedom. As an example, we applied our formalism to study the exemplary system of a three-dimensional topological insulator thin film system where the coupling between the top and bottom surfaces presents an additional discrete degree of freedom in addition to the real spin. We showed similar to the case where the inter-layer coupling is absent, that the direction of the out of plane spin accumulation due to the application of an in-plane electric field can be predicted from the direction of the torque needed to change the direction of the spin accumulation which depends on the momentum-dependent SOI field. The application of an out of plane electric field is necessary in order to break the antisymmetry of the spin accumulation.
Acknowledgments
===============
The authors acknowledge the Singapore National Research Foundation for support under NRF Award Nos. NRF-CRP9-2011-01 and NRF-CRP12-2013-01, and MOE under Grant No. R263000B10112.
Appendix
========
The starting point of Cheng and Niu’s extension [@ChengRan] of the original Sundaram-Niu formalism [@ChioGoo1] to now include the time evolution of spin is to construct the Lagrangian from $$L = i \langle u| d_t u\rangle - \langle u |H|u \rangle + ...$$ where the ... denotes the other quantities appearing in Eq. 2.18 of Ref. like $\vec{k}\cdot\dot\vec{r}_c$ etc.) which do not affect the spin evolution. The $H=H_0 + H'$ that appears above consists of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_0$, and the perturbation $H'$. In Ref. , the perturbation is an external magnetization. Here, we shall be concerned with a perturbing electric field modeled as $\vec{E}\cdot\vec{r}$.
We write $|u\rangle = \sum |\psi_i\rangle \eta_i$ where $|\psi_i\rangle$ are the eigenstates of $H_0$, and the $i$ is an index denoting the discrete DoFs. Now $$\begin{aligned}
i d_t |u\rangle &=& i (\partial_t + \dot\vec{k}\cdot\nabla_{\vec{k}}) (|\psi_i\rangle \eta_i) \\
&=& i (\dot\vec{k}\cdot(\nabla_{\vec{k}} |\psi_i\rangle) \eta_i + \eta_i (\partial_t|\psi_i\rangle) + |\psi_i\rangle \dot{\eta}_i\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
L &=& i \langle u| d_t u\rangle - \langle u |H|u \rangle + ... \\
&\approx& i \langle u| d_t u\rangle - \langle u |(H_0 + H' \big|_{\vec{r} = 0} )|u \rangle + ... \\
&=& i \big(\eta_i^*\dot{\eta}_i + \dot{\vec{k}}\cdot( \eta_j^* \langle \psi_j|\nabla_{\vec{k}}\psi_i\rangle \eta_i) \big) + \\
&& \eta_j^* \langle \psi_j |H_0 + H' \big|_{\vec{r} = 0} |\psi_i \rangle \eta_i - \epsilon_i \eta_i^*\eta_i + ....\end{aligned}$$
Varying with respect to $\eta_i$ and taking complex conjugate give $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\eta}_i^* &=& \eta_j^* \big( \dot{\vec{k}}\cdot \langle \psi_j|\nabla_{\vec{k}}\psi_i\rangle - i \langle \psi_j|H_0+H' \big|_{\vec{r} = 0} |\psi_i \rangle \big) +i\epsilon_i \eta_i^*, \\
\dot{\eta}_i &=& \big( -\dot{\vec{k}}\cdot \langle \psi_i|\nabla_{\vec{k}}\psi_j\rangle + i\langle \psi_i|H_0+H' \big|_{\vec{r} = 0} |\psi_j \rangle\big)\eta_j - i\epsilon_i \eta_i\end{aligned}$$ so that for an operator $\sigma$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d}_t \langle \sigma \rangle &=& \mathrm{d}_t \langle (\psi_i|\sigma|\psi_j\rangle \eta_i^*\eta_j) \nonumber \\
&=& \sigma_{ij} \Big( \eta_a^* \big( \dot{\vec{k}}\cdot \langle \psi_a|\nabla_{\vec{k}}\psi_i\rangle -i \langle \psi_a|H_0|\psi_i \rangle)\eta_j + \\
&& \eta_i^*\big( -\dot{\vec{k}}\cdot \langle \psi_j|\nabla_{\vec{k}}\psi_b\rangle + i \langle \psi_j|H_0+H' \big|_{\vec{r} = 0} |\psi_b \rangle\big)\eta_b \\
&&+ i(\epsilon_{i} \eta_i^*\eta_j - \epsilon_{j}\eta_i^*\eta_j) \Big) \nonumber \\
&=& 2\mathrm{Re} (\sigma_{ij} \dot{\vec{k}} \cdot \langle \psi_a|\nabla_{\vec{k}}\psi_i\rangle \eta_a^*\eta_j) \\
&& - i \langle [ H_0+H' \big|_{\vec{r} = 0} , \sigma] \rangle + i(\epsilon_{i}-\epsilon_{j}) \eta_i^*\eta_j.\end{aligned}$$ where in going from the 3rd to the 4th line we’ve made use of the fact that $\sigma$ being Hermitian gives $\sigma_{ij} = \sigma_{ji}^*$.
[99]{} M.I. Dyakanov and V.I. Perel, Phys. Lett. A. **35**, 459 (1971). A.A. Bakun *et al*, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **40**, 464 (1984). J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 1834 (1999). Y.K. Kato *et al*, Science **306**, 1910 (2004). T. Kimura *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 156601 (2007).
S. Mukami,N. Nagaosa and S.C. Zhang, Science **301**, 1348 (2003).
T. Fujita, M.B.A. Jalil and S.G. Tan, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **78**, 104714 (2009). T. Fujita, M.B.A. Jalil and S.G. Tan, New J. Phys. **12**, 013016 (2010). S.G. Tan and M.B.A. Jalil, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **82**, 094714 (2013). T. Fujita *et al*, J. Appl. Phys. **110**, 121301 (2011). S.G. Tan *et al*, Sci. Rep. **5**, 18409 (2015).
S. Cahangirov *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 236804 (2009). C.-C. Liu, W. Feng and Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lettt. **107**, 076802 (2011). P. Vogt, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 155501 (2012). L. Tao *et al*, Nature Naotech. **10**, 227 (2016).
R. Ganatra and Q. Zhang, ACS Nano **8**, 4074 (2014). B. Radisavljevic *et al*, Nature Nanotech. **6**, 147 (2011). H. Wang *et al*, Nano Lett. **102**, 12, 4674 (2012).
J. Linder, T. Yokoyama and A. Sudbø, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 205401 (2009). C.-X. Liu *et al*, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 041307 (2010). H.-Z. Lu *et al*, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 115407 (2010).
R. Karplus and J.M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. **96**, 1154 (1954). W. Kohn and J.M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. **108**, 590 (1957). E.N. Adams and E.I. Blount, J. Phys. Chem. Solids **10**, 286 (1959). M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 1348 (1995). M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B **53**, 7010 (1996).
G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B **59**, 14915 (1999). D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 1959 (2010). R. Cheng and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 024422 (2013).
Q. Liu *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 156603 (2009). Y.L. Chen *et al*, Science **329**, 659 (2010). L.A. Wray *et al*, Nature Phys. **7**, 32 (2010).
I. Garate and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 146802 (2010). P . Wei *et al* , Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 186807 (2013). Q.I. Yang *et al*, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 081407(R).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study the representations of the new finite-dimensional pointed Hopf algebras in positive characteristic given in [@Cib09]. We find that these Hopf algebras are symmetric algebras. We determine the simple modules and their projective covers over these Hopf algebras. We show that these Hopf algebras are of wild representation type.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematical Science, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225002, China; and School of Science, Huaihai Institute of Technology, Lianyungang 222005, China'
- 'School of Mathematical Science, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225002, China'
author:
- Ying Zhang
- 'Hui-Xiang Chen'
title: 'REPRESENTATIONs OF FINITE DIMENSIONAL POINTED HOPF ALGEBRAS OVER $\mathbb{Z}_n$'
---
Introduction and Preliminaries {#1}
==============================
The construction and classification of Hopf algebras play an important role in the theory of Hopf algebras. During the last few years several classification results for pointed Hopf algebras were obtained based on the theory of Nichols algebras [@And98; @And02; @And08]. In [@Cib09], Cibils, Lauve and Witherspoon studied Nichols algebras via an embedding in Hopf quiver algebras. They constructed some new finite dimensional Hopf algebras in positive characteristic $p$, which are pointed Hopf algebras over $\mathbb{Z}_n$, the cyclic group of order $n$, where $p|n$. In this paper, we study these Hopf algebras. We organize the paper as follows. In this section, we recall some properties of projective cover and representation theories of Artin algebras, and integrals in a finite dimensional Hopf algebra, which can be found in [@Aus95; @Igl09; @Mon93]. In Section \[2\], we introduce the Hopf algebras $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ and its “lifting" $H(\lambda,\mu)$ given in [@Cib09], and investigate some properties of $H(\lambda,\mu)$. We show that $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ and $H(\lambda,\mu)$ are symmetric algebras. In Section \[3\], we describe the simple modules over $H(\lambda,\mu)$. Then we consider the tensor products of simple module by using the idea of [@Ch00] and prove that the tensor product of any two simple modules is indecomposable. Through computing idempotent elements, we find the projective covers of these simple modules. In Section \[4\], we compute the extensions of some simple modules over the Hopf algebras and prove that these Hopf algebras are of wild representation type.
Now we recall some general facts about the representation theory of a finite dimensional algebra. Let $A$ be a finite dimensional algebra over an algebraically closed field and $\widehat{A}=\{S_1,\cdots,S_n\}$ be a complete set of non-isomorphic simple $A$-modules. Let $P(S)$ denote the projective cover of $S$, $S\in\widehat{A}$. It is well-known that ${}_A\!A\cong
\bigoplus_{S\in\widehat{A}}P(S)^{{\rm dim} S}$ as left $A$-modules by Wedderburn-Artin theorem.
Let $H$ be a finite-dimensional Hopf algebra. A left integral in $H$ is an element $t\in H$ such that $ht=\varepsilon(h)t$ for all $h\in H$. A right integral in $H$ is an element $t'\in H$ such that $t'h=\varepsilon(h)t'$ for all $h\in H$. $\int_H^l$ denotes the space of left integrals, and $\int_H^r$ denotes the space of right integrals. $H$ is called unimodular if $\int_H^l=\int_H^r$. Note that $\int_H^l$ and $\int_H^r$ are each one-dimensional (see [@Mon93]).
A $k$-algebra $A$ is called symmetric if there exists a nondegenerate $k$-bilinear form $\beta:A\times A\rightarrow k$, which is associative and symmetric. A symmetric algebra $A$ is self-injective, that is, the left regular module $A$ is injective. A finite dimensional Hopf algebra $H$ is a symmetric algebra if and only if $H$ is unimodular and $S^2$ is inner, where $S$ is the antipode of $H$ [@Lorenz; @ObSchn].
Throughout this paper, we work over an algebraically closed field $k$ with a positive characteristic $p$. All algebras, Hopf algebras and modules are finite dimensional over $k$. Unless otherwise stated, all maps are $k$-linear, dim and $\otimes$ stand for dim$_k$ and $\otimes_k$, respectively.
The Hopf Algebras $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ and $H(\lambda, \mu)$ {#2}
=============================================================
Let $n>1$ be a positive integer with $p|n$. Let $G=\langle g\rangle$ be the cyclic group of order $n$. Then $kG$ has a 2-dimensional indecomposable right-right Yetter-Drinfeld module $V$. $V$ has a basis $\{v_1, v_2\}$ such that the right $kG$-action and $kG$-coaction are defined by $$v_1\cdot g=v_1,\ v_2\cdot g=v_1+v_2,\ \rho(v)=v\otimes g,\ v\in V.$$ Then one can form a Nichols algebra $\mathcal{B}(V)$ and the corresponding pointed Hopf algebra $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$. $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ is a finite dimensional graded Hopf algebra, which is generated as an algebra by three elements $g$, $a$ and $b$ (see [@Cib09]).
When $p=2$, the generators $g$, $a$ and $b$ of $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ are subject to the relations: $$\begin{aligned}
& g^n=1,\ g^{-1}ag=a,\ g^{-1}bg=a+b,&\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& a^2=0, \ b^4=0, \ baba=abab, \ {b^2}a=ab^2+aba. &\end{aligned}$$ When $p>2$, the generators $g$, $a$ and $b$ of $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ are subject to the relations: $$\begin{aligned}
& g^n=1, \ g^{-1}ag=a,\ g^{-1}bg=a+b, &\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& a^p=0, \ b^p=0, \ ba=ab+{\frac{1}{2}}a^2. &\end{aligned}$$ The coalgebra structure and the antipode of $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ are determined by $$\begin{aligned}
& \bigtriangleup(g)=g\otimes g, \ \bigtriangleup(a)={a\otimes
1}+{g\otimes a}, \ \bigtriangleup(b)={b\otimes 1}+{g\otimes b};&\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \varepsilon(g)=1,\ \varepsilon(a)=\varepsilon(b)=0;&\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
S(g)=g^{-1}, \ S(a)=-g^{-1}a, \ S(b)=-g^{-1}b.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $kG$ is the coradical of $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ and $kG$ is a Hopf subalgebra of $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$.
Furthermore, one may construct filtered pointed Hopf algebras as “lifting" of $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$, that is those whose associated graded algebra is $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$. In the case of $p>2$, Cibils, Lauve and Witherspoon gave some examples of liftings of $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$, which can be described as follows.
Assume $p>2$, and let $\lambda, \mu\in k$. The Hopf algebra $H(\lambda, \mu)$ is generated, as an algebra, by $g$, $a$ and $b$ with the relations $$\begin{aligned}
& g^n=1,\ g^{-1}ag=a, \ g^{-1}bg=a+b, &\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& a^p=\lambda(1-g^p), \ b^p=\mu(1-g^p),\
ba=ab+{\frac{1}{2}}a^2.&\end{aligned}$$ The coalgebra structure and the antipode of $H(\lambda, \mu)$ are determined by the same equations as $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$. Note that $kG$ is the coradical of $H(\lambda, \mu)$ and $kG$ is a Hopf subalgebra of $H(\lambda, \mu)$. Moreover, when $\lambda=\mu=0$, $H(0,0)=\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$.
\[2.1\] When $p=2$, in $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ we have
$(1)$ $bg^i=ig^ia+g^ib$, $i\geqslant 0$. In particular, $g^2$ is central in $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$.
$(2)$ $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ is a symmetric Hopf algebra.
\(1) It can be proved by induction on $i$ from the relation $g^{-1}bg=a+b$.
\(2) Let $H=\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$. Then the set $\{g^iabab^3|0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1\}$ are linearly independent in $H$ by [@Cib09 Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.4]. Let $t=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)abab^3$. Then $t$ is a non-zero element of $H$. Since $g^n=1$, $g(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i$. It follows that $gt=t=\varepsilon(g)t$. By the definition of $H$, we also have $at=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)a^2bab^3=0=\varepsilon(a)t$ and $bt=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}bg^i)abab^3=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}(ig^ia+g^ib)abab^3
=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^ibabab^3=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^iabab^4=0=\varepsilon(b)t$. Since $g, a, b$ are generators of $H$, it follows that $\int_H^l=kt$. On the other hand, we have $a(a+b)=a^2+ab=ab$ and $bg=g(a+b)$. Hence $tg=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)abab^3g=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)ga(a+b)a(a+b)^3
=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)abab^3=\varepsilon(g)t$. We also have $ta=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)abab^3a
=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)abab(ab^2+aba)
=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)baba(ab^2+aba)
=0=\varepsilon(a)t$ and $tb=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)abab^4=0=\varepsilon(b)t$. Thus, $\int_H^r=kt=\int_H^l$, and so $H$ is unimodular. It is easy to check that $S^2(g)=g$, $S^2(a)=g^{-1}ag$ and $S^2(b)=g^{-1}bg$. Hence $S^2$ is inner since $S^2$ is an algebra automorphism. It follows that $H$ is a symmetric Hopf algebra.
In the rest of this section, we assume $p>2$. Let $n=p^st$ with $p\nmid t$ and $s\geqslant 1$. Let $\lambda, \mu\in k$. Now we give some properties of $H(\lambda,\mu)$.
\[2.2\] In $H(\lambda,\mu)$, we have
$(1)$ $bg^i=ig^ia+g^ib$, $ba^j=a^jb+\frac{j}{2}a^{j+1}$ and $bg^ia^j=(i+\frac{j}{2})g^ia^{j+1}+g^ia^jb$ for all $i,\ j\geqslant 0$. In particular, $g^p$ is central in $H(\lambda,\mu)$.
$(2)$ If $1\leqslant m\leqslant p-1$, then $$ab^m =\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_{m,i}b^{m-i}a^{i+1},$$ where $\alpha_{m,i}\in k$ with $\alpha_{m,0}=1$, $\alpha_{m,1}=-\frac{m}{2}$ and $\alpha_{m,2}=\frac{1}{4}m(m-1)$.
$(3)$ If $1\leqslant m\leqslant p-1$, then $$gb^m =\sum_ {0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\beta_{m,i}b^{m-i}ga^i,$$ where $\beta_{m,i}\in k$ with $\beta_{m,0}=1$, $\beta_{m,1}=-m$ and $\beta_{m,2}=\frac{3}{4}m(m-1)$.
\(1) The first two equalities can be proved by induction on $i$ and $j$, respectively. The third one follows from the first two equalities.
\(2) By the relations of the generators, $ab^m$ can be expressed as $ab^m = \sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_{m,i}b^{m-i}a^{i+1}$ for some $\alpha_{m,i}\in k$. Then for $1\leqslant m< p-1$, by Part (1) we have $$\begin{split}
ab^{m+1}&=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_{m,i}b^{m-i}a^{i+1})b\\
&=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_{m,i}b^{m-i}(a^{i+1}b)\\
&=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_{m,i}b^{m-i}(ba^{i+1}-\frac{i+1}{2}a^{i+2})\\
&=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_{m,i}b^{m+1-i}a^{i+1}-\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
m}\frac{i+1}{2}\alpha_{m,i}b^{m-i}a^{i+2}.
\end{split}$$ Hence one gets that $\alpha_{m+1,0}=\alpha_{m,0}$, $\alpha_{m+1,m+1}=-\frac{m+1}{2}\alpha_{m,m}$ and $\alpha_{m+1,i}=\alpha_{m,i}-\frac{i}{2}\alpha_{m,i-1}$ for all $1\leqslant i\leqslant m$. From the definition of $H(\lambda, \mu)$, we know that $\alpha_{1,0}=1$ and $\alpha_{1,1}=-\frac{1}{2}$. Then by induction on $m$, it is easy to check that $\alpha_{m,0}=1$, $\alpha_{m,1}=-\frac{m}{2}$ and $\alpha_{m,2}=\frac{1}{4}m(m-1)$ for all $1\leqslant m\leqslant p-1$.
\(3) It is similar to Part (2). We also have $\beta_{1, 0}=1$, $\beta_{1, 1}=-1$, $\beta_{m+1, 0}=\beta_{m, 0}$, $\beta_{m+1, m+1}=-\frac{m+2}{2}\beta_{m, m}$ and $\beta_{m+1, i}=\beta_{m, i}-\frac{i+1}{2}\beta_{m, i-1}$ for all $1\leqslant i\leqslant m<p-1$.
\[2.3\] $H(\lambda,\mu)$ is a symmetric Hopf algebra.
From $g^n=1$ and char$k=p$, it is easy to check that $g(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant
i\leqslant n-1}g^i$ and $(1-g^p)(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}ig^i)=0$. Since $\{g^ia^{p-1}b^{p-1}|0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1\}$ are linearly independent (see [@Cib09]), $t=(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant
i\leqslant n-1}g^i)a^{p-1}b^{p-1}$ is a non-zero element of $H(\lambda,\mu)$. Then we have $gt=t=\varepsilon(g)t$, $at=a^p(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}g^i)b^{p-1}=\lambda(1-g^p)(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}g^i)b^{p-1}=0=\varepsilon(a)t$ and $$\begin{split}
bt&=(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}bg^ia^{p-1})b^{p-1}\\
&=[\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}(i+\frac{p-1}{2})g^ia^p+g^ia^{p-1}b]b^{p-1}\\
&=a^p(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}ig^i)b^{p-1}+\frac{p-1}{2}a^p(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}g^i)b^{p-1}+b^p(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)a^{p-1}\\
&=0=\varepsilon(b)t.
\end{split}$$ Since $g,a,b$ are generators of $H(\lambda,\mu)$, one gets that $\int_H^l=kt$. On the other hand, since $ba=a(b+\frac{1}{2}a)$, we have $(a+b)^{p-1}=b^{p-1}+a\sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant
p-2}\alpha_ja^jb^{p-2-j}$ for some $\alpha_j\in k$. Hence $$\begin{split}
tg&=(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}g^i)a^{p-1}b^{p-1}g\\
&=(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}g^i)a^{p-1}g(a+b)^{p-1}\ \ ({\rm by}\ bg=g(a+b))\\
&=(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}g^i)a^{p-1}[b^{p-1}+a\sum_{0\leqslant j\leqslant p-2}\alpha_ja^jb^{p-2-j}]\\
&=t+a^p(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}g^i)(\sum_{0\leqslant j\leqslant p-2}\alpha_ja^jb^{p-2-j})\\
&=t=\varepsilon(g)t,\\
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
ta&=(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}g^i)a^{p-1}b^{p-1}a\\
&=(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}g^i)a^{p-1}a(b+\frac{1}{2}a)^{p-1}\ ({\rm by}\ ba=a(b+\frac{1}{2}a))\\
&=a^p(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant n-1}g^i)(b+\frac{1}{2}a)^{p-1}\\
&=0=\varepsilon(a)t\\
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
tb&=b^p(\sum_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
n-1}g^i)a^{p-1}=0=\varepsilon(b)t,
\end{split}$$ where we use the facts that $a^p=\lambda(1-g^p)$ and $b^p=\mu(1-g^p)$ are central elements in $H(\lambda, \mu)$. Thus, $\int_H^r=kt=\int_H^l$, and so $H$ is unimodular. It is easy to check that $S^2$ is inner. It follows that $H$ is a symmetric Hopf algebra.
\[2.4\] Let $J$ be the Jacobson radical of $H(\lambda,\mu)$. Then
$(1)$ If $t=1$, then $a, b\in J$.
$(2)$ If $t>1$ and $\lambda\mu\neq0$, then $a,b \not\in J$.
\(1) Assume $t=1$. Then $n=p^s$. Since char$k$=$p$ and $a^p=\lambda(1-g^p)$, we have $a^n=a^{p^s}=[\lambda(1-g^p)]^{p^{s-1}}=\lambda ^{p^{s-1}}(1-g^{p^s})=
\lambda^{p^{s-1}}(1-g^n)=0$. On the other hand, we have $ag=ga$ and $ab=ba-\frac{1}{2}a^2=(b-\frac{1}{2}a)a$. Hence $aH(\lambda, \mu)=H(\lambda,\mu)a$, and consequently $H(\lambda, \mu)a$ is equal to the ideal $\langle a\rangle$ of $H(\lambda, \mu)$ generated by $a$. It follows that $(H(\lambda, \mu)a)^n=H(\lambda, \mu)a^n=0$. Thus, $H(\lambda, \mu)a\subseteq J$, and so $a\in J$. Similarly, we have $b^n=0$. Consider the quotient algebra $H(\lambda, \mu)/\langle a\rangle$ of $H(\lambda, \mu)$ modulo $\langle a\rangle$. Then $H(\lambda, \mu)/\langle a\rangle$ is generated, as an algebra, by $\overline{g}$ and $\overline{b}$. In this case, we have $\overline{g}\overline{b}=\overline{b}\overline{g}$. It follows that the ideal $\langle\overline{b}\rangle$ of $H(\lambda, \mu)/\langle a\rangle$ generated by $\overline{b}$ satisfies $\langle\overline{b}\rangle^n=0$. Therefore, $b\in J$.
\(2) Assume $t>1$ and $\lambda\mu\neq0$. Then $g^{p^m}\neq1$ for all $m\geqslant 0$. Hence $a^{p^m}=\lambda^{p^{m-1}}(1-g^{p^m})\neq0$ for all $m\geqslant 0$. This means that $a$ is not a nilpotent element, and so $a\notin J$. Similarly, $b\notin J$.
\[2.5\] If $\lambda\neq0$, then $H(\lambda,\mu)\cong
H(1,\lambda^{-1}\mu)$.
Assume $\lambda\neq0$. Let $g$, $a$, $b$ and $g_0$, $a_0$, $b_0$ denote the generators of $H(\lambda,\mu)$ and $H(1,\lambda^{-1}\mu)$, respectively. Then in $H(1,\lambda^{-1}\mu)$ we have $g_0^n=1$, $g_0^{-1}(\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}a_0)g=\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}a_0$, $g_0^{-1}(\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}b_0)g_0=\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}a_0+\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}b_0$. $(\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}a_0)^p=\lambda(1-g_0^p)$, $(\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}b_0)^p=\mu(1-g_0^p)$, and $(\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}b_0)(\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}a_0)
=(\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}a_0)(\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}b_0)+{\frac{1}{2}}(\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}a_0)^2$. It follows that there is an algebra map $\varphi:H(\lambda,\mu)\rightarrow H(1,\lambda^{-1}\mu)$ such that $\varphi(g)=g_0$, $\varphi(a)=\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}a_0$ and $\varphi(b)=\lambda^{\frac{1}{p}}b_0$. It is easy to see that $\varphi$ is a Hopf algebra homomorphism. Similarly, there exists a Hopf algebra homomorphism $\psi: H(1, \lambda^{-1}\mu)\rightarrow H(\lambda, \mu)$ such that $\psi(g_0)=g$, $\psi(a_0)=\lambda^{-\frac{1}{p}}a$ and $\psi(b_0)=\lambda^{-\frac{1}{p}}b$. Obviously, $\varphi\circ\psi={\rm id}$ and $\psi\circ\varphi={\rm id}$, and so $H(\lambda,\mu)\cong
H(1,\lambda^{-1}\mu)$.
Simple modules and Projective Modules over $H(\lambda, \mu)$ {#3}
============================================================
Throughout this section, assume $p>2$. Let $n=p^st$ with $p\nmid t$ and $s\geqslant 1$. Let $\xi$ be a $t$-$th$ primitive root of unity in $k$. Let $\lambda, \mu\in k$. We will investigate simple modules and projective modules over $H(\lambda, \mu)$ in this section. Note that $kG$ is the coradical of $H(\lambda, \mu)$.
Since $p|n$, we know that $kG$ is not semisimple. It has $t$ non-isomorphic simple modules, which are all 1-dimensional and given by the corresponding algebra homomorphisms $\rho_i: kG\rightarrow k$, $\rho_i(g)=\xi^i$, $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Moreover, $kG$ has $n$ non-isomorphic indecomposable modules, which can be described by the matrix representations as follows: $$\rho_{r,i}(g)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
\xi^i&1&\cdots&0&0\\
0&\xi^i&\cdots&0&0\\
\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\
0&0&\cdots&\xi^i&1\\
0&0&\cdots&0&\xi^i
\end{array}\right)_{r\times r}$$ where $1\leqslant r\leqslant p^s$ and $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$ (see [@Don09]).
\[3.1\]If $t=1$, there is only one simple module $S$ over $H(\lambda,\mu)$, which is $1$-dimensional and given by $g\cdot v=v$, $a\cdot v=0$ and $b\cdot v=0$ for all $v\in S$. In particular, $H(\lambda,\mu)$ is a local algebra in this case.
Assume $t=1$. Then by Lemma \[2.4\](1), we know that $a,b\in J$, the Jacobson radical of $H(\lambda, \mu)$, and $H(\lambda,\mu)/\langle a, b\rangle\cong kG$, where $\langle a,
b\rangle$ is the ideal of $H(\lambda, \mu)$ generated by $a$ and $b$. Hence the theorem follows.
In the rest of this section, assume $t>1$.
\[3.2\] Let $M$ be an $H(\lambda,\mu)$-module. If there exists an element $0\neq v\in M$ such that $g\cdot v=\alpha v$ and $a\cdot v=\beta v$ for some $\alpha,\beta\in k$ with $\beta\neq 0$, then the following statements holds:
$(1)$ If $1\leqslant m\leqslant p-1$, then $$ab^m \cdot v= \sum_{0\leqslant j\leqslant m}
\alpha_{m,j}b^j\cdot v\ \mbox{ and }\ gb^m\cdot v=\sum_ {0\leqslant j\leqslant m}\beta_{m, j}b^j\cdot v,$$ where $\alpha_{m,j}, \beta_{m, j}\in k$ with $\alpha_{m,m}=\beta$, $\alpha_{m, m-1}=-{\frac{m}{2}}\beta^2$, $\beta_{m, m}=\alpha$, and $\beta_{m, m-1}=-m\alpha\beta$.
$(2)$ $N ={\rm span}\{v, b\cdot v, \cdots, b^{p-1}\cdot v\}$ is an submodule of $M$.
$(3)$ $\{v, b\cdot v, \cdots, b^{p-1}\cdot v\}$ are linearly independent.
$(4)$ Consider the actions of $g$ and $a$ on $N$. Then $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the only eigenvalues of $g$ and $a$, respectively, with multiplicity $p$. Moreover, $v$ is the unique common eigenvector of $g$ and $a$ up to a non-zero scale multiple.
$(5)$ $N$ is a simple $H(\lambda,\mu)$-module.
\(1) It follows from Parts (2) and (3) of Lemma \[2.2\].
\(2) Since $b^p=\mu(1-g^p)$, it follows from Part (1).
\(3) Suppose that $\{v, b\cdot v, \cdots, b^{p-1}\cdot v\}$ are linearly dependent. Since $v\neq 0$, there exists an $m$ with $0\leqslant m< p-1$ such that $\{v, b\cdot v, \cdots, b^m\cdot v\}$ are linearly independent, but $\{v, b\cdot v, \cdots, b^m\cdot v, b^{m+1}\cdot v\}$ are linearly dependent. Hence there are some $\alpha_i\in k$ such that $b^{m+1}\cdot v=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_ib^i\cdot v$. Thus, $ab^{m+1}\cdot v=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_iab^i\cdot v$. By Part (1), we have $ab^{m+1} \cdot v= \sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant m+1}
\alpha_{m+1,j}b^j\cdot v=\beta b^{m+1}\cdot v+ \sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant m}
\alpha_{m+1,j}b^j\cdot v$ and $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_iab^i\cdot v
&=&\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}
\sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant i}\alpha_i\alpha_{i, j}b^j\cdot v\\
&=&\alpha_m\beta b^m\cdot v+\sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant m-1}\gamma_jb^j\cdot v,\\
\end{array}$$ where $\gamma_j\in k$ for $0\leqslant j\leqslant m-1$. Hence we have $$\begin{array}{rcl}
ab^{m+1}\cdot v-\beta b^{m+1}\cdot v&=&\sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant m}
\alpha_{m+1,j}b^j\cdot v\\
&=&-\frac{m+1}{2}\beta^2b^m\cdot v+\sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant m-1}
\alpha_{m+1,j}b^j\cdot v\\
\end{array}$$ and $$a(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_ib^i\cdot v)-
\beta(\sum\limits_{0\leqslant i\leqslant m}\alpha_ib^i\cdot v)
=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant m-1}(\gamma_j-\alpha_j\beta)b^j\cdot v.$$ It follows that $-\frac{m+1}{2}\beta^2b^m\cdot v+\sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant m-1}
\alpha_{m+1,j}b^j\cdot v=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant m-1}(\gamma_j-\alpha_j\beta)b^j\cdot v.$ Since $-\frac{m+1}{2}\beta^2\neq0$, one gets that $\{v, b\cdot v, \cdots, b^m\cdot v\}$ are linearly dependent, a contradiction.
\(4) It follows from Parts (1) and (3).
\(5) Let $N_0$ be a non-zero submodule of $N$. Then $N_0$ must contain a common eigenvector of $g$ and $a$. Hence $v\in N_0$ by Part (4), and so $N_0=N$. This shows that $N$ is a simple module.
Now we will compute simple modules over $H(\lambda,\mu)$. Note that $H(\lambda, \mu)=\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ if $\lambda=\mu=0$. We first consider the case of $\lambda=0$.
\[3.3\] Let $\mu\in k$. Then there are $t$ non-isomorphic simple modules $T_i$ over $H(0,\mu)$, $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Each $T_i$ is $1$-dimensional and given by $$g\cdot v=\xi^iv,\ a\cdot v=0,\ b\cdot v=\mu^\frac{1}{p}(1-\xi^i)v,\ v\in T_i.$$
Let $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Then it is easy to see that there is an algebra map $\rho_i: H(0, \mu)\rightarrow k$ such that $\rho_i(g)=\xi^i$, $\rho_i(a)=0$ and $\rho_i(b)=\mu^\frac{1}{p}(1-\xi^i)$. It follows that $T_0, T_1, \cdots, T_{t-1}$ given in the theorem are non-isomorphic 1-dimensional simple $H(0, \mu)$-modules.
By the proof of Lemma \[2.4\](1), one knows that the ideal $\langle a\rangle$ of $H(0, \mu)$ generated by $a$ is equal to $H(0,
\mu)a=aH(0, \mu)$. Since $a^p=0$, $\langle a\rangle^p=(H(0,
\mu)a)^p=H(0, \mu)a^p=0$. Hence $\langle a\rangle\subseteq J$, the Jacobson radical of $H(0, \mu)$. Thus, any simple $H(0, \mu)$-module is a simple module over the quotient algebra $H(0, \mu)/\langle
a\rangle$. However, $H(0, \mu)/\langle a\rangle$ is a commutative algebra and $k$ is an algebraically closed field. It follows that any simple $H(0, \mu)$-module is 1-dimensional and determined by an algebra map from $H(0, \mu)$ to $k$. Now let $\rho: H(0,
\mu)\rightarrow k$ be an algebra map. Then $\rho(a)=0$. Since $\rho(g)^n=\rho(g^n)=\rho(1)=1$, $\rho(g)=\xi^i$ for some $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Since $b^p=\mu(1-g^p)$, $\rho(b)^p=\mu(1-\rho(g)^p)=\mu(1-\xi^{ip})=(\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))^p$, and so $\rho(b)=\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i)$. Thus, $\rho=\rho_i$. This completes the proof.
For the case of $\lambda\neq 0$, by Lemma \[2.5\], we may assume $\lambda=1$. Let $S_0$ be the trivial $H(1, \mu)$-module given by the counit $\varepsilon: H(1, \mu)\rightarrow k$. Then dim$S_0=1$, and $$g\cdot v=v,\ a\cdot v=0,\ b\cdot v=0,\ v\in S_0.$$
Now let $A$ be the subalgebra of $H(1, \mu)$ generated by $g$ and $a$. Then $A$ is a Hopf subalgebra of $H(1, \mu)$. Hence $H(1, \mu)$ is a free right (left) $A$-module [@Mon93]. Note that $A$ is a commutative algebra. For $1\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$, there is an algebra map $\rho_i: A\rightarrow k$ defined by $\rho_i(g)=\xi^i$ and $\rho_i(a)=1-\xi^i$. Let $X_i$ denote the corresponding left $A$-module. Then dim$X_i=1$, $g\cdot x=\xi^ix$ and $a\cdot x=(1-\xi^i)x$ for all $x\in X_i$. Let $S_i=H(1, \mu)\otimes_AX_i$. Then $S_i$ is a non-zero left cyclic $H(1, \mu)$-module generated by $1\otimes x$, where $0\neq x\in X_i$.
\[3.4\] Let $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Then we have
$(1)$ $S_0, S_1, \cdots, S_{t-1}$ are non-isomorphic simple $H(1, \mu)$-modules.
$(2)$ If $i\neq 0$, ${\rm dim}S_i=p$ and there is a $0\neq v\in S_i$ such that $g\cdot v=\xi^i v$ and $a\cdot v=(1-\xi^i)v$. Moreover, $\{v, b\cdot v, \cdots, b^{p-1}\cdot v\}$ is a basis of $S_i$.
$(3)$ If $M$ is a simple $H(1, \mu)$-module, then $M$ is isomorphic to some $S_i$.
We have already known that $S_0$ is a simple $H(1, \mu)$-module and dim$S_0=1$. Now let $1\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$ and take $0\neq x\in X_i$. Let $v=1\otimes x\in S_i$. Then $g\cdot v=\xi^i v$ and $a\cdot v=(1-\xi^i)v$. Since $S_i$ is a cyclic $H(1, \mu)$-module generated by $v$, it follows from Lemma \[3.2\] that $S_i$ is a simple $H(1, \mu)$-module with dim$S_i=p$. Moreover, $\{v, b\cdot v, \cdots, b^{p-1}\cdot v\}$ is a basis of $S_i$, and $v$ is the unique common eigenvector of the actions of $g$ and $a$ on $S_i$ up to a non-zero scale multiple. Thus, $S_0, S_1, \cdots, S_{t-1}$ are non-isomorphic simple $H(1, \mu)$-modules. This shows Parts (1) and (2).
Now let $M$ be a simple $H(1,\mu)$-module. Since $k$ is an algebraically closed field and $ga=ag$, there is a non-zero vector $v\in M$ such that $g\cdot v=\alpha v$ and $a\cdot v=\beta v$ for some $\alpha, \beta\in k$. Hence $A\cdot v=kv$. Since $g^n=1$, $\alpha^n=\alpha^{p^st}=(\alpha^t)^{p^s}=1$. Hence $\alpha^t=1$, and consequently $\alpha=\xi^i$ for some $0\leqslant
i\leqslant t-1$. Since $a^p=1-g^p$, we have $\beta^p=1-\xi^{ip}=(1-\xi^i)^p$. It follows that $\beta=1-\xi^i$. Since $M$ is a simple $H(1, \mu)$-module and $H(1,
\mu)=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant j\leqslant p-1}b^jA$, one gets that $M=H(1, \mu)\cdot v={\rm span}\{v, b\cdot v, \cdots, b^{p-1}\cdot
v\}$. We divide the discussion into the following two cases.
For the case: $i=0$. In this case, $g\cdot v=v$, $a\cdot v=0$ and $b^p\cdot v=\mu(1-g^p)\cdot v=0$. Hence there is an integer $m$ with $0\leqslant m\leqslant p-1$ such that $b^m\cdot v\neq0$ but $b^{m+1}\cdot v=0$. If $m=0$, then $g\cdot v=v$, $a\cdot v=0$ and $b\cdot v=0$. Hence $M=kv\cong S_0$ since $M$ is simple. If $m>0$, then by Lemma \[2.2\] it follows that $ab^m\cdot v=0$ and $gb^m\cdot v=b^m\cdot v$. Thus, $k\{b^m\cdot v\}$ is a non-zero $H(1,\mu)$-submodule of $M$, and so $M=k(b^m\cdot v)\cong S_0$ since $M$ is simple. In this case, $v=\gamma b^m\cdot v$ for some $0\neq
\gamma\in k$, which implies that $b\cdot v=0$, and so $m=0$, a contradiction.
For the case: $1\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. In this case, $a\cdot
v=(1-\xi^i)v\neq0$. Since $M$ is a simple $H(1, \mu)$-module, it follows from Lemma \[3.2\] that $k\{v, b\cdot v, \cdots,
{b^{p-1}\cdot v}\}$ is a basis of $M$. In this case, $M$ is isomorphic to $S_i$. In fact, let $0\neq x\in X_i$. Then there is an $A$-module isomorphism $f: X_i\rightarrow kv$, $f(x)=v$, where $kv$ is obviously an $A$-submodule of $M$. Since $M=H(1, \mu)\cdot v$, we have an $H(1, \mu)$-module epimorphism $$\psi: S_i=H(1, \mu)\otimes_AX_i\xrightarrow{{\rm id}\otimes f}
H(1, \mu)\otimes_A(kv)\xrightarrow{\cdot}M$$ given by $\psi(h\otimes x)=h\cdot f(x)=h\cdot v$, $h\in H(1, \mu)$. Since both $S_i$ and $M$ are simple, $\psi$ must be an isomorphism.
For any integer $i$, let $0\leqslant\overline{i}\leqslant t-1$ with $\overline{i}\equiv i$ (mod $t)$. For any positive integer $m$, let $I_m$ denote the identity $m\times m$-matrix over $k$. For any matrix $X$ over $k$, let $r(X)$ denote the rank of $X$.
For $1\leqslant i, j\leqslant t-1$, let $\{b^{i_1}\cdot v\}_{0\leqslant i_1\leqslant
p-1}$ and $\{b^{j_1}\cdot w\}_{0\leqslant j_1\leqslant p-1}$ be the basis of $S_i$ and $S_j$ as stated in Theorem \[3.4\], respectively. Then $\{b^{i_1}\cdot v\otimes
b^{j_1}\cdot w\}_{0\leqslant i_1,j_1\leqslant p-1}$ is a basis of $S_i\otimes S_j$. For any $0\neq u=\sum
x_{i_1,j_1}b^{i_1}\cdot v \otimes b^{j_1}\cdot w\in S_i\otimes S_j$, let $h(u)={\rm max}\{i_1+j_1|x_{i_1,j_1}\neq0\}$ and let $$u(1)={\rm max}\{i_1|x_{i_1,j_1}\neq0 \mbox{ for some $j_1$}\}\mbox{ and }
u(2)={\rm max}\{j_1|x_{u(1),j_1}\neq0\}.$$ With the above notations, we have the following lemma.
\[3.5\] Let $0\neq u\in S_i\otimes S_j$ with $h(u)=u(1)=l>0$. Assume $v_1=g\cdot u-\xi^{i+j}u\neq 0$. Then
$(1)$ $h(v_1)< l$.
$(2)$ If $v_1(2)=0$, then there is an element $u'\in S_i\otimes S_j$ with $h(u')\leqslant l$ and $u'(1)=$ $v_1(1)$ such that $g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u''=0$, or $(g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u'')(1)<v_1(1)$, where $u''=u+u'$.
$(3)$ If $v_1(2)>0$, then there is an element $u'\in S_i\otimes S_j$ with $h(u')\leqslant l$ and $u'(1)=$ $v_1(1)$ such that $g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u''=0$, or $(g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u'')(1)<v_1(1)$, or $(g\cdot u''-$ $\xi^{i+j}u'')(1)=v_1(1)$ and $(g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u'')(2)<v_1(2)$, where $u''=u+u'$.
Let $v_1(1)=m$ and $v_1(2)=s$.
\(1) It follows from Lemma \[3.2\](1).
\(2) Assume $s=0$. By Part (1), we have $0\leqslant m<l$. Hence $v_1=\alpha b^m\cdot v\otimes w+\sum\limits_{i_1<m}\alpha_{i_1, j_1}b^{i_1}\cdot v\otimes b^{j_1}\cdot w$ for some $\alpha$, $\alpha_{i_1, j_1}\in k$ with $\alpha\neq 0$. Take $u'=\alpha\xi^{-(i+j)}(1-\xi^j)^{-1}b^m\cdot v\otimes b\cdot w$ and let $u''=u+u'$. Then $h(u')=m+1\leqslant l$, $u'(1)=m$ and $$g\cdot u'-\xi^{i+j}u'=-\alpha b^m\cdot v\otimes w+\sum\limits_{i_1<m, j_1\leqslant 1}
\beta_{i_1, j_1}b^{i_1}\cdot v\otimes b^{j_1}\cdot w.$$ Since $g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u''=v_1+g\cdot u'-\xi^{i+j}u'$, we know that $g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u''=0$, or $(g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u'')(1)<m$.
\(3) Assume $s>0$. Then $$v_1=\sum\limits_{0\leqslant j_1\leqslant s}\alpha_{j_1}b^m\cdot v
\otimes b^{j_1}\cdot w+\sum\limits_{i_1<m}\alpha_{i_1, j_1}b^{i_1}\cdot v\otimes b^{j_1}\cdot w$$ for some $\alpha_{j_1}$, $\alpha_{i_1, j_1}\in k$ with $\alpha_s\neq 0$. Note that $m+s\leqslant h(v_1)<l\leqslant p-1$. Hence $s<p-1$ and so $1<s+1<p$. Let $u'=\alpha_s(s+1)^{-1}\xi^{-(i+j)}(1-\xi^j)^{-1}b^m\cdot v\otimes b^{s+1}\cdot w$ and $u''=u+u'$. Then $h(u')=m+s+1\leqslant l$, $u'(1)=m$ and $$g\cdot u'-\xi^{i+j}u'=-\alpha_s b^m\cdot v\otimes b^s\cdot w+\sum\limits_{j_1<s}
\beta_{j_1}b^m\cdot v\otimes b^{j_1}\cdot w+\sum\limits_{i_1<m, j_1\leqslant s+1}
\beta_{i_1, j_1}b^{i_1}\cdot v\otimes b^{j_1}\cdot w.$$ Since $g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u''=v_1+g\cdot u'-\xi^{i+j}u'$, we know that $g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u''=0$, or $(g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u'')(1)<m$, or $(g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u'')(1)=m$ and $(g\cdot u''-\xi^{i+j}u'')(2)<s$.
\[3.6\] Let $0\neq u\in S_i\otimes S_j$ with $h(u)=u(1)=l>0$. If $g\cdot u\neq\xi^{i+j}u$, then there is an element $\overline{u}\in S_i\otimes S_j$ with $h(\overline{u})\leqslant l$ and $\overline{u}(1)<l$ such that $g\cdot\underline{u}=\xi^{i+j}\underline{u}$, where $\underline{u}=u+\overline{u}$.
Let $u_1=u$, $v_1=g\cdot u_1-\xi^{i+j}u_1\neq 0$, $m_1=v_1(1)$ and $s_1=v_1(2)$. Then it follows from Lemma \[3.5\] that $m_1<l$ and there is an elements $u_1'\in S_i\otimes S_j$ with $h(u_1')\leqslant l$ and $u_1'(1)=m_1<l$ such that $g\cdot u_2=\xi^{i+j}u_2$, or $(g\cdot u_2-\xi^{i+j}u_2)(1)<m_1$, or $(g\cdot u_2-\xi^{i+j}u_2)(1)=m_1$ and $(g\cdot u_2-\xi^{i+j}u_2)(2)<s_1$, where $u_2=u_1+u_1'$. If $g\cdot u_2=\xi^{i+j}u_2$, then the theorem follows. Otherwise, let $v_2=g\cdot u_2-\xi^{i+j}u_2\neq0$, $v_2(1)=m_2$ and $v_2(2)=s_2$. Since $u_1(1)=l$ and $u_1'(1)=m_1<l$, $u_2(1)=l$, and so $h(u_2)=l$. By replacing $u_1$ with $u_2$, it follows from Lemma \[3.5\] that there is an $u_2'\in S_i\otimes S_j$ with $h(u_2')\leqslant l$ and $u_2'(1)=m_2<l$ such that $g\cdot u_3=\xi^{i+j}u_3$, or $(g\cdot u_3-\xi^{i+j}u_3)(1)<m_2$, or $(g\cdot u_3-\xi^{i+j}u_3)(1)=m_2$ and $(g\cdot u_3-\xi^{i+j}u_3)(2)<s_2$, where $u_3=u_2+u_2'$. Since $h(u_1')\leqslant l$ and $h(u_2')\leqslant l$, $h(u_1'+u_2')\leqslant l$. Furthermore, we have $u_2'(1)=m_2<m_1=u_1'(1)$, or $u_2'(1)=m_2=m_1=u_1'(1)$ and $u_2'(2)=s_2<s_1$. It follows that $(u_1'+u_2')(1)\leqslant m_1<l$. We also have $u_3=u_2+u_2'=u_1+u_1'+u_2'$. If $g\cdot u_3=\xi^{i+j}u_3$, then the theorem follows. Otherwise, let $v_3=g\cdot u_3-\xi^{i+j}u_3\neq0$, $v_3(1)=m_3$ and $v_3(2)=s_2$. Since $u_2(1)=l$ and $u_2'(1)=m_2<l$, $u_3(1)=l$, and so $h(u_3)=l$. Then we may repeat the above procedure by replacing $u_2$ with $u_3$, and continue. Thus one may get a series of elements $u_1', u_2', u_3', \cdots$ in $S_i\otimes S_j$ with $h(u_q')\leqslant l$ and $u_q'(1)=m_q<l$ such that $g\cdot u_{q+1}=\xi^{i+j}u_{q+1}$, or $m_{q+1}:=(g\cdot u_{q+1}-\xi^{i+j}u_{q+1})(1)<m_q$, or $m_{q+1}:=(g\cdot u_{q+1}-\xi^{i+j}u_{q+1})(1)=m_q$ and $s_{q+1}:=(g\cdot u_{q+1}-\xi^{i+j}u_1)(2)<s_q$, where $u_{q+1}=u_q+u_q'$, $q=1, 2, 3, \cdots$.
We claim that the above procedure will stop. In fact, if $v_q=g\cdot u_q-\xi^{i+j}u_q\neq 0$ for all $q\geqslant 1$, then $m_{q+1}<m_q$, or $m_{q+1}=m_q$ and $s_{q+1}<s_q$ for all $q\geqslant 1$. Since $l>m_1\geqslant m_2\geqslant m_3\geqslant\cdots\geqslant 0$, there is a $q\geqslant 1$ such that $m_q=m_{q+1}=m_{q+2}=\cdots$. Then it follows that $s_q>s_{q+1}>s_{q+2}>\cdots\geqslant 0$. This is impossible. Thus, there exists an integer $m\geqslant 1$ such that $v_q=g\cdot u_q-\xi^{i+j}u_q\neq 0$ for all $1\leqslant q\leqslant m$, but $g\cdot u_{m+1}-\xi^{i+j}u_{m+1}=0$. Then the theorem follows.
\[3.7\] Let $\{S_i\}_{0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1}$ be the complete set of non-isomorphic simple $H(1,\mu)$-modules defined in Theorem \[3.4\]. Then soc$(S_i\bigotimes
S_j)\cong S_{\overline{i+j}}$ and $S_i\bigotimes S_j$ is indecomposable. In particular, $S_0\otimes S_i\cong S_i$ and $S_i\otimes S_0\cong S_i$. Here $0\leqslant i, j\leqslant t-1$.
It is obvious that $S_0\otimes S_i\cong S_i$ and $S_i\otimes S_0\cong S_i$ for all $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Now let $1\leqslant i, j\leqslant t-1$. Let $\{b^{i_1}\cdot v|0\leqslant i_1\leqslant
p-1\}$ and $\{b^{j_1}\cdot w|0\leqslant j_1\leqslant p-1\}$ be the bases of $S_i$ and $S_j$ as stated in Theorem \[3.4\], respectively. Then $\{b^{i_1}\cdot v\otimes
b^{j_1}\cdot w|0\leqslant i_1, j_1\leqslant p-1\}$ is a basis of $S_i\bigotimes S_j$. By Lemma \[3.2\](1), the matrix of the action of $g$ on $S_i\bigotimes S_j$ with respect to the basis $\{v\otimes w, v\otimes b\cdot w, \cdots, v\otimes b^{p-1}\cdot
w, b\cdot v\otimes w, b\cdot v\otimes b\cdot w, \cdots, b\cdot v\otimes b^{p-1}\cdot
w, \cdots, b^{p-1}\cdot v\otimes w, b^{p-1}\cdot v\otimes b\cdot w,
\cdots, b^{p-1}\cdot v\otimes b^{p-1}\cdot w\}$ has the form $$G_0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
G_{11}&G_{12}&\cdots&G_{1p}\\
0&G_{22}&\cdots&G_{2p}\\
\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\
0&0&\cdots&G_{pp}
\end{array}\right)$$ where each $G_{st}$ $(s\leqslant t)$ is a upper triangular $p\times p$-matrix, and $G_{ss}$ has the form $$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
\\\xi^{i+j}&\alpha_{12}&*&\cdots&*\\
0&\xi^{i+j}&\alpha_{23}&\cdots&*\\
0&0&\xi^{i+j}&\ldots&*\\
\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\
0&0&0&\cdots&\xi^{i+j}
\end{array}\right)$$ with $\alpha_{i_1,i_1+1}\neq 0$. Hence $\xi^{i+j}$ is the unique eigenvalue of the action of $g$ on $S_i\bigotimes S_j$. Moreover, $r(\xi^{i+j}I_p-G_{ss})=p-1$. It follows that $r(\xi^{i+j}I_{p^2}-G_0)\geqslant p(p-1)$. Thus, dim$V_{\xi^{i+j}}\leqslant p$, where $V_{\xi^{i+j}}$ is the eigenspace of the action of $g$ on $S_i\otimes S_j$.
Obviously, $u_0=v\otimes w\in V_{\xi^{i+j}}$. For any $1\leqslant l\leqslant p-1$, let $u_{(l)}=b^l\cdot v\otimes w$. Then $h(u)=u(1)=l>0$. It follows from Lemma \[3.2\](1) that $g\cdot
u_{(l)}\neq\xi^{i+j}u_{(l)}$. Then by Theorem \[3.6\], there is an element $u_{(l)}'\in S_i\otimes S_j$ with $h(u_{(l)}')\leqslant l$ and $u_{(l)}'(1)<l$ such that $g\cdot u_l=\xi^{i+j}u_l$, where $u_l=u_{(l)}+u_{(l)}'$. Obviously, $u_l(1)=l$ and $h(u_l)=l$ for all $0\leqslant l\leqslant p-1$. It follows that $\{u_0, u_1, \cdots, u_{p-1}\}\subset V_{\xi^{i+j}}$ are linearly independent over $k$. Thus, $\{u_0, u_1, \cdots, u_{p-1}\}$ is a $k$-basis of $V_{\xi^{i+j}}$.
Let $v_l=g\cdot u_{(l)}-\xi^{i+j}u_{(l)}$. Then it follows from Lemma \[3.2\] that $v_l=-l\xi^{i+j}(1-\xi^i)b^{l-1}\cdot v\otimes w
+\sum\limits_{i_1<l-1}\alpha_{i_1}b^{i_1}\cdot v\otimes w$. Hence $v_l(1)=l-1$ and $v_l(2)=0$. Since $g\cdot u_l-\xi^{i+j}u_l=0$, $v_l+g\cdot u'_{(l)}-\xi^{i+j}u'_{(l)}=0$. Hence $(g\cdot u'_{(l)}-\xi^{i+j}u'_{(l)})(1)=l-1$ and $(g\cdot u'_{(l)}-\xi^{i+j}u'_{(l)})(2)=0$. By Lemma \[3.2\], we know that $l-1=(g\cdot u'_{(l)}-\xi^{i+j}u'_{(l)})(1)\leqslant u'_{(l)}(1)
<l$, which forces that $u'_{(l)}(1)=l-1$. Since $u'_{(l)}(1)+u'_{(l)}(2)\leqslant h(u'_{(l)})\leqslant l$, $u'_{(l)}(2)\leqslant 1$. If $u'_{(l)}(2)=0$, then it follows from Lemma \[3.2\] that $l-1=(g\cdot u'_{(l)}-\xi^{i+j}u'_{(l)})(1)< u'_{(l)}(1)=l-1$, a contradiction. Therefore, $u'_{(l)}(2)=1$, and so $h(u'_{(l)})=l$. Thus we have $$u'_{(l)}=\alpha b^{l-1}\cdot v\otimes b\cdot w+\beta b^{l-1}\cdot v\otimes w
+\sum\limits_{i_1<l-1}\alpha_{i_1,j_1}b^{i_1}\cdot v\otimes b^{j_1}\cdot w.$$ Again by Lemma \[3.2\], one gets $$g\cdot u'_{(l)}-\xi^{i+j}u'_{(l)}=-\alpha\xi^{i+j}(1-\xi^j) b^{l-1}\cdot v\otimes w
+\sum\limits_{i_1<l-1}\beta_{i_1,j_1}b^{i_1}\cdot v\otimes b^{j_1}\cdot w.$$ Since $v_l+g\cdot u'_{(l)}-\xi^{i+j}u'_{(l)}=0$, $\alpha=-l(1-\xi^i)(1-\xi^j)^{-1}$, and hence $$u'_{(l)}=-l(1-\xi^i)(1-\xi^j)^{-1}b^{l-1}\cdot v\otimes b\cdot w+\beta b^{l-1}\cdot v\otimes w
+\sum\limits_{i_1<l-1}\alpha_{i_1,j_1}b^{i_1}\cdot v\otimes b^{j_1}\cdot w.$$ Since $ga=ag$, $a\cdot V_{\xi^{i+j}}\subseteq V_{\xi^{i+j}}$. Consider the action of $a$ on $V_{\xi^{i+j}}$. Then $a\cdot u_0=(1-\xi^{i+j})u_0$. For $1\leqslant l\leqslant p-1$, let $u=u_l+\alpha_1u_{l-1}+\ldots+\alpha_lu_0$ be an element in $V_{\xi^{i+j}}$. If $a\cdot u=\alpha u$ for some $\alpha\in k$, then by comparing their coefficients of the item $b^l\cdot v\otimes w$, we find that $\alpha=1-\xi^{i+j}$. It follows that $1-\xi^{i+j}$ is the unique eigenvalue for the action of $a$ on $V_{\xi^{i+j}}$. Using Lemma \[3.2\], one finds that the coefficient of the item $b^{l-1}\cdot v\otimes w$ in $a\cdot u-(1-\xi^{i+j})u$ is $-\frac{l}{2}(1-\xi^i)(1-\xi^{i+j})$. We divide the discussion into the following two cases.
For case 1: $i+j\neq t$. In this case, $a\cdot u-(1-\xi^{i+j})u\neq0$, and hence $u$ is not an eigenvector of the action of $a$. It follows that $u_0$ is the unique common eigenvector of the action of $g$ and $a$ up to a non-zero scale multiple. It follows from Theorem \[3.4\] that soc$(S_i\otimes S_j)\cong S_{\overline{i+j}}$.
For case 2: $i+j=t$. In this case, $1$ is the unique eigenvalue of the action of $g$. It follows from Theorem \[3.4\] that any simple submodule of $S_i\otimes S_j$ is isomorphic to $S_0$, and is spanned by a non-zero vector $v'$ with $g\cdot v'=v'$, $a\cdot v'=0$ and $b\cdot v'=0$. Now we have $g\cdot u_0=u_0$ and $a\cdot u_0=0$. By Lemma \[2.2\](2), it follows that $g\cdot(b^l\cdot u_0)=b^l\cdot
u_0$ and $a\cdot(b^l\cdot u_0)=0$ for all $1\leqslant l\leqslant
p-1$. Since $\Delta(b)={b\otimes 1}+{g\otimes b}$, one can see that $(b^l\cdot u_0)(1)=l$, $(b^l\cdot u_0)(2)=0$. It follows that $\{u_0, b\cdot u_0, \cdots, b^{p-1}\cdot u_0 \}$ are linearly independent and contained in $V_{\xi^{i+j}}=V_1$. Furthermore, $b\cdot(b^{p-1}\cdot u_0)=b^p\cdot u_0=0$. Thus, soc$(S_i\otimes
S_j)=k(b^{p-1}\cdot u_0)\cong S_0$.
This completes the proof.
Now we are going to investigate the indecomposable projective modules over $H(\lambda, \mu)$.
Let $e_i=\frac{1}{t}\sum_{j=0}^{t-1}(\xi^{-ip^s}g^{p^s})^j$. Then $\{e_0, e_1, \cdots, e_{t-1}\}$ is a set of primitive orthogonal idempotents in $kG$ since $\xi^{p^s}$ is also a $t$-$th$ primitive root of unity. Now we have $(1-\xi^{-ip^s}g^{p^s})e_i=\frac{1}{t}[1-(\xi^{-ip^s}g^{p^s})^t]=0$, that is, $g^{p^s}e_i=\xi^{ip^s}e_i$. Hence $\{g^{i_1}e_i|0\leqslant
i_1\leqslant p^s-1\}$ is a basis of $kGe_i$ and dim$kGe_i=p^s$. Under this basis, the matrix of the action of $g$ on $kGe_i$ is $$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
0&0&\cdots&0&\xi^{ip^s}\\
1&0&\cdots&0&0\\
\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\
0&0&\cdots&0&0\\
0&0&\cdots&1&0
\end{array}\right)_{p^s\times p^s}.$$ The characteristic polynomial of $g$ is $p(x)=x^{p^s}-\xi^{ip^s}=(x-\xi^i)^{p^s}$. Acting on $kGe_i$, $g$ has a unique eigenvalue $\xi^i$ with multiplicity $p^s$. By Lemma \[2.2\], $g^p\in Z(H(\lambda,\mu))$, the center of $H(\lambda,\mu)$. Hence $\{e_0, e_1, \cdot, e_{t-1}\}$ is a set of central orthogonal idempotents of $H(\lambda, \mu)$. It follows that $H(\lambda,\mu)=\bigoplus_{0\leqslant i\leqslant
t-1}H(\lambda,\mu)e_i$ is a decomposition of the left regular module $H(\lambda,\mu)$, which is also a composition of $H(\lambda, \mu)$ as two-sided ideals. Thus, the action of $g$ on $H(\lambda,\mu)e_i$ has the unique eigenvalue $\xi^i$ (with multiplicity of $p^{s+2}$). So $g$ has the unique eigenvalue $\xi^i$ when it acts on every principal projective module occurring in $H(\lambda,\mu)e_i$.
Note that dim$H(\lambda, \mu)$=dim$(\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG)=p^2n=p^{s+2}t$ and $$H(\lambda, \mu)e_i={\rm span}\{g^{i_1}a^{i_2}b^{i_3}e_i|
0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1, 0\leqslant i_2, i_3\leqslant
p-1\}.$$ Hence dim$H(\lambda, \mu)e_i=p^{s+2}$ and $\{g^{i_1}a^{i_2}b^{i_3}e_i|
0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1, 0\leqslant i_2, i_3\leqslant p-1\}$ is a basis of $H(\lambda,\mu)e_i$.
Now we can prove the main results of this section.
\[3.8\] Let $\{T_0, T_1, \cdots, T_{t-1}\}$ be the complete set of non-isomorphic simple $H(0,\mu)$-modules given in Theorem \[3.3\]. Let $P(T_i)$ denote the projective cover of $T_i$. Then $P(T_i)\cong
H(0,\mu)e_i$, where $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$.
Since $\xi^i$ is an eigenvalue of the action of $g$ on $T_i\cong P(T_i)/{\rm rad}(P(T_i))$, $\xi^i$ is the unique eigenvalue of the action of $g$ on $P(T_i)$. It follows that $P(T_i$) must be the unique summand of $H(0,\mu)e_i$ up to isomorphism of $H(0, \mu)$-modules. Since dim$T_i=1$, the left regular module $H(0, \mu)$ has the decomposition $H(0, \mu)\cong\bigoplus_{0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1}P(T_i)$, which forces that $P(T_i)\cong H(0,\mu)e_i$.
Now we are going to consider the case of $\lambda=1$. Let us first show the following lemma for the case of $\mu=0$.
\[3.9-1\] In the Hopf algebra $H(1, 0)$, we have $$b^mab^{p-1}=\frac{m!}{2^m}a^{m+1}b^{p-1},\ \ m\geqslant 0.$$
We prove the equation $b^mab^{p-1}=\frac{m!}{2^m}a^{m+1}b^{p-1}$ by induction on $m$. If $m=0$, it is obvious. Now let $m\geqslant 0$ and assume $b^mab^{p-1}=\frac{m!}{2^m}a^{m+1}b^{p-1}$. Since $b^p=0$, by Lemma \[2.2\](1) we have $$\begin{array}{rcl}
b^{m+1}ab^{p-1}&=&\frac{m!}{2^m}ba^{m+1}b^{p-1}\\
&=&\frac{m!}{2^m}(a^{m+1}b+\frac{m+1}{2}a^{m+2})b^{p-1}\\
&=&\frac{m!}{2^m}(a^{m+1}b^p+\frac{m+1}{2}a^{m+2}b^{p-1})\\
&=&\frac{(m+1)!}{2^{m+1}}a^{m+2}b^{p-1}.\\
\end{array}$$ This completes the proof.
\[3.9\] Let $\{S_0, S_1, \cdots, S_{t-1}\}$ be the complete set of non-isomorphic simple $H(1,\mu)$-modules described as Theorem \[3.4\]. Let $P(S_i)$ denote the projective cover of $S_i$. Then
$(1)$ $P(S_0)\cong H(1,\mu)e_0$ and ${\rm dim}P(S_0)=p^{s+2}$.
$(2)$ Let $1\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Then ${\rm dim}P(S_i)=p^{s+1}$. Moreover, if $\mu=0$, then $P(S_i)\cong H(1,0)b^{p-1}e_i$ and $\{g^{i_1}a^{i_2}b^{p-1}e_i|0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1, 0\leqslant
i_2\leqslant p-1\}$ is a basis of $H(1, 0)b^{p-1}e_i$. If $\mu\neq0$ and $s=1$, then $P(S_i)\cong H(1,\mu)b_0^{p-1}e_i$, and $H(1,\mu)b_0^{p-1}e_i$ has a basis $\{g^{i_1}a^{i_2}b^{p-1}e_i|
0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1, 0\leqslant i_2\leqslant
p-1\}$, where $b_0=b+\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_0=\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(\xi^i-1)$.
\(1) Since $\xi^i$ is an eigenvalue of the action of $g$ on $S_i=P(S_i)/{\rm rad}(P(S_i))$, $\xi^i$ is the unique eigenvalue of the action of $g$ on $P(S_i)$. It follows that $P(S_i$) must be the unique summand of $H(1,\mu)e_i$ up to the isomorphism of $H(1, \mu)$-modules. By Wedderburn-Artin Theorem, the left regular module $H(1, \mu)$ has the decomposition $H(1, \mu)\cong\bigoplus_{0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1}P(S_i)^{{\rm dim}S_i}$, where $P(S_i)^m$ denotes the direct sum of $m$ copies of $P(S_i)$. It follows that $H(1, \mu)e_i\cong P(S_i)^{{\rm dim}S_i}$ as left $H(1, \mu)$-modules. Since dim$S_0=1$, one gets that $P(S_0)\cong H(1,\mu)e_0$ and dim$P(S_0)=p^{s+2}$.
\(2) Let $1\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Since dim$S_i=p$ and dim$H(1, \mu)e_i=p^{s+2}$, $H(1,\mu)e_i\cong P(S_i)^p$, the direct sum of $p$ copies of $P(S_i)$. Hence dim$P(S_i)=p^{s+1}$.
Assume $\mu=0$. Then by Lemma \[3.9-1\] we have $b^{p-1}ab^{p-1}=\frac{(p-1)!}{2^{p-1}}a^pb^{p-1}$. Let $\widetilde{e_i}=a^{p^s-p+1}b^{p-1}e_i$. Since $a^p=1-g^p$ and $g^p\in Z(H(1, 0))$, we have $a^p\in Z(H(1, 0))$. Therefore, we have $$\begin{split}
\widetilde{e_i}^2&=a^{p^s-p+1}b^{p-1}a^{p^s-p+1}b^{p-1}e_i\\
&=a^{2(p^s-p)+1}b^{p-1}ab^{p-1}e_i\\
&=\frac{(p-1)!}{2^{p-1}}a^{2(p^s-p)+1}a^pb^{p-1}e_i\\
&=\frac{(p-1)!}{2^{p-1}}a^{p^s-p+1}a^{p^s}b^{p-1}e_i\\
&=\frac{(p-1)!}{2^{p-1}}a^{p^s-p+1}b^{p-1}(1-g^{p^s})e_i\\
&=\frac{(p-1)!}{2^{p-1}}(1-\xi^{ip^s})a^{p^s-p+1}b^{p-1}e_i\\
&=\frac{(p-1)!}{2^{p-1}}(1-\xi^{ip^s})\widetilde{e_i}.
\end{split}$$ Then $\widetilde{e_i}^2=\alpha\widetilde{e_i}$ with $\alpha=\frac{(p-1)!}{2^{p-1}}(1-\xi^{ip^s})\neq0$ in $k$. Let $\widehat{e_i}=\alpha^{-1}\widetilde{e_i}$. Then $\widehat{e_i}^2=\widehat{e_i}$. Hence $H(1, 0)\widehat{e_i}$ is a summand of $H(1, 0)e_i$ as a left $H(1, 0)$-module. It follows that $H(1, 0)\widehat{e_i}\cong P(S_i)^m$ for some $1\leqslant
m\leqslant{\rm dim}S_i$. Obviously, $H(1, 0)\widehat{e_i}\subseteq
H(1, 0)b^{p-1}e_i$. Since $a^p=1-g^p$ and $b^p=0$, it follows from Lemma \[2.2\](1) that $H(1, 0)b^{p-1}e_i={\rm
span}\{g^{i_1}a^{i_2}b^{p-1}e_i|0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1,
0\leqslant i_2\leqslant p-1\}$. Hence $p^{s+1}={\rm dim}P(S_i)
\leqslant{\rm dim}(H(1,0)\widehat{e_i})\leqslant{\rm
dim}(H(1,0)b^{p-1}e_i) \leqslant p^{s+1}$. This implies that ${\rm
dim}(H(1,0)\widehat{e_i})={\rm dim} (H(1, 0)b^{p-1}e_i)=p^{s+1}$. Hence $P(S_i)\cong H(1,0)\widehat{e_i}=H(1, 0)b^{p-1}e_i$, and consequently $H(1,0)b^{p-1}e_i$ has a basis $\{g^{i_1}a^{i_2}b^{p-1}e_i|0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1,
0\leqslant i_2\leqslant p-1\}$.
Now assume $\mu\neq0$ and $s=1$. Let $\alpha_0=\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(\xi^i-1)\in k\subseteq H(1, \mu)$ and $b_0=b+\alpha_0\in H(1,\mu)$. Then $b_0^p=\mu(\xi^{ip}-g^p)=\mu(\xi^i-g)^p$, and so $b_0^pe_i=0$. Since $g^p\in Z(H(1,\mu))$, $b_0^p\in
Z(H(1,\mu))$. An argument similar to Lemma \[3.9-1\] shows that $b_0^mab_0^{p-1}e_i=\frac{m!}{2^m}a^{m+1}b_0^{p-1}e_i$ for all $m\geqslant 0$. Let $e'_i=\frac{2^{p-1}}{(p-1)!}(1-\xi^{ip})^{-1}ab_0^{p-1}e_i$. Then it follows from an argument similar to the case of $\mu=0$ that $(e'_i)^2=e'_i$, $P(S_i)\cong H(1,\mu)e'_i=H(1,\mu)b_0^{p-1}e_i$ and $\{g^{i_1}a^{i_2}b_0^{p-1}e_i|0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1, 0\leqslant i_2\leqslant
p-1\}$ is a basis of $H(1, \mu)b_0^{p-1}e_i$.
If $p=3,5,7,11$, we find that $b_1^p=[b+\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(g-1)]^p=0$. Then the argument in the proof of Theorem \[3.9\] can be applied to $H(1,\mu)$ with $\mu\neq0$ and $s\geqslant 1$. In this case, we have that $P(S_i)\cong H(1,\mu)b_1^{p-1}e_i$ and $\{g^{i_1}a^{i_2}b_1^{p-1}e_i|
0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1, 0\leqslant i_2\leqslant p-1\}$ is a basis of $H(1, \mu)b_1^{p-1}e_i$, where $1\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$.
\[3.11\] If $t>1$, then $\{e_0, e_1, \cdots, e_{t-1}\}$ is a set of central orthogonal primitive idempotents of $H(\lambda,\mu)$.
\[3.11\] If $t>1$, then each block $H(\lambda,\mu)e_i$ of $H(\lambda,\mu)$ is a symmetric algebra. Moreover, $H(\lambda,\mu)e_0$ is a local symmetric algebra.
It follows from Lemma \[2.3\] and [@Erd90 Lemma I.3.3]
Representation types of $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ and $H(\lambda,\mu)$ {#4}
==================================================================
In this section, we will consider the representation types of $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ and $H(\lambda,\mu)$. Let us first consider the simple modules and their projective covers over $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$. When $p>2$, $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG=H(0, 0)$ as noted in the last section. In this case, the simple modules and their projective covers over $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ have been described in the last section, see Theorems \[3.3\] and \[3.8\].
Now let us assume $p=2$ and $n=2^st$ with $2\nmid t$ and $s\geqslant 1$. Let $\xi$ be a $t$-$th$ primitive root of unity in $k$. We denote by $H$ the Hopf algebra $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ defined in Section \[2\].
Since $H$ is a finite dimensional graded Hopf algebra $H=\bigoplus_{m\geqslant 0}H_m$ with $H_0=kG$ and $a, b\in H_1$, a left $H$-module $M$ is a simple $H$-module if and only if $M$ is a simple $kG$-module and $a\cdot M=b\cdot M=0$. Hence we have the following proposition.
\[4.1\] Up to isomorphism, there are $t$ simple left $H$-modules $S_i$, which are all 1-dimensional and defined by $$g\cdot x=\xi^ix,\ a\cdot x=b\cdot x=0,\ x\in S_i,$$ where $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. In particular, if $t=1$, then $H$ is a local algebra.
Let $e_i=\frac{1}{t}\sum_{j=0}^{t-1}(\xi^{-i2^s}g^{2^s})^j$. Then $\{e_0, e_1, \cdots, e_{t-1}\}$ is a set of primitive orthogonal idempotents in $kG$ and $g^{2^s}e_i=\xi^{i2^s}e_i$. $\{g^{i_1}e_i|0\leqslant i_1\leqslant 2^s-1\}$ is a basis of $kGe_i$ and dim$kGe_i=2^s$. By Lemma \[2.1\], $g^2\in Z(H)$, the center of $H$. Hence $\{e_0, e_1, \cdots, e_{t-1}\}$ is a set of central orthogonal idempotents of $H$. It follows that $H=\bigoplus_{0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1}He_i$ is a decomposition of the left regular module $H$, which is also a composition of $H$ as two-sided ideals. By a discussion similar to that for $H(\lambda,\mu)$ in Section \[3\], we have the following result from Lemma \[2.1\] and [@Erd90 Lemma I.3.3].
\[4.2\] Let $\{S_0, S_1, \cdots, S_{t-1}\}$ be the complete set of non-isomorphic simple $H$-modules given in Proposition \[4.1\]. Let $P(S_i)$ denote the projective cover of $S_i$. Then
$(1)$ $P(S_i)\cong He_i$, where $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$.
$(2)$ $H$ has $t$ blocks $He_i$. Moreover, each block $He_i$ is a local symmetric algebra.
\[4.3\] Let $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Let $M$ be an indecomposable module of dimension $2$ over the block $He_i$. Then $M$ has one of the following structures:
$(1)$ There is a $k$-basis $\{v_1, v_2\}$ in $M$ such that $g\cdot v_1=\xi^i\cdot v_1$, $g\cdot v_2=\xi^i\cdot v_2$, $a\cdot v_1=$ $a\cdot v_2=0$, $b\cdot v_1=0$ and $b\cdot v_2=v_1$.
$(2)$ There is a $k$-basis $\{v_1,v_2\}$ in $M$ such that $g\cdot v_1=\xi^iv_1$, $g\cdot v_2=\xi^iv_2+v_1$, $a\cdot v_1=a\cdot v_2=0$, $b\cdot v_1=0$ and $b\cdot v_2=\gamma v_1$ for some $\gamma\in k$.
Let $M$ be a left $He_i$-module of dimension 2. Then $M$ is a $kGe_i$-module. Since $g^{2^s}e_i=\xi^{i2^s}e_i$, there is a basis $\{v_1, v_2\}$ of $M$ such that the corresponding matrix $G_1$ of the action of $g$ on $M$ is one of the followings: $$\begin{matrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \xi^i & 0\\0 & \xi^i \end{pmatrix},&
\begin{pmatrix} \xi^i & 1\\0 & \xi^i \end{pmatrix}.&
\end{matrix}$$ Let $A$ and $B$ denote the matrices of the actions of $a$ and $b$ with respect to the basis $\{v_1, v_2\}$ of $M$, respectively.
Assume $G_1=\begin{pmatrix} \xi^i & 1\\0 & \xi^i
\end{pmatrix}$. Since $ga=ag$, $AG_1=G_1A$. Hence $A=\begin{pmatrix}\alpha_1 & \alpha_2\\0 & \alpha_1
\end{pmatrix}$ for some $\alpha_1, \alpha_2\in k$. Since $a^2=0$, $A$ is a nilpotent matrix, and so $\alpha_1=0$. From $bg=ga+gb$, one knows that $BG_1=G_1B+G_1A$. Then it follows that $B=\begin{pmatrix} \beta+\xi^i\alpha_2 & \gamma\\0 & \beta
\end{pmatrix}$ for some $\beta, \gamma\in k$. Since $b^4=0$, $B$ is a nilpotent matrix. Hence $\beta+\xi^i\alpha_2=\beta=0$, and so $\alpha_2=0$. Thus, $A=0$ and $B=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \gamma\\0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$. In this case, $M$ has the structure described in (2).
Assume $G_1=\begin{pmatrix} \xi^i & 0\\0 & \xi^i
\end{pmatrix}$. Then $G_1B=BG_1$. Since $BG_1=GB+G_1A$, $G_1A=0$, and so $A=0$. In this case, under any basis of $M$, the matrix of the action of $g$ is always $G_1$ and $A$ is always 0. If $b\cdot M=0$, then $M\cong S_i\oplus S_i$, a semisimple module. Hence $b\cdot M\neq 0$. So we may choose a basis $\{v_1, v_2\}$ of $M$ such that $B=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1\\0 & 0\end{pmatrix}$ since $b$ is a nilpotent element of $H$. Thus, $M$ has the structure described in (1).
This completes the proof.
Let $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. For $\gamma\in k$, let $M(\gamma)$ denote the 2-dimensional module over the block $He_i$ described as in Lemma \[4.3\](2).
\[4.4\] Let $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$ and $\gamma_1, \gamma_2\in k$. Then $M(\gamma_1)\cong M(\gamma_2)$ if and only if $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$.
Let $G_1=\begin{pmatrix} \xi^i & 1\\0 & \xi^i \end{pmatrix}$, $B_1=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \gamma_1\\0 & 0\end{pmatrix}$ and $B_2=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \gamma_2\\0 & 0\end{pmatrix}$. If $M(\gamma_1)\cong M(\gamma_2)$, there exists an invertible matrix $F\in M_2(k)$ such that $G_1F=FG_1$ and $B_1F=FB_2$. Then one can get that $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$.
\[4.5\] Let $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$ and $\beta, \gamma\in k$. Then there is an algebra map $f: H\rightarrow M_2(k)$ defined by $$f(g)=\begin{pmatrix} \xi^i & \beta\\0 & \xi^i\end{pmatrix},\
f(a)=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0\\0 & 0\end{pmatrix},\
f(b)=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \gamma\\0 & 0\end{pmatrix}.$$ Let $M(\beta, \gamma)$ denote the corresponding $H$-module. Obviously, $M(\beta, \gamma)$ is a module over the block $He_i$. One can easily check that $M(\beta, \gamma)\cong M(\beta', \gamma')$ if and only if $(\beta, \gamma)=\alpha(\beta', \gamma')$ in $k\times k$ for some $0\neq\alpha\in k$. If $\beta=\gamma=0$, then $M(\beta, \gamma)\cong S_i\oplus S_i$. Otherwise, $M(\beta, \gamma)$ is indecomposable.
Let $\{v_1, v_2\}$ be the basis of $M(\beta, \gamma)$ such that the corresponding matrix representation are given as above. Fix a non-zero element $v\in S_i$. Then there is an exact sequence $$0\rightarrow S_i\xrightarrow{\theta} M(\beta, \gamma)\xrightarrow{\eta}S_i\rightarrow 0$$ given by $\theta(v)=v_1$, $\eta(v_1)=0$ and $\eta(v_2)=v$. Denote by $E(\beta, \gamma)$ the extension of $S_i$ by $S_i$. Then a straightforward verification shows that two extensions $E(\beta, \gamma)$ and $E(\beta', \gamma')$ are equivalent if and only if $(\beta, \gamma)=(\beta', \gamma')$. Thus, we have the following corollary.
\[4.6\] Let $0\leqslant i, j\leqslant t-1$. Then $${\rm dim(Ext}(S_i,S_j))=
\begin{cases} 2, &{\rm if }\ i=j \\0, &{\rm if }\ i\neq j
\end{cases}$$
Now we will consider the representation type of $H$. Since $H$ has $t$ blocks $He_i$, we only need to consider the representation type of each block $He_i$. Let $$I=\{1, a, b, ab, ba, b^2, aba, ab^2, bab,b^3, abab, ab^3, bab^2, abab^2, bab^3, abab^3\}.$$ Then by [@Cib09 Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.4], $H$ is a $2^{s+4}t$-dimensional graded Hopf algebra with a basis $\{g^jx|0\leqslant j\leqslant 2^st -1, x\in I\}$. Since $g^{2^s}e_i=\xi^{i2^s}e_i$, by a discussion similar to that for $H(\lambda,\mu)$ in Section \[3\], one gets that each block $He_i$ is $2^{s+4}$-dimensinal with a basis $\{g^jxe_i|0\leqslant j\leqslant 2^s-1, x\in I\}$, where $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$.
Note that ${\rm deg}(a)={\rm deg}(b)=1$ in the graded Hopf algebra $H$.
\[4.7\] Let $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Then the block $He_i$ is of wild representation type.
Let $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Then $\{(g-\xi^i)^jxe_i|0\leqslant j\leqslant 2^s-1, x\in I\}$ is also a basis of $He_i$. Let $J$ denote the Jacobson radical of $He_i$. Since $S_i$ is the unique simple module over the block $He_i$, it follows from Proposition \[4.1\] that $J$ has a basis $\{(g-\xi^i)^jxe_i|0\leqslant j\leqslant 2^s-1, x\in I, j+{\rm deg}(x)\geqslant 1\}$. Since $g^{-1}bg=a+b$, we have $b(g-\xi^i)^m=(g-\xi^i)^mb+m(g-\xi^i)^ma+m\xi^i(g-\xi^i)^{m-1}a$ for all $m\geqslant 1$ by induction on $m$. By these relations and the other relations of $H$, it is easy to check that $N={\rm span}\{(g-\xi^i)^jxe_i, ae_i|0\leqslant j\leqslant
2^s-1, j+{\rm deg}(x)\geqslant 2\}$ is a left ideal of $He_i$ and $N\subseteq J^2$. Observe that ${\rm dim}(J/N)=2$. By [@Aus95 Proposition III.1.14] and Corollary \[4.6\], we have ${\rm dim}(J/J^2)={\rm dim(Ext}(S_i,S_i))=2$. It follows that $J^2=N$. Let $M={\rm span}\{
(g-\xi^i)^jxe_i, (g-\xi^i)ae_i, abe_i, bae_i
|0\leqslant j\leqslant 2^s-1, j+{\rm deg}(x)\geqslant 3\}$. Then it is easy to check that $M$ is a left ideal of $He_i$ and $M\subseteq J^3$. Moreover, one can check that $J^2/M$ is a semisimple $He_i$-module, and so $J^3\subseteq M$. Thus $J^3=M$. Obviously, $J^2/M={\rm span}\{\overline{ae_0}, \overline{(g-\xi^i)^2e_i}, \overline{(g-\xi^i)be_i}, \overline{b^2e_i}\}$, where $\overline{y}=y+M$ in $J^2/M$ for any $y\in J^2$. Note that $(g-\xi^i)^2e_i=0$ when $s=1$. Hence $3\leqslant{\rm dim}(J^2/M)\leqslant 4$. Since $He_i$ is a local symmetric algebra by Theorem \[4.2\] and ${\rm dim}(J^2/J^3)\geqslant3$, it follows from [@Erd90 Lemma III.4] that $He_i$ is of wild representation type.
\[4.8\] Assume $p=2$. Then $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ is of wild representation type.
In the rest of this section, assume $p>2$ and $\lambda, \mu\in k$. We will consider the representation type of $H(\lambda, \mu)$. Let $\{e_0, e_1, \cdots, e_{t-1}\}$ be the set of central orthogonal primitive idempotents of $H(\lambda, \mu)$ described as in the last section. Then $H(\lambda, \mu)$ has $t$ blocks $H(\lambda, \mu)e_i$. Hence we only need to consider the representation type of each block $H(\lambda, \mu)e_i$. We first consider the case of $\lambda=0$. From Theorems \[3.3\] and \[3.8\], one knows that $H(0, \mu)$ is a basic algebra and that $T_i$ is the unique simple module over the block $H(0, \mu)e_i$, where $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Moreover, each block $H(0, \mu)e_i$ is a local symmetric algebra by Lemma \[2.3\] and [@Erd90 Lemma I.3.3].
\[4.9\] We have ${\rm dim(Ext}(T_i, T_i))=2$ over each block $H(0,\mu)e_i$, where $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$.
Let $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Then it follows from Theorems \[3.3\] and \[3.8\] that there is only one simple module $T_i$ over the block $H(0,\mu)e_i$. Let $\beta, \gamma\in k$. Then there is an algebra map $f: H(0,\mu)\rightarrow M_2(k)$ defined by $$f_{\gamma}(g)=\begin{pmatrix} \xi^i & \beta\\0 & \xi^i\end{pmatrix},\
f_{\gamma}(a)=\begin{pmatrix} 0 &0\\0 & 0\end{pmatrix},\
f_{\gamma}(b)=\begin{pmatrix}\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i) & \gamma\\
0 &\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i)\end{pmatrix}.$$ Let $N(\beta, \gamma)$ be the corresponding $H(0, \mu)$-module. Obviously, $N(\beta, \gamma)$ is a module over the block $H(0, \mu)e_i$. An argument similar to $H$ shows that any 2-dimensional module over the block $H(0, \mu)e_i$ is isomorphic to some $N(\beta, \gamma)$ and that $N(\beta, \gamma)\cong N(\beta', \gamma')$ if and only if $(\beta, \gamma)=\alpha(\beta', \gamma')$ for some $0\neq \alpha\in k$. It follows that ${\rm dim(Ext}(T_i,T_i))=2$ from an argument similar to the case $p=2$.
\[4.10\] Each block $H(0,\mu)e_i$ is of wild representation type, where $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$.
Let $0\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$. Since $\{g^{i_1}a^{j_1}b^{k_1}e_i|0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1, 0\leqslant j_1, k_1\leqslant p-1\}$ is a basis of $H(0, \mu)e_i$, $\{(g-\xi^i)^{i_1}a^{j_1}(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))^{k_1}e_i
|0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1, 0\leqslant j_1, k_1\leqslant p-1\}$ is also a basis of $H(0, \mu)e_i$. Let $J$ denote the Jacobson radical of $H(0, \mu)e_i$. Then it follows from Theorem \[3.3\] that the set $$\left\{(g-\xi^i)^{i_1}a^{j_1}(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))^{k_1}e_i
\left|\begin{array}{l}
0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1,\\
0\leqslant j_1, k_1\leqslant p-1,\\
1\leqslant i_1+j_1+k_1\\
\end{array}\right.\right\}$$ is a basis of $J$. From $g^{-1}bg=a+b$ and $ba=ab+\frac{1}{2}a^2$, one can easily check that $$\begin{array}{ll}
&(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))(g-\xi^i)^m\\
=&(g-\xi^i)^m(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))+m(g-\xi^i)^ma+m\xi^i(g-\xi^i)^{m-1}a\\
\end{array}$$ for all $m\geqslant 1$ and $$(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))a=a(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))+\frac{1}{2}a^2.$$ Put $$N={\rm span}\left\{(g-\xi^i)^{i_1}a^{j_1}(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))^{k_1}e_i, ae_i
\left|\begin{array}{l}0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1,\\
0\leqslant j_1, k_1\leqslant p-1,\\
2\leqslant i_1+j_1+k_1\\
\end{array}\right.\right\}.$$ Then from the first one of the above two equalities, one can see that $N\subseteq J^2$. Obviously, ${\rm dim}(J/N)=2$. By [@Aus95 Proposition III.1.14] and Lemma \[4.9\], we have ${\rm dim}(J/J^2)={\rm dim(Ext}(T_i, T_i))=2$. It follows that $J^2=N$. Now put $$M={\rm span}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
(g-\xi^i)^{i_1}a^{j_1}(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))^{k_1}e_i,\\
(g-\xi^i)ae_i, a^2e_i, a(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))e_i\\
\end{array}
\left|\begin{array}{l}0\leqslant i_1\leqslant p^s-1,\\
0\leqslant j_1, k_1\leqslant p-1,\\
3\leqslant i_1+j_1+k_1\\
\end{array}\right.\right\}.$$ Since $J^2=N$, $M\subseteq J^3$. Now from the two equalities given above and $ga=ag$, one can check that $M$ is a left ideal of $H(0,\mu)e_i$ and $J^2/M$ is a semisimple module over $H(0, \mu)e_i$. Hence $J^3\subseteq M$ and so $J^3=M$. Obviously, $$J^2/M={\rm span}\left\{\overline{(g-\xi^i)^2e_i}, \overline{ae_i},
\overline{(g-\xi^i)(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))e_i},
\overline{(b-\mu^{\frac{1}{p}}(1-\xi^i))^2e_i}\right\}$$ is 4-dimensional, where $\overline{x}=x+M$ in $J^2/M$ for any $x\in J^2$. Hence ${\rm dim}(J^2/J^3)=4$. Since $H(0,\mu)e_i$ is a local symmetric algebra, it follows from [@Erd90 Lemma III.4] that $H(0, \mu)e_i$ is of wild representation type.
Now we consider the case of $\lambda\neq 0$. We only consider the representation type of the block $H(1, \mu)e_0$. From Theorems \[3.4\] and \[3.9\], the trivial module $S_0$ is the unique simple module over the block $H(1, \mu)e_0$, and $H(1, \mu)e_0$ is a basic and local algebra. Furthermore, $H(1, \mu)e_0$ is a symmetric algebra by Lemma \[2.3\] and [@Erd90 Lemma I.3.3]. Then by setting $i=0$ in the proofs of Lemma \[4.9\] and Theorem \[4.10\], one can get the following Lemma \[4.11\] and Theorem \[4.12\]
\[4.11\] We have ${\rm dim(Ext}(S_0,S_0))=2$ over the block $H(1,\mu)e_0$.
\[4.12\] The block $H(1, \mu)e_0$ is of wild representation type.
For the case of $t>1$, we don’t know whether $H(1, \mu)e_i$ is of tame or wild representation type, where $1\leqslant i\leqslant t-1$.
Summarizing the above discussion, we have the following result.
\[4.13\] Assume $p>2$. Then $H(\lambda,\mu)$ is of wild representation type for any $\lambda, \mu\in k$. In particular, $\mathcal{B}(V)\# kG$ is of wild representation type.
**Acknowledgment** {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==================
This work is supported by NSF of China, No. 10771183, and supported by Doctorate foundation, No. 200811170001, Ministry of Education of China.
[99]{} Andruskiewitsch, N., Schneider, H. -J. (1998). Lifting of quantum linear spaces and pointed Hopf algebras of order $p^3$. [*J. Algebra*]{} 209:658-691.
Andruskiewitsch, N., Schneider, H. -J. (2002). Pointed Hopf algebras. New directions in Hopf algebras. Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. Vol. 43. pp. 1-68. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Andruskiewitsch, N., Fantino, F. (2008). New techniques for pointed Hopf algebras. Preprint, arXiv:0803.3486v2.
Auslander, M., Reiten, I., Smal[Ø]{}, S. (1995). [*Representations theory of Artin algebras*]{}. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Chen, H. X. (2000). Irreducible representations of a class of Quantum Doubles. [*J. Algebra*]{} 225:391-409.
Cibils, C., Lauve, A., Witherspoon, S. (2009). Hopf quivers and Nichos algebras in positive characteristic. [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} 137:4029-4041.
Dong, J. C., Chen, H. X. The representations of quantum double of dihedral groups. Algebra Colloqu., to appear.
Erdmann, K. (1990). Blocks of tame representation type and related algebras. Lecture notes in mathematics, 1428, Springer.
Iglesias, A. G. (2010). Representations of finite dimensional pointed Hopf algebras over $\mathbb{S}_3$. [*Rev. Un. Mat. Argentina*]{} 51:51-77.
Lorenz, M. (1997). Representations of finite-dimensional Hopf algebras. [*J. Algebra*]{} 188:476-505.
Montgomery, S. (1993). [*Hopf algebras and their actions on rings*]{}. CBMS series in Math. Vol. 82. Providence, RI: Amer. Math. Soc.
Oberst, U., Schneider, H.-J. (1973). Uber Untergruppen endlicher algebraischer gruppen. [*Manuscripta Math.*]{} 8:217-241.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'myrefs.bib'
---
**Cosmological fluctuations: Comparing Quantum and Classical Statistical and Stringy Effects**
[S. P. de Alwis$^{\dagger}$ ]{}
Physics Department, University of Colorado,\
Boulder, CO 80309 USA
**Abstract**
The theory of cosmological fluctuations assumes that the pre-inflationary state of the universe was the quantum vacuum of a scalar field(s) coupled to gravity. The observed cosmic microwave background fluctuations are then interpreted as quantum fluctuations. Here we consider alternate interpretations of the classic calculations of scalar and tensor power spectra by replacing the Bunch-Davies quantum vacuum with a classical statistical distribution, which may have been the consequence of a pre-inflationary process of decoherence as in the quantum cosmology literature. Mathematically they are essentially identical calculations. However if one takes the latter interpretation then one might replace the Planck length by for instance the fundamental length scale of string theory. In particular this changes the relation between the scale of inflation and the scalar power spectrum but leaves the parameter(s) characterizing the bi-spectrum unchanged at leading order. Differences will occur however at higher order in the loop expansion. We also discuss the relation to theories with low sound speed and/or a period of dissipation during inflation (warm inflation).
$^{\dagger}$ [email protected]
Introduction
============
The theory of cosmological fluctuations[^1] is considered to be one of the crowning achievements of theoretical cosmology. Given a model for inflationary cosmology this theory enables one to calculate the measured scalar and tensor fluctuation spectra. In particular the standard theory appears to tell us the absolute value of the scale of inflation. In fact if the value of the ratio of tensor to scalar power reported by BICEP2 [@Ade:2014xna] had held up to scrutiny [@Ade:2015tva], the theory would imply that we are effectively looking at energy scales as large as $10^{16}GeV$, a scale that is practically the same as the Grand Unification (GUT) scale of particle physics. The latter is only two orders of magnitude below the Planck scale - a scale at which quantum gravity effects are necessarily of order one.
However this particular conclusion of the theory depends crucially on the absolute normalization of the Fourier modes of the gravitational tensor and scalar field modes. This is fixed by assuming that the initial state of the universe just prior to inflation is the quantum vacuum of free quantum fields - essentially an infinite product of harmonic oscillator ground state wave functions, i.e. the so-called Bunch-Davies vacuum. This is in effect the same as assuming that the short wave length modes are picked from a particular Gaussian distribution which involves $\hbar$ explicitly (see section \[sec:Comparison-with-cosmological\])[^2]. Indeed this is the only occurrence of the quantum of action in the entire theory of Gaussian cosmological fluctuations. The starting point of our investigation is simply the observation that the standard calculation of power spectra bi-spectra etc., are completely equivalent mathematically to computing correlation functions in statistical mechanics with a Gaussian measure and then evolving them in time using classical Hamiltonian evolution rather than Heisenberg’s equations. In the following we will argue that this is as well motivated a assumption for the physics of the initial state of inflation as the standard one, if for example this distribution came about as the result of decoherence of some pre-inflationary quantum cosmological state or an initial quantum string state.
Quantum field theory or classical statistical mechanics.
---------------------------------------------------------
What is truly peculiar to quantum behavior is a) the quantization of energy $E=\hbar\omega$ and momentum $p=\hbar k$ for a wave of angular frequency $\omega$ and wave number $k$, b) the quantization of angular momentum - especially spin, c) long range correlations of EPR type signaling the entanglement of quantum states. These are properties that would be very hard if not impossible to reproduce by appealing to classical statistical distributions. None of these crucial properties of quantum behavior is however tested in the cosmological observations.
In view of this, one may ask whether there is a test at least of the relevance of $\hbar$ to the calculation. If we start from the interpretation of the initial configuration as a classical statistical distribution the factor of $\hbar$ may be replaced by some arbitrary factor with the same units. Consequently the relation between the power spectrum and the scale of inflation will involve an undetermined factor. This much of course should be rather obvious and is probably known to physicists who have thought about these issues. Then the question is whether there is some measurement in observation cosmology that can test (at least) for the occurrence of Planck’s constant in the data.
Moreover the possibility that the initial configuration is described by a statistical distribution determined for instance by string theory, has not been considered hitherto as far as we know. What is meant here is not the procedure that has been followed in works such as [@Martin:2000xs; @Niemeyer:2001qe; @Kaloper:2002uj; @Easther:2002xe; @Danielsson:2002kx], where the initial state is still regarded as a pure quantum mechanical state and the string theory effects are just viewed as corrections to the background. Instead we argue that, since the standard calculations of the inflaton fluctuations may actually be replaced by an initial configuration which is Gaussian distributed with the width of distribution governed by $\hbar$, one may consider replacing this by some other constant with the same dimensions. For instance if the initial distribution is the result of some pre-inflationary process of decoherence of some initial (possibly stringy) pure state, which may have been the quantum mechanical state of the multiverse, it is plausible that this initial distribution is determined by stringy effects. String theory (unlike quantum field theory) has a natural fundamental length scale $l_{s}$ which may be defined in terms of the Regge slope $\alpha'$ as $l_{s}^{2}=2\pi\alpha'$. Together with the gravitational coupling constant $\kappa^{2}$ we can then define (having set $c=1$) a fundamental unit of action $l_{s}^{2}/\kappa^{2}$. Note that this is a ratio of two classical constants. Thus if string theory is the fundamental theory of the universe, one might consider as an alternative to the usual assumption for the initial configuration, the possibility that it is a Gaussian distribution involving this unit of action[^3] rather than $\hbar$.
Quantum cosmology issues and string theory
------------------------------------------
In fact it seems unlikely that the standard argument for the initial state of the inflationary cosmology being the Bunch Davies vacuum is valid in the context of string theory. Within the context of a scalar field theory coupled to gravity, the analysis of quantized perturbations in the inflationary background is performed under the assumption that the pre-inflationary primordial state of the universe continues to be described by this theory - i.e. all the way back to the initial singularity at the scale factor $a=0$. An argument for the choice of this vacuum has been given in [@Maldacena:2002vr] using contour rotation in an imaginary time direction. This essentially corresponds to the choice of the Hartle-Hawking “no boundary” proposal for the wave function of the universe which vanishes at the origin $a=0$.
There are two issues that need to be considered in connection with this reasoning. Firstly, it appears that this wave function (in contrast to the so-called tunneling wave function), has very low probability for leading to inflationary dynamics (see for instance [@Calcagni:2015vja]). Secondly, and more importantly, if the fundamental theory that describes the universe is string theory, then this simple picture is unlikely to be the whole story particularly in the pre-inflationary stage. It is far more likely to have been some primordial stringy state, and the stage before inflation may have been one with a primordial distribution of the decay products of string and Kaluza-Klein states. Unfortunately in the absence of a solid theoretical construction of such an initial state, all we can do is to parametrize our ignorance with some simple ansatz. Here we choose to pick the initial state from a Gaussian statistical distribution. We note that choosing the width of the distribution to correspond to the free field theory one gives us the usual story, while choosing it to correspond to one that might plausibly arise from string theory, gives us different results which may then be compared to the usual ones.
If the physics of the initial universe is governed by string theory, then there is a further reason to think that the sort of conjecture described in the previous paragraph may be reasonable. This is because at low energies even at the classical level (i.e. zero string loop level), one expects higher derivative ($R^{2}$ etc.) terms in the effective action. These will lead to terms in the effective stress tensor that will be larger than those that come from quantum effects in quantum field theory. In fact as is well known (and discussed in detail below) semi-classical string theory has a double expansion - the $\alpha'$ expansion as well as the semi-classical string loop expansion. It is the latter which corresponds to the the standard calculations of QFT in curved backgrounds as discussed for instance in the classic text book by Birrell and Davies [@Birrell:1982ix]. The former is a purely stringy effect and is usually not considered in cosmological discussions. One of the aims of this paper is to discuss the consequences for the theory of cosmological fluctuations, of the leading terms in the classical string theory $\alpha'$ expansion assuming that this is related to the stringy modification of the initial state that we described earlier. These as we will see below, are actually larger than the terms which may be identified with the standard QFT calculation.
To summarize: if one starts with the pre inflationary state as the Bunch-Davies quantum vacuum one has to then explain how this led to the statistical distribution that one actually does observe. Indeed the process of decoherence may have actually happened before the inflationary stage set in, from a primordial state in quantum cosmology (a solution of the Wheeler deWitt equation) as discussed for instance in [@Barvinsky:1998cq] and the references therein[^4]. The starting point for the usual calculations are then the classical statistical distribution established by this process. But the process itself and indeed the original quantum state which then decohered to lead to the statistical distribution is irrelevant as far as observational cosmology is concerned. The present paper is thus a modest attempt to consider whether one can at least test the particular unit (i.e. $\hbar$) of action that goes into this distribution, for instance distinguishing it from a string theory derived unit.
Units
------
We work with units where the velocity of light $c=1$ (so that a unit of time is equivalent to a unit of length $T=L$) but do not set $\hbar=1$ so that we keep independent units of length $L$ and mass $M$. Also as usual we define $\kappa^{2}\equiv8\pi G$. Note that $[\hbar]=ML$ and $[\kappa^{2}]=M^{-1}L$ and the Planck length $l_{P}$ defined by $l_{P}^{2}=\kappa^{2}\hbar$ has units of length while the Planck mass $M_{P}$ defined by $M_{P}^{2}=\hbar/\kappa^{2}$ has dimensions of mass. In quantum field theory (for instance the standard model coupled to gravity treated semi-classically), the Planck length is a derived quantity and is usually regarded as a length scale that goes to zero in the classical limit $\hbar\rightarrow0$. In string theory on the other hand there is an independent fundamental length $l_{s}$ defined as the scale of the 2D sigma model[^5]. In particular the loop expansion of the gravitational constant will take the form $$\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa_{0}^{2}}+\frac{\hbar}{l_{s}^{2}}f(\frac{\kappa_{0}^{2}\hbar}{l_{s}^{2}})\label{eq:kappaexpansion}$$ where $\kappa$ is the physical (i.e. renormalized) gravitational constant $\kappa_{0}$ is the bare constant and $l_{s}$ may be naturally identified with the string scale in string theory but is an arbitrary short distance cutoff in QFT. In the rest of the paper the gravitational constant is taken to be the physical constant $\kappa$.
Note also that we use the mostly positive metric convention and the Ricci tensor is defined as $R_{jk}=R_{\,jik}^{i}$.
Inflationary fluctuations
=========================
Review
-------
Inflationary cosmology[^6] is usually formulated in terms of a theory of a scalar field coupled to gravity with the action, $$\begin{aligned}
S & = & \frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{g}R+S_{m},\label{eq:Sclassical}\\
S_{m} & = & -\int d^{4}x\sqrt{g}(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi+V(\phi)).\label{eq:Sm}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $[S]=ML,\,[g_{\mu\nu}]=L^{0}M^{0},\,[\phi]=M^{1/2}L^{-1/2}$.
The classical Einstein equation for this system is $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\mu\nu} & = & \kappa^{2}T_{\mu\nu},\label{eq:Eclassical}\\
T_{\mu\nu} & \equiv & -\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S_{m}}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}=\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}(\partial_{\lambda}\phi\partial^{\lambda}\phi+V(\phi)).\label{eq:Tclassical}\end{aligned}$$
Since the system is generally covariant the Einstein equation implies the conservation of the stress tensor and when there is only one scalar field it also implies the equation of motion $$\nabla^{2}\phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\partial_{\mu}\sqrt{g}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\nu}\phi=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial\phi}.\label{eq:phieofm}$$
For an FRW (homogeneous isotropic) background[^7] $g_{\mu\nu}={\rm diagonal}(-1,a^{2}(t)\delta_{ij}),\,i,j=1,2,3;\,\phi=\phi(t)$, we have two independent equations, $$\begin{aligned}
H^{2} & \equiv & \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2}=\frac{1}{3}\kappa^{2}(\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^{2}+V(\phi)),\label{eq:F1}\\
\dot{H} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\kappa^{2}\dot{\phi}^{2}.\label{eq:F2}\end{aligned}$$ Inflation requires a period of accelerated expansion which leads to the so-called slow roll conditions $$\epsilon\equiv-\frac{\dot{H}}{H^{2}}\ll1,\,\eta\equiv-\frac{\ddot{H}}{2H\dot{H}}\ll1.\label{eq:epsiloneta}$$ For the single inflaton case above this translates into conditions on the potential: $$\epsilon=\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\left(\frac{\partial_{\phi}V(\phi)}{V(\phi)}\right)^{2}\ll1,\eta=\frac{1}{\kappa^{2}}\left[\frac{\partial_{\phi\phi}V(\phi)}{V(\phi)}-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial_{\phi}V(\phi)}{V(\phi)}\right)^{2}\right].\label{eq:epsiloneta2}$$ To analyze fluctuations around this background one typically goes to conformal coordinates in which the background metric takes the form $ds^{2}=a^{2}(\tau)(-d\tau^{2}+\boldsymbol{dx}^{2})$ taking spatial curvature to be zero. The standard procedure is to impose canonical commutation relations on the scalar field after writing $\phi(\tau,\boldsymbol{x})=\phi(\tau)+\delta\phi(\tau,\boldsymbol{x})$ where the first term is the classical background field. So one expands $$\delta\phi(\tau,\boldsymbol{x})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int d^{3}k(\phi_{k}(\tau)b_{\boldsymbol{k}}e^{i\boldsymbol{k.x}}+h.c.)\label{eq:deltaphi}$$ Writing $\phi_{k}(\tau)=a^{-1}(\tau)u_{k}$ we have from (with $X'\equiv\frac{dX}{d\tau}$) in the slow roll approximation, $$u''_{k}+(k^{2}-\frac{a''}{a})u_{k}=0.\label{eq:ukeqn}$$ Now the standard argument is to identify the fluctuation spectrum of $\phi$, with the quantum fluctuations of an essentially free field in the vacuum state. Observing that for $k^{2}\gg\frac{a''}{a}$ one has in effect plane waves, and the physics is that of Minkowski space, so one can follow the standard procedure for flat space quantization.
The scalar field is taken to be canonically quantized i.e. $[\phi(\boldsymbol{x},\tau),\pi(\boldsymbol{y},\tau)]=i\hbar\delta^{3}(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y})$, with the other two commutators vanishing. If the solutions to are normalized with the usual Klein-Gordon norm (i.e. $u_{k}u^{*'}-u_{k}^{*}u'_{k}=i$) then the operators $b_{\boldsymbol{k}}$ satisfy the relations $$[b_{\boldsymbol{k}},b_{\boldsymbol{k'}}^{\dagger}]=\hbar\delta^{3}(\boldsymbol{k}-\boldsymbol{k'}),$$ with the other commutators vanishing. It is convenient to define now the scalar power spectrum although this is not what is physically relevant (i.e. related to the temperature fluctuations). This is defined as $$P(k,\tau)=\frac{\hbar k^{3}}{2\pi^{2}}|\phi_{k}(\tau)|^{2}\label{eq:Pphi}$$ in terms of which the autocorrelation function of the scalar field fluctuation (in a spatially translational invariant background) is $$<\phi(\tau,\boldsymbol{x})\phi(\tau,\boldsymbol{y})>=\int\frac{dk}{k}P(k)\frac{\sin k|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y}|}{k|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y}|}\label{eq:phiphi}$$ The power spectrum of the scalar curvature fluctuation which is related to the measured temperature fluctuation) is then given as (with $N$ being the number of e-foldings regarded as a function of $\phi$ with $dN=Hdt$) $$P_{{\cal R}}(k)=\left(\frac{\delta N}{\delta\phi}\right)^{2}P(k)=\frac{\kappa^{2}}{2}\frac{P(k)}{\epsilon}.\label{eq:PR}$$ Note that this is independent of the normalization of $\phi$ as it should be, since it is directly related to a measurable physical effect.
For short wave lengths $k\tau\gg1$ as in the above discussion the normalized solution (consistent with the Lorentz invariant plane wave solution for $\phi$) to is $ $$u_{k}=e^{ik\tau}/\sqrt{2k}$ and $$P(k,\tau)=\frac{\hbar}{4\pi^{2}}\frac{k^{2}}{a^{2}(\tau)}=\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}}\frac{\hbar}{\lambda_{{\rm physical}}^{2}(\tau)}.\label{eq:Pkshort}$$ For constant $\epsilon$ it is possible to find the exact solutions to and the solution that asymptotes to the Minkowski solution for short wave lengths is $$u_{k}(\tau)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{k}}\sqrt{-k\tau}H_{\nu}^{(1)}(-k\tau),\label{eq:usoln}$$ where $H_{\nu}^{(1)}$ is the Hankle function of the first kind and $$\nu=\frac{3-\epsilon}{2(1-\epsilon)}.$$ In the long wave length limit we have $$[P(k,\tau)]^{1/2}=\hbar^{1/2}2^{\nu-3/2}\frac{\Gamma(\nu)}{\Gamma(3/2)}(1-\epsilon)\frac{H}{2\pi}\left(\frac{k}{a(\tau)H(1-\epsilon)}\right){}^{\frac{3}{2}-\nu}.\label{eq:Pkexact}$$ For the exactly deSitter case ($\epsilon=0)$ $$P(k,\tau)=\hbar\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2}.\label{eq:PkdS}$$
There is a similar formula for the tensor power spectrum. Defining the tensor fluctuations around the FRW background as $$\delta g_{ij}\equiv a^{2}h_{ij}=a^{2}(h_{+}e_{ij}^{+}+h_{-}e_{ij}^{{\rm x}}),\,h_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{k})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int d^{3}xe^{i\boldsymbol{k}.\boldsymbol{x}}h_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}).\label{eq:hdefn}$$ Here $e_{ij}^{\lambda},\,\lambda=+,{\rm x}$ is the polarization 3-tensor satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
e_{ij}^{+} & = & e_{ji}^{{\rm x}},\,k^{i}e_{ij}^{\lambda}=0,\,e_{ii}=0,\,e_{ij}^{\lambda}(-\boldsymbol{k})=e_{ij}^{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{k})^{*}\label{eq:poltensor}\\
\sum_{\lambda}e_{ij}^{\lambda*}e_{ij}^{\lambda} & = & 4.\label{eq:polsum}\end{aligned}$$ From the Einstein action we then have in the Gaussian approximation the action for the tensor fluctuations $$\Delta S=\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int\sqrt{g_{(0)}}g_{(0)}^{\mu\nu}\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}h_{ij}\partial_{\nu}h_{ij}\label{eq:haction}$$ This is essentially a sum of four free scalar fields so that defining $v_{k}\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\kappa}a(\tau)h_{k}$ in analogy with (and the line below it) we have for the power spectrum in tensors, $$P_{T}(k)=\frac{k^{3}}{2\pi^{2}}\sum_{\lambda}|h_{\lambda k}|^{2}=8\kappa^{2}P(k)=8\hbar\kappa^{2}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2}\left(\frac{k}{aH}\right)^{-2\epsilon}.\label{eq:PT}$$ From and the above we have $$r\equiv\frac{P_{T}}{P_{{\cal R}}}|_{k=aH}=16\epsilon=-8n_{T}\label{eq:ratio}$$ where we’ve parametrized $P_{T}\propto k^{n_{T}}$.
Quantum effects in the stress tensor
------------------------------------
In this subsection it will convenient to use natural units $c=\hbar=1.$
The energy density gets a contribution from the inflaton quantum fluctuations: $$<0|T_{00}^{\phi}|0>=a^{-2}(\tau)<0|T_{\tau\tau}^{\phi}|0>=\frac{1}{2}a^{-2}\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}(|\phi'_{k}|^{2}+k^{2}|\phi_{k}|^{2})\label{eq:Ttau}$$ There is also a contribution from graviton fluctuations: $$<0|T_{00}^{h}|0>=8<0|T_{00}^{\phi}|0>.$$ The quantum energy density may be written as a sum of three terms in the different wave length regimes. $$<0|T_{00}|0>=\int_{k_{I}\gg\tau^{-1}}^{k_{UV}}\frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^{4}}{4\pi^{2}a^{4}(\tau)}+\int_{k_{IR}=aH}^{k_{I}}\frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^{2}}{a^{2}(\tau)}P(k)+\int_{0}^{k_{IR}=aH}\frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^{2}}{a^{2}(\tau)}P(k).\label{eq:Too}$$ The last term above just gives a contribution (assuming exact deSitter $\epsilon=0$ for simplicity) corresponding to the Gibbons-Hawking temperature: $$<T_{00}>_{IR}\equiv\frac{4\pi^{2}}{2}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{4}=2\pi^{2}T_{dS}^{4}\label{eq:TIR}$$ and is negligible compared to the classical energy during inflation $<T_{00}>_{IR}\ll3H^{2}M_{P}^{2}\simeq V(\phi)$ since we must necessarily have $H\ll M_{P}$ for the validity of the EFT.
The contribution in the deep UV however is as usual divergent. To evaluate it we impose a cutoff at some comoving scale $k_{UV}$ and evaluate the short distance contribution from $k^{2}\gg a^{''}/a$ by using the Minkowski (BD vacuum) modes $\phi_{k}=a^{-1}u_{k}=a^{-1}e^{ik\tau}/\sqrt{2k}$. $$<0|T_{00}^{\phi}|0>_{{\rm uv}}=\frac{1}{2a^{2}}\int^{k_{UV}}\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{2k^{2}}{2k}\sim\frac{k_{UV}^{4}}{16\pi^{2}a^{4}}=\frac{k_{UV}^{(phy)4}}{16\pi^{2}}\label{eq:Tuv}$$ This must necessarily be smaller than the classical potential energy density at the onset of inflation for the validity of inflationary cosmology[^8] so that $$k_{UV}^{4}<192\pi^{2}H^{2}M_{P}^{2}\label{eq:nonsusybound}$$
In a supersymmetric theory on the other hand this quartic divergence will be absent and (for SUSY broken at a gravitino mass scale $m_{3/2}$ we have instead of the relation $$k_{UV}^{2}<192\pi^{2}\frac{H^{2}}{m_{3/2}^{2}}M_{P}^{2}.\label{eq:susybound}$$
On the other hand at late times (i.e. after many e-folds of inflation), the UV contribution (assuming a fixed physical cutoff at the onset of inflation), will have been inflated away and only the last contribution in will survive. It is this that will be compared with the string theory contribution below.
String theory expansion
=======================
In this section we revert back to units in which $c=1$ but $\hbar$ is not set equal to unity.
In quantum field theory the perturbative expansion is an expansion in the number of loops with $\hbar$ serving as a loop counting parameter. The quantum effective (1PI) action has the expansion, $$\Gamma(g_{\mu\nu},\phi,\hbar)=\Gamma_{_{0}}+\hbar\Gamma_{1}+\hbar^{2}\Gamma_{2}+\ldots=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\hbar^{l}\Gamma_{l},\,\Gamma_{0}=S,\label{eq:GammaFT}$$ $S$ being the classical action.
In perturbative string theory [@Green:1987sp][@Polchinski:1998rq] each loop order is defined through the functional integral $Z=\int[dX]\exp\{-I\}$ over the embedding coordinates $X(\sigma)$ defining the world sheet in the ambient space, weighted by the sigma model (dimensionless) action $$I=\frac{1}{2\pi\alpha'}\int d^{2}\sigma\sqrt{\gamma}\gamma^{ab}\partial_{a}X^{\mu}\partial_{b}X^{\nu}g_{\mu\nu}(X)+\ldots..$$ The $l$th loop order is defined by the action on a Riemann surface of genus $l$ and $\alpha'$ is the squared string length so that $[\alpha']=L^{2}$. The loop counting parameter here is the string coupling $g_{s}$. Although there is no non-perturbative background independent formulation of string theory valid at arbitrarily high scales, one can still construct a low energy effective action.
However in order to get low energy four-dimensional physics we need to compactify string theory on an internal manifold. For the purpose of discussing inflation in four dimensions we assume that the volume of this manifold is fixed at a value ${\cal V}$ in string units (i.e. the physical volume is ${\cal V}(2\pi\sqrt{\alpha'})^{6}$). Then we have the following standard relations between the four dimensional gravitational coupling $\kappa$, Planck’s constant $\hbar$ and the string theory parameters - namely: $$\hbar\kappa^{2}\equiv l_{P}^{2}=\frac{2\pi\alpha'}{{\cal V}}g_{s}^{2}=\frac{l_{s}^{2}g_{s}^{2}}{{\cal V}}\label{eq:hbarg}$$ It is important to note that both $\kappa^{2}$ and $l_{s}^{2}\equiv2\pi\alpha'$ are classical parameters. So the semi-classical expansion in $\hbar$ is equivalent (in string theory) to the expansion in terms of the squared string coupling $g_{s}^{2}$. Of course the validity of this expansion requires that the dilaton has been stabilized such that $g_{s}^{2}<1$.
Now the long distance quantum effective action coming from string theory has a double expansion defined as follows. We have the (quantum) semi-classical expansion as before. i.e. we again have , but now the expansion is in terms of $g_{s}^{2}$ so we have $$\Gamma(g_{\mu\nu},\phi,g_{s})=\Gamma_{_{0}}+g_{s}^{2}\Gamma_{1}+g_{s}^{4}\Gamma_{2}+\ldots=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}g_{s}^{2l}\Gamma_{l}.\label{eq:GammaString}$$ Each term in this expansion is given at long distances (compared to the string scale $l_{s}$) as an expansion in powers of $l_{s}^{2}$. Thus we may write schematically (keeping only pure metric dependent terms at higher orders), $$\Gamma_{l}=\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{g}[\delta_{l0}(R+2\kappa^{2}{\cal L}_{m})+l_{s}^{2}(R)_{l}^{2}+l_{s}^{4}(R)_{l}^{3}+\ldots]\label{eq:Gammal}$$ In the above ${\cal L}_{m}$ is the classical matter lagrangian and the notation $(R)_{l}^{n}$ represents all possible contractions of curvatures and covariant derivatives to yield terms with $2n$ derivatives of the metric, with dimensionless loop order dependent coefficients (some of which may be zero), that are determined once the string theory data are given.
The gravitational equation of motion coming from $\partial\Gamma/\partial g_{\mu\nu}=0$, then takes the form (after moving all string/quantum corrections to the RHS of the equation), $$R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R=\kappa^{2}T_{\mu\nu}.\label{eq:Eeqn}$$ Here the RHS is the effective stress-energy tensor coming from the full quantum theory and is given by the double infinite series, $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa^{2}T_{\mu\nu} & = & \kappa^{2}<\hat{T}_{\mu\nu}>=\kappa^{2}T_{\mu\nu}^{(m)}+l_{s}^{2}(R^{2})_{\mu\nu}(c_{0}^{0}+c_{2}^{0}\frac{1}{{\cal V}^{2/3}}+c_{4}^{0}\frac{1}{{\cal V}}+\ldots)+O(l_{s}^{4})\,{\rm classical}\nonumber \\
& & +g_{s}^{2}[l_{s}^{2}(R^{2})_{\mu\nu}(c_{0}^{1}+c_{2}^{1}\frac{1}{{\cal V}^{2/3}}+c_{4}^{1}\frac{1}{{\cal V}}+\ldots)+O(g_{s}^{2}l_{s}^{4})]\,{\rm 1-loop}\label{eq:Tmunu}\\
& & +{\rm 2-loop}+\ldots.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The first line represents the classical contributions to the stress tensor including all classical string corrections. Note however that $c_{0}^{0}\ne0$ only for type I and Heterotic strings. For type II strings $c_{0}^{0}=0$ and the leading classical term is the $c_{2}^{0}$ term[^9]. The second line is the leading quantum correction $O(\hbar)$ and so on. The subscripts on the $c$’s is half the number of derivatives in the six compact space directions in the original 10D action, from which the corresponding 4D term is extracted. The powers of ${\cal V}$ come from the contractions in the internal directions which scale like $g^{ij}={\cal V}^{-1/3}\hat{g}^{ij}$ where $\hat{g}$ is a fiducial metric normalized such that the volume of the internal space is $(2\pi)^{6}\alpha'^{3}$. Correspondingly we expect the internal curvature in the hatted metric to be $O(l_{s}^{-2})$. The superscripts on the $c$’s give the loop order. In principle given a string theory and its compactification data these coefficients are determined.
Comparison with cosmological calculation\[sec:Comparison-with-cosmological\]
============================================================================
The standard expressions for the scalar and tensor curvature fluctuation are $$P_{{\cal R}}=\frac{\hbar\kappa^{2}}{2\epsilon}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2}=\frac{g_{s}^{2}l_{s}^{2}}{2\epsilon{\cal V}}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2},\,P_{T}=8\hbar\kappa^{2}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2}=8\frac{g_{s}^{2}l_{s}^{2}}{{\cal V}}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2},\label{eq:PRPT}$$ where in the second equalities in each of the above we have reexpressed $\hbar\kappa^{2}$ in terms of the string coupling and length scale using . The corresponding contribution to the stress tensor is given by (see ) $$\kappa^{2}<T_{00}>\sim2\pi^{2}\hbar\kappa^{2}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{4}=2\pi^{2}g_{s}^{2}\frac{l_{s}^{2}}{{\cal V}}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{4},\label{eq:Toneloop}$$ and can only come from the first term in the second line of and is therefore equivalent to a one-loop string effect. However as discussed in the previous subsection, string theory may also have somewhat larger contributions corresponding to some of the terms in the first (classical) line of as well the leading term in the second line. In fact the first term in the first line would be larger than by a factor ${\cal V}/g_{s}^{2}$ . However it should be emphasized that this term is present (i.e. $c_{0}^{0}\ne0$ in ) only for type I or Heterotic strings where the volume cannot be larger than about a factor of 20 so this is only a factor $\gtrsim10$. In type II strings on the other hand the volume could be much larger ${\cal V}>10^{3}$. In this case the leading classical term in is the $c_{2}^{0}$ term and gives a contribution which is a factor ${\cal V}^{1/3}/g_{s}^{2}\gg10$ larger than .
To understand where such a contribution might come from in the context of the usual arguments, we should revisit the assumptions for inflationary initial conditions.
Suppose that the initial value (at $\tau\rightarrow\tau_{0}\gg k^{-1}$ for all relevant comoving scales $k$) of the field $\phi$ is Gaussian distributed with a probability density $$p(\phi)d\phi={\rm lim}_{\tau\rightarrow\tau_{0}}\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{3}x\int d^{3}y\phi(\boldsymbol{x},\tau)K(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{y};\tau)\phi(\boldsymbol{y},\tau)\right]d\phi\equiv e^{-\frac{1}{2}\phi.K.\phi}d\phi.\label{eq:gaussprob}$$ All initial correlation functions are then given in terms of the two point function and are computed from the generating formula $$<e^{J.\phi}>\equiv e^{W[J]}=e^{W(0)}e^{\frac{1}{2}J.K^{-1}.J}.\label{eq:WJ}$$ Here $K^{-1}.K=\int d^{3}yK^{-1}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{y})K(\boldsymbol{y},\boldsymbol{z})=\delta^{3}((\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{z})$ and initial two point function is given by $$<\phi(\boldsymbol{x},-\infty)\phi(\boldsymbol{y},-\infty)>=K^{-1}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{y};-\infty).\label{eq:twopoint}$$ Now the crucial assumption of the theory of cosmological fluctuations is that the initial probability distribution is the same as that corresponding to a initial quantum mechanical state given by the free field (harmonic oscillator) vacuum. This corresponds to choosing (after setting $a(\tau=\tau_{0})=1$ for convenience) $$K=\frac{2{\cal E}}{\hbar}=\frac{1}{\hbar}\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}e^{i\boldsymbol{k.(x-y})}2k\label{eq:Kstandard}$$ Then we have from for the initial value of the two point function $ $ $$<\phi(\boldsymbol{x},\tau_{0})\phi(\boldsymbol{y},\tau_{0})>=\hbar\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{e^{i\boldsymbol{k.(x-y})}}{2k}=\hbar\int\frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^{3}}{2\pi^{2}}\frac{1}{2k}\frac{\sin k|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y}|}{k|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y}|}\label{eq:twopoinitial}$$ This in fact is the initial value of the standard calculation (see and ) which gives $$<\phi(\boldsymbol{x},\tau)\phi(\boldsymbol{y},\tau)>=\hbar\int\frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^{3}}{2\pi^{2}}|\phi_{k}(\tau)|^{2}\frac{\sin k|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y}|}{k|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y}|}$$ when the limit $\tau\rightarrow\tau_{0}$ is taken since $\phi_{k}(\tau)\rightarrow e^{-ik\tau}/\sqrt{2k}$ (recall that we set $a(\tau=\tau_{0})=1$). The point is that the dependence on $\hbar$ and hence the supposed quantum nature of the cosmological perturbations, just comes from the normalization derived from the assumption that the initial distribution of short wave length fluctuations is given by the product of quantum harmonic oscillator ground state wave functions.
It would be nice to have some criterion for actually testing this hypothesis. But in any case we should entertain also the possibility that the initial state of inflation is simply a classical statistical distribution given by . In fact using the probability distribution becomes (after using and averaging over the initial time $\tau_{0}$ (with $|k\tau_{0}|\gg1$) so as to get rid of the oscillatory pieces, $$p(\phi)d\phi=\exp\left(-\frac{1}{\hbar}\int d^{3}kb_{\boldsymbol{k}}b_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{*}\right)\prod_{\boldsymbol{q}}db_{\boldsymbol{q}}\prod_{\boldsymbol{p}}db_{\boldsymbol{p}}^{*}.\label{eq:probhbar}$$ The usual free quantum field theory calculation is thus completely equivalent to the above classical distribution which gives [^10] $$<b_{\boldsymbol{k}}b_{\boldsymbol{q}}^{*}>=\hbar\delta^{3}(\boldsymbol{k}-\boldsymbol{q}),\,<b_{\boldsymbol{k}}b_{\boldsymbol{q}}>=<b_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{*}b_{\boldsymbol{q}}^{*}>=0.\label{eq:bcorrhbar}$$ Here we will consider the consequences of assuming that the initial distribution is defined by replacing the quantum unit of action $\hbar$ in by some other unit of action ${\cal A}$. Now in classical physics there is no fundamental unit of action but in string theory one can define such a unit, $${\cal A}=\frac{l_{s}^{2}}{\kappa^{2}},\label{eq:stringactionunit}$$ where $l_{s}$ is the string scale defined after [^11]. In this case the initial probability distribution is given again by , but now with the kernel being given by $$K=\frac{2{\cal E}}{{\cal A}}=\frac{\kappa^{2}}{l_{s}^{2}}\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}e^{i\boldsymbol{k.(x-y})}2k\label{eq:Kstring}$$ corresponding to having the correlator $<b_{\boldsymbol{k}}b_{\boldsymbol{q}}^{*}>=\frac{l_{s}^{2}}{\kappa^{2}}\delta^{3}(\boldsymbol{k}-\boldsymbol{q})$. Equation (with ) is replaced by $$<\phi(\boldsymbol{x},\tau)\phi(\boldsymbol{y},\tau)>=\frac{l_{s}^{2}}{\kappa^{2}}\int\frac{dk}{k}\frac{k^{3}}{2\pi^{2}}|\phi_{k}(\tau)|^{2}\frac{\sin k|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y}|}{k|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{y}|}\label{eq:phiphinew}$$ and the scalar field power spectrum (for simplicity we take $\epsilon=0$) becomes, $$P(k)=\frac{l_{s}^{2}}{\kappa^{2}}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2}.$$ The physical power spectra for scalar curvature and tensor fluctuations is now, $$P_{{\cal R}}=\frac{l_{s}^{2}}{2\epsilon}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2},\,P_{T}=8l_{s}^{2}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2},\,r\equiv\frac{P_{T}}{P_{{\cal R}}}=16\epsilon.\label{eq:PRPT-het}$$ These power spectra are a factor ${\cal V}/g_{s}^{2}$ larger than the standard values quoted in . Correspondingly a given observed power spectrum will imply a lower scale of inflation (by a factor $g_{s}^{2}/{\cal V}$) compared to the standard result. Also this power spectrum corresponds to a contribution to the stress tensor at late times that is of the same order as the leading string correction in line one of .
Thus the initial conditions with $\hbar$ replaced by the unit of action seems to correspond to the situation that one might obtain in Heterotic and type I string theories where the coefficient $c_{0}^{0}\ne0$. On the other hand if the string theory is type II then this coefficient is zero and the leading term is $O(l{}_{s}^{2}/{\cal V}^{\frac{2}{3}})$. This would correspond to an initial distribution with a kernel whose normalization factor is given by ${\cal A}=\frac{l_{s}^{2}}{{\cal V}^{2/3}\kappa^{2}}$ rather than . In this case the power spectra become, $$P_{{\cal R}}=\frac{l_{s}^{2}}{2\epsilon{\cal V}^{2/3}}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2},\,P_{T}=8\frac{l_{s}^{2}}{{\cal V}^{2/3}}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2}.\label{eq:PRPT-IIB}$$
Going back to natural units $\hbar=1$ for simplicity, the bound on the cutoff becomes $$k_{UV}^{2}<192\pi^{2}\frac{l_{P}^{2}}{l_{s}^{2}}\frac{H^{2}}{m_{3/2}^{2}}M_{P}^{2},\label{eq:kuvhet}$$ for the Heterotic case (i.e. with ${\cal A}=l_{s}^{2}/l_{P}^{2}$), and $$k_{UV}^{2}<192\pi^{2}{\cal V}^{2/3}\frac{l_{P}^{2}}{l_{s}^{2}}\frac{H^{2}}{m_{3/2}^{2}}M_{P}^{2},\label{eq:kuvIIB}$$ for the IIB case with ${\cal A}=l_{s}^{2}/{\cal V}^{2/3}l_{P}^{2}$. In a string theory set up one expects the $k_{UV}=M_{KK}=M_{P}/{\cal V}^{2/3}$ giving the mild constraints $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal V} & > & \frac{1}{(192\pi^{2}g_{s}^{2})^{3}},\,\,\,{\rm Heterotic},\\
{\cal V} & > & \frac{1}{(192\pi^{2}g_{s}^{2})^{1/3}},\,\,{\rm IIB}.\end{aligned}$$ The modified scalar curvature and tensor power spectra imply corresponding contributions to the stress tensor from higher derivative terms. In particular they would imply the second term on the first line of . As discussed before these classical string contributions to the stress tensor would be larger than the quantum effects of the standard contribution, and from a string theory stand point perhaps justify the alternative initial state suggested in .
We also point out that the quantum corrections to the stress tensor at late times implied by the usual assumptions for the initial state, are consistent with the string theory arguments discussed above, only if the classical stringy corrections (the $c_{i}^{0}$ terms) in the expansion for the effective stress tensor are all absent. This is generically not the case in string theory though it is not inconceivable that there may be compactifications that have this property. Now one may ask why one should choose the precise formula as replacement for $\hbar$ in and hence in . Obviously any numerical multiple (say ${\cal A}\rightarrow\sigma{\cal A})$ will have the same dimensions and the relations will get multiplied by $\sigma$. This just reflects the fact that at the classical level there is no reason to prefer one value of the unit of action over another. However from a string theory point of view this ambiguity is fixed for a given compactified string theory. As we saw at the end of the last section even the order of magnitude of the normalization factor will change depending on the type of string theory that is being considered. In the classical $\alpha'$ expansion terms in the first line of , once a particular string theory and its compactification data are given, the coefficients of the curvature squared terms are determined. This in turn fixes the ambiguity in the value of $\sigma$.
Effective Field Theory of Inflation
===================================
As we’ve discussed above if the initial configuration is governed by a Gaussian fluctuation spectrum that is fixed in terms of say the string scale rather than the Planck scale there would be a significant difference in what the scale of inflation is for a given tensor to scalar ratio $r$. Thus from we have (we use natural units in this section), $$\begin{aligned}
H^{2} & = & 8\pi^{2}P_{{\cal R}}\epsilon M_{s}^{2}=8\pi^{2}P_{{\cal R}}\frac{r}{16}\frac{M_{P}^{2}}{{\cal V}},\,{\rm Heterotic/Type\,I}\\
H^{2} & = & 8\pi^{2}P_{{\cal R}}\epsilon M_{s}^{2}{\cal V}^{2/3}=8\pi^{2}P_{{\cal R}}\frac{r}{16}\frac{M_{P}^{2}}{{\cal V}^{1/3}},\,{\rm Type\,II}\end{aligned}$$ which implies that the scale of the inflationary potential is (using the approximate Friedman equation $H^{2}\simeq V/3M_{P}^{2}$ and the observed value $P_{{\cal R}}\simeq10^{-9}$), $$\begin{aligned}
V^{1/4} & = & (15r)^{1/4}\sqrt{\pi}10^{-2}\frac{M_{P}}{{\cal V}^{1/4}}\,{\rm Heterotic/Type\,I}\label{eq:potscale1}\\
V^{1/4} & = & (15r)^{1/4}\sqrt{\pi}10^{-2}\frac{M_{P}}{{\cal V}^{1/12}},\,{\rm Type\,II}\label{eq:potscale2}\end{aligned}$$ The standard result is $$V^{1/4}==(15r)^{1/4}\sqrt{\pi}10^{-2}M_{P}.\label{eq:potscale}$$ So if we replace the variance of the statistical distribution corresponding to the standard result in the manner discussed above, the scale of the potential can be significantly lower for large compactification volumes - at least in the heterotic case.
On the other hand in bottom up approaches to inflationary fluctuations it appears possible to have a small speed of sound that will also result in a significantly different relation between the scalar spectrum and the scale of inflation. We would like in the following to compare and contrast the two cases below. We will also discuss situations in which there are significant dissipative effects during inflation i. e. the “warm inflation” scenario.
Bottom up construction and observational consequences
-----------------------------------------------------
An effective field theory for inflationary perturbations has been developed in [@Cheung:2007st; @Cheung:2007sv]. This was constructed by using the symmetries of the theory around an approximately de Sitter background. The theory is first constructed in a unitary gauge where the time coordinate is chosen so that the fluctuations of the inflation $\delta\phi(x,t)=0$. Then the so-called Stueckelberg trick is used to restore time diffeomorphism invariance by introducing the Goldstone boson $\pi$ through the replacement $t\rightarrow t+\pi({\bf x},t)$, with the transformation $\pi({\bf x},t)\rightarrow\pi({\bf x},t)-\xi^{0}({\bf x},t)$ under temporal diffeomorphisms $t\rightarrow t+\xi^{0}({\bf x},t),\,{\bf x}\rightarrow{\bf x}$. This leads to the following effective Lagrangian density (for details see the above references): $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} & =\frac{1}{2}M_{P}^{2}R & +\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}\left(\dot{\pi}^{2}-\frac{1}{a^{2}}(\partial_{i}\pi)^{2}\right)+2M_{2}^{4}\left(\dot{\pi}^{2}+\dot{\pi}^{3}-\dot{\pi}\frac{1}{a^{2}}(\partial_{i}\pi)^{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{4}{3}M_{3}^{4}(\dot{\pi}^{3}+\ldots)\nonumber \\
& & +M_{4}^{4}(16\dot{\pi}^{4}+\ldots)+\ldots.\label{eq:BEFT}\end{aligned}$$ The ellipses within parenthesis represent terms with at least two spatial derivatives while the ellipses at the end are terms starting with $\dot{\pi}^{5}$. Note that this effective Lagrangian is expected to be valid [^12] in the energy range $E_{{\rm mix}}\ll E\ll\Lambda$ where typically $E_{mix}\sim\epsilon H$ is the mixing scale below which mixing with gravity cannot be ignored, and $\Lambda$ given by $$\Lambda^{4}=16\pi^{2}\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}\frac{c_{s}^{5}}{1-c_{s}^{2}},\label{eq:cutoff}$$ is the UV cutoff. This is determined by finding the scale at which the theory violates unitarity (or by calculating the scale at which the theory becomes strongly coupled). $c_{s}$ is the speed of sound - defined by $$2M_{2}^{4}\equiv(c_{s}^{-2}-1)\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}.\label{eq:sound}$$
The Power spectrum in such a theory is given by $$P_{{\cal R}}=\frac{l_{P}^{2}}{2\epsilon c_{s}}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2},\,P_{T}=8l_{P}^{2}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2}\,r\equiv\frac{P_{T}}{P_{{\cal R}}}=16\epsilon c_{s}.\label{eq:c_spower}$$ Let us note now that the magnitude of the scalar power spectrum $P_{{\cal R}}\sim10^{-9}$ and the requirement that the validity of the effective theory implies $H\ll\Lambda$ gives the lower bound [@Cheung:2007st] $$c_{s}\gg P_{{\cal R}}^{1/4}\sim0.003.\label{eq:csbound}$$ In a theory with a small $c_{s}$ close to the above lower bound, the scalar power spectrum computed with the usual quantum vacuum gives a relation between the scalar power spectrum and the scale of inflation which is similar to the expression that one gets with a theory in which $c_{s}\simeq1$ but the initial configuration is a statistical distribution governed by $l_{s}$ rather than $l_{P}$ (see eqn ). In fact if $c_{s}\simeq l_{P}^{2}/l_{s}^{2}$ the two expressions would be identical and for a given scale of inflation and $\epsilon$ will have identical power spectra. However contrary to eqn , in theories with low $c_{s}$ the tensor spectrum is unaltered. Thus the usual relation between the scale of inflation and $r$ will be unaltered from .
### Dissipative effects
Some authors [@Berera:1995ie; @Berera:2008ar][@LopezNacir:2011kk] have proposed a scenario (“warm inflation”) in which the inflaton field during the slow roll phase is coupled to another sector (a heat bath) to which it loses energy and the fluctuations are effectively due to classical thermal effects - the system has lost its memory of the BD quantum vacuum The dissipation is characterized by an energy scale $\gamma\gg H$ and a heat bath at a temperature $T\sim H$. The power spectrum is then $$P_{{\cal R}}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi\gamma H}T}{c_{s}^{2}H^{2}}\right)\frac{l_{P}^{2}}{2\epsilon c_{s}}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2}\equiv\alpha_{{\rm warm}}\frac{l_{P}^{2}}{2\epsilon c_{s}}\left(\frac{H}{2\pi}\right)^{2},$$ The first factor in parenthesis is that by which the power spectrum is enhanced over and above the result in the absence of dissipation. The tensor spectrum is unchanged.
Suppose now that we focus on a class of inflationary models such as the Starobinsky model and closely related (“Starobinsky like”) ones in which $r$ is (perhaps) unobservable small. In this case with $\epsilon\sim1/N^{2}$ where $N$ is the number of e-folds of inflationary expansion. Typically in the more realistic sy tring theoretic models such as fibre inflation [@Cicoli:2008gp], this is around 60 and $\epsilon\sim10^{-3}$. Small values of $c_{s}$ not that far from the lower bound above would then give a scale for the potential that could not be distinguished from with ${\cal V}\sim c_{s}^{-1}$. On the other hand even if $c_{s}\lesssim1$ but thermal effects are large (i.e. $\gamma\gg H$), then we will again get a situation that is similar to the one without such effects but with a modified initial configuration. In other words a low sound speed and or large thermal effects could not be distinguished from a initial statistical distribution (with $c_{s}\lesssim1$ and no dissipation during inflation) if only the scalar power spectrum is known.
Top down issues - identification of the cutoff.
-----------------------------------------------
While it is possible to find the scale at which a given EFT breaks down (as in the above discussion) here we would like to identify the physics above the cut off scale $\Lambda$. In principle this should enable us to identify the arbitrary parameters $M_{i}^{4}$ in the above EFT. Here we will assume that that the UV physics is described by string theory.
However in order to perform this matching one needs precise expressions coming from string theory for the higher order operators in the EFT. This may be possible in principle but in practice it is still a daunting task and of course is also subject to the choice of compactification data etc. Nevertheless the assumption that the UV theory is (compactified) string theory will as we shall give some useful constraints on the constants of the EFT. In effect what we will do is to discuss a toy model with higher dimension operators that may plausibly come from string theory. In other words we would like to compare the EFT of the previous subsection with an EFT that (up to the above caveats) may be identified with a string theoretic low energy action.
We consider a model of the form[^13] $$S=\frac{M_{P}^{2}}{2}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{g}(R+\ldots)+\int d^{4}x\sqrt{g}(P(X,\phi)+\ldots,\label{eq:RPaction}$$ with $X=-\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi$ and $P$ is taken to be an arbitrary smooth function of $X$ and the inflaton $\phi$ such that to leading order in an expansion in $X$, $P(X)\sim X+V(\phi)+O(X^{2})$. The first set of ellipses represent higher curvature terms and the second set involves higher (than first) derivatives of the fields, which in general will be present in a string theoretic model. In addition of course there will be other light fields (after integrating out string modes and KK modes), but we will assume that there is some string theoretic set up which results in single field inflation, and that all these complications are not relevant as far as comparison with the EFT of inflation is concerned.
In any case our focus is just on identifying the physical cut off that a string theoretic model would require. Ignoring these additional terms one gets the class of models studied in [@Garriga:1999vw][^14]. Our only point here is that the relevant scale of this theory should be identified with the KK (or string) scale of string theory if this sort of model is to make any sense at all. Comparing with the EFT studied in the previous section will lead us to identify the cut off and hence the sound speed and the other arbitrary parameters of that discussion.
The stress tensor of this theory is given by the perfect fluid form with the energy density $E=2XP,_{X}-P$ and pressure identified as $P$ and the speed of “sound” $c_{s}$ in the system is given by $$c_{s}^{2}=\frac{dP}{dE}=\frac{P,_{X}}{P,_{X}+2XP,_{XX}}.$$ The relevant equations of motion are $$\begin{aligned}
3M_{P}^{2}H^{2} & = & E\label{eq:kF1}\\
\dot{E}+3H(E+P) & = & 0\label{eq:kF2}\end{aligned}$$ The last can be replaced by the equivalent form $$2XP,_{X}=E+P=-2M_{P}^{2}\dot{H}=2\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}.\label{eq:kF3}$$ In the flat FRW metric we have the solution $X=X_{0}=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}_{0}^{2}$ with in particular $X_{0}P,_{X}|_{0}=\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}$. Suppose the scale of the theory is $\Lambda$. This is to be identified with the mass of the lowest mass state (lowest KK/string state) that has been integrated out. Thus we will write $$x=\frac{X}{\Lambda^{4}},\,\hat{\phi}=\frac{\phi}{\Lambda},\,P=\Lambda^{4}\bar{P}(x,\hat{\phi})\label{eq:scaled-X}$$
Introducing a fluctuation $\delta x$ around a background homogeneous solution of the equations of motion $\hat{\phi}_{0}=\phi_{0}/\Lambda,\,x_{0}=X_{0}/\Lambda,$ we $$x=x_{0}(t)+2x_{0}(t)(\dot{\pi}+X_{\pi}),\,\pi\equiv\delta\phi/\dot{\phi}_{0},\,X_{\pi}\equiv\frac{\dot{\pi}^{2}}{2}-a^{-2}\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{i}\pi)^{2}\label{eq:pifluctuation}$$ may write the Taylor expansion around $x_{0}$ in a power series in $\delta x$, after rearranging in terms powers of $\partial\pi$ (and rewriting $\bar{P}\rightarrow P$ for convenience), $$\begin{aligned}
P(x) & = & P(x_{0})+2x_{0}P'(x_{0})\dot{\pi}+2x_{0}P'(x_{0})\left(X_{\pi}+\frac{2x_{0}P''(x_{0})}{P'(x_{0})}\frac{\dot{\pi}^{2}}{2}\right)\\
& & +\frac{(2x_{0}P'(x_{0}))^{2}}{2}\frac{P''(x_{0})}{(P'(x_{0}))^{2}}2\dot{\pi}X_{\pi}+\frac{1}{3!}(2x_{0}P'(x_{0}))^{3}\frac{P'''(x_{0})}{P'(x_{0})^{3}}(\dot{\pi}^{3}+\ldots)\\
& & +\frac{1}{4!}(2x_{0}P'(x_{0}))^{4}\frac{P^{(4)}(x_{0})}{(P'(x_{0}))^{4}}(\dot{\pi}^{4}+\ldots)+\ldots.\end{aligned}$$ The ellipses represent in addition to quintic and higher powers in $\partial\pi$ also terms with at least one non-derivative factor $\pi$ as well as terms with more than one derivative acting on $\pi$, which for the purpose of comparison with we ignore. Using to put $$x_{0}P'(x_{0})=\frac{\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}}{\Lambda^{4}}\equiv\lambda,\,2\lambda\frac{P''(x_{0})}{P'^{2}(x_{0})}=c_{s}^{-2}-1,\label{eq:lambdacs}$$ gives us the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
P(x) & = & P(x_{0})+2\lambda\dot{\pi}+2\lambda\left(c_{s}^{-2}\frac{\dot{\pi}^{2}}{2}-\frac{1}{2}a^{-2}(\partial_{i}\pi)^{2}\right)\nonumber \\
& & +2\lambda(c_{s}^{-2}-1)\dot{\pi}X_{\pi}+\frac{4}{3}\lambda^{3}\frac{P'''(x_{0})}{(P'(x_{0}))^{3}}(\dot{\pi}^{3}+3\dot{\pi}^{2}X_{\pi}+\ldots)\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{2}{3}\lambda^{4}\frac{P^{(4)}(x_{0})}{(P'(x_{0}))^{4}}(\dot{\pi}^{4}+\ldots)+\ldots.\label{eq:TEFT}\end{aligned}$$ Comparing with we identify $$\begin{aligned}
M_{2}^{4} & = & (c_{s}^{-2}-1)\frac{1}{2}\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}=\lambda\Lambda^{4}\frac{P_{0}^{''}}{(P'_{0})^{2}}=\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}\frac{P_{0}^{''}}{(P'_{0})^{2}}\label{eq:M2}\\
M_{3}^{4} & = & -\lambda^{2}\Lambda^{4}\frac{P_{0}'''}{(P_{0}')^{3}}=\lambda\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}\frac{P_{0}'''}{(P_{0}')^{3}},\,M_{4}^{4}=\lambda^{2}\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}\frac{P_{0}^{(4)}}{(P'_{0})^{4}},\ldots\label{eq:M3M4}\end{aligned}$$ Note that implies that a very small speed of sound ($c_{s}\ll1$) requires an anomalously large ratio $\frac{P_{0}^{''}}{(P'_{0})^{2}}\gg1$. For the above expansion to make sense the parameter $\lambda$ must be small and the generic ratio$P_{0}^{(n)}/(P_{0}^{'})^{n}$ should not be anomalously large or small. These numbers are expected to be $O(1)$. Of course this does not preclude one or more coefficients being anomalously large of small. However from a microscopic point of view such an anomalous coefficient needs to be justified!
Now we can identify the cutoff $\Lambda$ - the scale at which that EFT violates unitarity with the top down scale of our string theoretic model. This gives $\lambda^{-1}=16\pi^{2}\frac{c_{s}^{5}}{1-c_{s}^{2}}$. The requirement $\lambda<1$ then leads to the lower limit on the sound speed, $c_{s}>0.3$6.
As we saw at the end of the previous subsection, purely from the low energy EFT point of view (see eqn ) one can have extremely small values of $c_{s}$ provided the validity of the theory is lowered correspondingly, and conversely if one takes $c_{s}$ arbitrarily close to one, the cutoff can be taken arbitrarily large. However as we have seen, from the top down point of view, the cutoff cannot be made smaller than $\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}$ without violating the expansion in powers of $\partial\pi$ on which the EFT is based. From the top down point of view the arbitrary coefficients $M_{n}^{4}$ in the EFT of the previous subsection must generically become systematically smaller - even if some of them may be anomalously large.
Furthermore in a complete 4D EFT description (including the reheating phase) the energy density in inflation (i.e. the height of the potential) must be restricted by the UV scale - i.e. the lowest scale of the UV theory that has been integrated out. This is because most of this energy density will get converted to kinetic energy at the end of inflation, and the latter is necessarily bounded by for example the KK scale in string theory. So we need to have also $M_{P}^{2}H^{2}\lesssim\Lambda^{4}$. This then gives from a stronger bound on $c_{s}$ namely $$c_{s}^{5}\gg\frac{1-c_{s}^{2}}{16\pi^{2}\epsilon}\simeq\frac{1}{16\pi^{2}\epsilon},$$ where the last relation is valid for small $c_{s}$.
Of course there may be special cases where due to some symmetry there is a relation between the coefficients $P_{0}^{(r)}$. The only known example of this is DBI inflation . This corresponds (in our notation with $\bar{P}\rightarrow P$) to having $P=f^{-1}(\hat{\phi})\sqrt{1-f(\hat{\phi})x)},$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
x_{0}P_{0}^{'} & = & \frac{1}{2}x_{0}(1-fx_{0})^{-1/2}=\lambda\label{eq:DBI1}\\
M_{2}^{4} & = & -\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}\frac{1}{2}(c_{s}^{-2}-1)=-\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}\frac{f}{\sqrt{1-fx_{0}}}\label{eq:DBI2}\\
M_{n}^{4} & = & (-1)^{n-1}\lambda^{n-2}\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}\left(\frac{c_{s}^{-2}-1}{2}\right)^{n-1}\label{eq:DBI3}\end{aligned}$$ Again for the expansions to be valid clearly $c_{s}^{-2}-1\ll\lambda^{-1}$ and we can have small sound speed $1\gg c_{s}\gg\sqrt{\lambda}$. Of course in this case one is supposed to have an exact expression for the infinite sum. The former can be valid for arbitrarily small $c_{s}$ the only restriction being $fx_{0}=\lambda(c_{s}^{-2}-1)/(1+\lambda(c_{s}^{-2}-1))<1$ which translates to $c_{s}<1$. Clearly this is a very special situation.
### General expectations for EFT coefficients
Abstracting from the above discussion, we expect in an effective field theory of single field inflation where the cutoff is set by some UV complete theory such as string theory, the following form for the Lagrangian. $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} & & =\frac{1}{2}M_{P}^{2}R+\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}\times\nonumber \\
& & \left[\left(\dot{\pi}^{2}-\frac{1}{a^{2}}(\partial_{i}\pi)^{2}\right)-(c_{s}^{-2}-1)\left(\dot{\pi}^{2}+\dot{\pi}^{3}-\dot{\pi}\frac{1}{a^{2}}(\partial_{i}\pi)^{2}\right)+\sum_{n=3}^{\infty}a_{n}\lambda^{n-2}(\dot{\pi}^{n}+n\dot{\pi}^{n-1}X_{\pi}+\ldots)\right]\nonumber \\
& & +\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}(\sum_{n=3}b_{n}\lambda^{n-2}H\pi(\partial\pi)^{n-1}+\ldots).\label{eq:GEFT}\end{aligned}$$ The last line represents terms with at least one non-derivative factor. Note that for a given order in the derivative expansion the terms with non-derivative factors are suppressed by at least one power of the slow roll parameter - i.e. $b_{n}\sim O(\epsilon)$. The main point of the above however is that unlike what emerges from a purely bottom up discussion [^15] the top-down approach tells us that the higher point functions in the interaction are generically suppressed systematically by powers of $\lambda$. Thus unless one or more of the coefficients $a_{n}$ is unnaturally large, one would not expect for instance the four point function (governed by $M_{4}^{4}$) to be large if, as is the case observationally, the three point function is small. In the absence of some argument in the microscopic theory for $a_{4}$ to be large, one should not assume it to be the case.
What this means is that the observational constraints on the three point function will imply that the four and higher point functions will be smaller by powers of $\lambda$ compared to the three point function. In the next section we will compare the results for higher point point functions when initial conditions are changed as was discussed in previous sections in this paper, and compare it to what is expected from the standard initial conditions applied to situations with very small speed of sound and or significant dissipation effects during inflation.
Higher point functions and quantum vs classical evolution
=========================================================
As discussed above (and shown in more detail in Appendix I) the only thing “quantum” about the usual calculation is the use of the unit of action $\hbar$ in the normalization of the two point function. Now we will address the question of whether the replacement of Planck’s unit of action by some other unit ${\cal A}$ will give rise to observable consequences - for instance in the Bispectrum, Trispectrum or higher point functions (for a review see [@Chen:2010xka]). As discussed in detail in the appendix the only possible occurrence of the unit of action is in the expression for the Wick contraction (the two point function).
The expectation value of the observable $A(t)$, a product of field operators at the time t, is given by evaluating $$<\hat{A}(t)>=\int\Pi db_{\boldsymbol{k}}db_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{*}e^{-\frac{1}{\hbar}\int b_{\boldsymbol{q}}b_{\boldsymbol{q}}^{*}d^{3}q}A[b,b^{*};t],\label{eq:bb*integral}$$ where as discussed in the Appendix the factor $A[b,b^{*};t]$ which is usually evaluated using quantum operator equations of motion, can be equally well evaluated (in terms of its initial value) by using the classical evolution equation or. This evolution does not give rise to any factors of $\hbar$. All such factors come from the correlators $$<b_{\boldsymbol{k}}b_{\boldsymbol{q}}^{*}>=\hbar\delta^{3}(\boldsymbol{k}-\boldsymbol{q}).\label{eq:bbstar}$$ Let us now use the notation explained in the Appendix where we write $z^{i}$ for a field (for $i=1,\ldots,n$) or its conjugate variable (for $i=n+1,\ldots,2n$). The interaction Hamiltonian (in the interaction picture) is then at least cubic in the interaction picture fields $z_{I}^{i}$ which obey free field equations of motion and can be expressed in terms of the classical solution to the free field equations and the $b_{\boldsymbol{k}}$’s. Suppose that we wish to compute for an n-point function at equal times, $A=A_{n}$. Consider the $N$th term of the expression for $A_{n}[b,b^{*}]$ in equation of Appendix I, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt_{1}\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{1}}\ldots\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{N-1}}dt_{N} & [H_{I}^{V}(z_{I}(t_{N}),t_{N}),[H^{V}(z_{I}(t_{N-1}),t_{N-1})[\ldots[H_{I}^{V}(z_{I}(t_{1}),t_{1}),A_{n,I}(t)],\ldots]]\\
& \sim A_{n+N,I}+\ldots,\end{aligned}$$ since each commutator removes one factor of $z_{I}$ from $A_{n}$ and one factor from $H_{I}$ and adds two factors of $z$. $H_{I}$ in general has higher than third order terms in $z$ and the ellipses represent terms which have more factors of $z$. However as we discussed in detail in the previous section these are suppressed by powers of $\lambda\equiv\epsilon M_{P}^{2}H^{2}/\Lambda^{4}$ where $\Lambda$ is the UV cutoff which in string theory is the KK scale (if not the string scale). So let us ignore them, although of course in evaluating the higher point functions they will be needed since they could become competitive with loop terms involving lower order interactions. Then for $n=2r+1,$ the only non-vanishing terms have $N$ odd. Writing $N=2M+1$, the factor of $\hbar$ coming from evaluating the integral on the RHS of is $\hbar^{(n+N)/2}=\hbar^{r+M+1}$. Similarly for $n=2s$ the non-vanishing terms are proportional to $\hbar^{s+P}$ where $N=2P$. Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
<\hat{A}_{2r+1}(t) & \sim & \hbar^{r+1}(a_{r1}+a_{r2}\hbar+\ldots+a_{rM}\hbar^{M}+\ldots)\label{eq:Ahatodd}\\
<\hat{A}_{2s}(t)> & \sim & \hbar^{s}(b_{s0}+b_{s1}\hbar+\ldots+b_{sP}\hbar^{P}+\ldots)\label{eq:Ahateven}\end{aligned}$$ Note that for connected correlation functions some of the leading terms above are absent. For instance the connected four point function has the expansion $$<\hat{A}_{4}(t)>_{c}\sim\hbar^{2}(b_{21}\hbar+b_{22}\hbar^{2}+\ldots)$$ provided of course the $z^{4}$ term in $H_{I}$ is suppressed. On the other hand the quartic term in $H_{I}$ may need to be retained if though suppressed relative to the cubic term, it is competitive with the one-loop ($b_{21}$) term. Also the two point function and hence the power spectrum has the expansion,
$$P\sim\hbar(b_{10}+b_{11}\hbar+\ldots).$$ In particular this implies that $$\begin{aligned}
f_{NL}\sim\frac{<\hat{A}_{3}(t)>}{P^{2}(t)} & \sim & a'_{11}+\hbar a'_{12}+O(\hbar^{2})\label{eq:A3P2}\\
g_{NL}\sim\frac{<\hat{A}_{4}>_{c}}{P^{3}(t)} & \sim & b'_{21}+\hbar b_{22}^{'}+O(\hbar^{2})\label{eq:A4P2}\end{aligned}$$ Let us now replace the “quantum distribution” (i.e. effectively the classical distribution that is equivalent to the standard Bunch-Davies vacuum distribution), by some classical distribution i.e. $\hbar\rightarrow{\cal A}$ ($=l_{s}^{2}/\kappa^{2}$for instance) as discussed earlier. What we see from the above is that while the leading (tree level) terms are unaffected, the higher order (loop) effects are changed by factors of ${\cal A}/\hbar$ which in the case of ${\cal A}=l_{s}^{2}/\kappa^{2}$ can be quite large for large volume string compactifications. Thus in principle at least a classical distribution with a significantly different unit of action (such as that coming from classical string theory) can be distinguished from the “quantum” one with the unit of action $\hbar$. However as we’ve argued, this by itself does not test uniquely quantum features of quantum mechanics (as opposed to classical distributions governed by the same unit of action).
The above situation should be contrasted with that obtained with the usual initial conditions but with $c_{s}\ll1$ and/or significant dissipation during inflation $\gamma\gg H$. In this case it has been estimated that [@LopezNacir:2011kk] $$f_{NL}\equiv\frac{<\hat{A}_{3}(t)>}{P^{2}(t)}\sim\frac{\gamma}{c_{s}^{2}H}\gg1.\label{eq:fNLwarm}$$ The current observational constraints on non-Gaussianities implies that $|f_{NL}|\lesssim O(10)$. Thus very low sound speed and significant dissipation appears to be ruled out. On the other hand replacing an initial Gaussian distribution governed by $l_{P}$ by one that is governed by $l_{s}$ (with $c_{s}\lesssim1,\,\gamma\lesssim H)$ will not change the leading order contribution to $ $the bi- or the tri-spectrum.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have argued that the usual quantum field theory calculation of comological correlation functions is competely equivalent to calculating these functions using a Gaussian statistical distribution governed by the kernel . This may have been the result of a stage prior to the onset of inflation such a state of quantum (stringy) cosmology but knowledge of that is not relevant to the mathematics of the derivation of inflationary fluctuations. We have then explored the consequences of replacing $\hbar$ in the initial statistical distribution by some other unit of action ${\cal A}$. In particular we discussed the consequences of identifying ${\cal A}$ with a natural unit of action coming from string theory and involving only classical (but string theoretic) parameters. We noted how this could be consistent with the usual double expansion of low energy string theory - namely the $\alpha'$ expansion and the string loop expansion. One consequence of this replacement is to change the relationship between the power spectra and the height of the inflaton potential. We then discussed in some detail alternative scenarios in which such a difference would occur - namely situations with low speed of sound and/or a phase of warm inflation. These were shown to be clearly different from the type of change in the initial configuration that we have discussed here.
We also noted that the difference between the standard prescription for calculating the higher point functions and any other distribution that is significantly different (i.e. with ${\cal A}/\hbar$ either $\ll1$ or $\gg1$ as in the classical string theory case), will emerge at higher orders in the loop corrections. The point is that what is being tested in observations of the power spectrum and higher point spectra, is a statistical distribution of decohered trajectories. In other words there is no need at all to think of the initial state for inflation as a pure quantum mechanical state. The entire discussion of “quantum fluctuations” can be rephrased in terms of a decohered initial state with a certain statistical weight. Whether or not that weight corresponds to that arising from a pre-inflationary quantum state of a simple QFT (which decohered before the onset of inflation), rather than some distribution which is of stringy origin, cannot be definitively established with current (or foreseeable future) measurements. However distributions with values of ${\cal A}$ that are significantly larger than $\hbar$ (such as one that may arise from a large volume compactification of string theory), may possibly be ruled out by future observations of non-Gaussianity.
Acknowledgments
===============
I wish to thank Oliver DeWolfe, Salman Habib, Shamit Kachru, Fernando Quevedo for discussions and especially Ramy Brustein, and Will Kinney for discussions and comments on the manuscript and David Oaknin for comments on the manuscript. Special thanks are also due to Paolo Creminelli for comments on a previous version of this paper which led me to include a discussion of higher point functions. Finally I wish to thank the Abdus Salam ICTP for hospitality during the inception of this project. This research was partially supported by the United States Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-91-ER-40672.
Appendix 1 Quantum and Classical Hamiltonian evolution {#appendix-1-quantum-and-classical-hamiltonian-evolution .unnumbered}
======================================================
Let us write the canonical dynamical variables $q^{i},p_{i},\,i=1,\ldots,n$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{z}^{i}(t) & = & \hat{q}^{i},\,i=1,\ldots,n\\
& = & \hat{p}_{i-n},\,i=n+1,\ldots,2n.\end{aligned}$$ Here we’ve used hats to denote quantum operators satisfying the canonical equal time commutation relations which in this notation read $$[\hat{z}^{i}(t),\hat{z}^{j}(t)]=i\hbar J^{ij},\label{eq:CCR}$$ where $$\boldsymbol{J}=\begin{bmatrix}\boldsymbol{0} & \boldsymbol{I}\\
-\boldsymbol{I} & \boldsymbol{0}
\end{bmatrix}$$ is the symplectic metric. The Heisenberg equations of motion are $$\frac{d\hat{z}^{i}(t)}{dt}=\frac{i}{\hbar}[H(\hat{z}(t),t),\hat{z}^{i}(t)].\label{eq:Heieqn}$$ It is easily checked that the formal solution to this equation is $$\hat{z}^{i}(t)=\hat{U}^{-1}(t,t_{0})\hat{z}^{i}(0)\hat{U}(t,t_{0}),\label{eq:hatzt}$$ where $$\hat{U}(t,t_{o})=T\exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H(\hat{z}_{0},t')dt'\right)\label{eq:Uhat}$$ with $T$ denoting time ordering. It is important to note that the $\hat{z}$ in the Hamiltonian in this expression is evaluated at the initial time $t_{0}$ ($\hat{z}_{0}\equiv\hat{z}(0)$. This is of course only relevant because the Hamiltonians that we deal with have explicit time-dependence. For any dynamical variable $\hat{A}(t)$ that is defined as a product of the canonical variables (with some specified ordering if it involves both $q's$ and $p's$) there are two alternate forms (see Weinberg [@Weinberg:2005vy]) for the solution , $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}(t) & = & \bar{T}e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H(\hat{z}_{0},t')dt'}\hat{A}(t_{0})Te^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H(\hat{z}_{0},t')dt'}\label{eq:orderedAHeis}\\
& = & \sum_{N-0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\right)^{N}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt_{1}\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{1}}\ldots\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{N-1}}dt_{N}\nonumber \\
& & [H(\hat{z}_{0},t_{N}),[H(\hat{z}_{0},t_{N-1})[\ldots[H(\hat{z}_{0},t_{1}),\hat{A}(t_{0})],\ldots]].\label{eq:commutAhatHeis}\end{aligned}$$ Now let us separate the Hamiltonian into a quadratic (“free”) part $H_{0}(t)$ and and an interaction part $H_{1}(t)$. The evolution operator corresponding to the free Hamiltonian is $$\hat{U}_{0}(t,t_{0})=T\exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H_{0}(\hat{z}_{0},t')dt'\right).$$ The interaction picture operators are defined by $$\hat{z}_{I}(t)=\hat{U}_{0}^{-1}(t,t_{0})\hat{z}_{0}\hat{U}_{0}(t,t_{0})\label{eq:zhatI}$$ and the corresponding evolution operator defined by $\hat{U}_{I}\equiv\hat{U}_{0}^{-1}(t,t_{0})\hat{U}(t,t_{0})$ satisfies the equation of motion, $$i\hbar\frac{d\hat{U}_{I}}{dt}=H_{1}(\hat{z}_{I}(t),t)\hat{U_{I}}\equiv\hat{H}_{I}(t)\hat{U}_{I}.$$ This has the formal solution $$\hat{U}_{I}(t,t_{0})=T\exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H_{I}(\hat{z}_{I}(t'),t')dt'\right)\label{eq:UI}$$ and are replaced by (see for example [@Weinberg:2005vy]), $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}(t) & = & \bar{T}e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H_{I}(\hat{z}_{I}(t'),t')dt'}\hat{A}_{I}(t)Te^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H_{I}(\hat{z}_{I}(t'),t')dt'}\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{N-0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\right)^{N}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt_{1}\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{1}}\ldots\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{N-1}}dt_{N}\label{eq:orderedAI}\\
& & [H_{I}(\hat{z}_{I}(t_{N}),t_{N}),[H(\hat{z}_{I}(t_{N-1}),t_{N-1})[\ldots[H_{I}(\hat{z}_{I}(t_{1}),t_{1}),\hat{A}_{I}(t)],\ldots]].\label{eq:commutAI}\end{aligned}$$ In the first equation above $T$ is time ordering while $\bar{T}$ is anti-time ordering. All this (except perhaps the second form of the expressions for $\hat{A}$) is quite familiar. What may not be so well known is that there is an exact classical analog of all these equations.
The classical variables $z^{i}$ satisfy the Poisson bracket relations $$\{z^{i}(t),z^{j}(t)\}\equiv J^{ik}\frac{\partial z^{j}}{\partial z^{k}}=J^{ij}.\label{eq:zPB}$$ Hamilton’s equation of motion may then be written as, $$\dot{z}^{i}(t)=\{z^{i}(t),H(z(t),t)\}=J^{ij}\partial_{j}H(z(t),t)=\partial^{i}H(z(t),t),\label{eq:Hameqn}$$ where we’ve defined $\partial^{i}\equiv J^{ij}\partial_{i},\,\partial_{i}\equiv\partial/\partial z^{i}$. This equation can be rewritten in the form of a commutator by introducing the Hamiltonian vector field $H^{V}(z(t),t)\equiv\partial^{i}H(z(t),t)\partial_{i}$: $$\dot{z}^{i}(t)=[H^{V}(z(t),t),z^{i}(t)]\label{eq:HVeqn}$$ The solution to this equation is exactly the same as , except that there are no factors of $i/\hbar$ and the operator Hamiltonian is replaced by the vector field. In other words $$\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat{H}\rightarrow H^{V},\label{eq:HhatHV}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A(t) & = & \bar{T}e^{\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H^{V}(z_{0},t')dt'}A(t_{0})Te^{-\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H^{V}(z_{0},t')dt'}\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{N-0}^{\infty}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt_{1}\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{1}}\ldots\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{N-1}}dt_{N}\nonumber \\
& & [H^{V}(z_{0},t_{N}),[H^{V}(z_{0},t_{N-1})[\ldots[H^{V}(z_{0},t_{1}),A(t_{0})],\ldots]].\label{eq:commutAclass}\end{aligned}$$ Of course all we’ve done here is to reverse the procedure of Dirac who replaced the Poisson brackets of classical mechanics by $-\frac{i}{\hbar}$ times the commutator of the quantum operators. The point of the exercise is simply to show that the evolution of a quantum operator represented as an infinite series in terms of commutators, has an exact analog in the classical theory. In fact up to operator ordering ambiguities the relation between $\hat{A}(t)$ and $\hat{A}(0)$ is exactly the same as that between their classical versions $A(t)$ and $A(0)$. This is easily seen by comparing and . Any commutator term in the first of these is of the form $$\frac{i}{\hbar}[H(\hat{z}_{0},t'),\hat{z}_{0}^{j}]=\frac{\partial\hat{H}(\hat{z}_{0},t')}{\partial\hat{z}_{0}^{i}}\frac{i}{\hbar}[\hat{z}_{0}^{i},\hat{z}_{0}^{j}]=-\frac{\partial\hat{H}(\hat{z}_{0},t')}{\partial\hat{z}_{0}^{i}}\{z_{0}^{i},z_{0}^{j}(t)\}.\label{eq:HzQM}$$ The first equality follows from the fact that the canonical equal time commutator of two fields is a c-number while the second follows from the Dirac identification between equal time commutators and (equal time) Poisson brackets.
On the other hand the corresponding term in is $$[J^{ki}\frac{\partial H(z_{0},t')}{\partial z_{0}^{i}}\frac{\partial}{\partial z_{0}^{k}},z_{0}^{j}]=-\frac{\partial H(z_{0},t')}{\partial z_{0}^{i}}J^{ik}\frac{\partial z_{0}^{j}}{\partial z_{0}^{k}}=-\frac{\partial H(z_{0},t')}{\partial z_{0}^{i}}\{z_{0}^{i},z_{0}^{j}\}.\label{eq:Hzclass}$$ So the two expressions are the same up to the replacement $\hat{z}\rightarrow z$ and so verifies the statement above of the equality of the quantum and classical evolutions up to operator ambiguities.
Clearly all the manipulations which led to the interaction picture will survive with the replacement , so for the classically evolved field we get exactly the same equations as . i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
A(t) & = & \bar{T}e^{\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H_{I}^{V}(z_{I}(t'),t')dt'}A_{I}(t)Te^{-\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H_{I}(\hat{z}_{I}(t'),t')dt'},\label{eq:AIHVordered}\\
& = & \sum_{N-0}^{\infty}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt_{1}\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{1}}\ldots\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{N-1}}dt_{N}\nonumber \\
& & [H_{I}^{V}(z_{I}(t_{N}),t_{N}),[H^{V}(z_{I}(t_{N-1}),t_{N-1})[\ldots[H_{I}^{V}(z_{I}(t_{1}),t_{1}),A_{I}(t)],\ldots]],\label{eq:AIHVcomm}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
z_{I}(t) & = & (U_{0}^{V})^{-1}(t,t_{0})z_{0}U_{0}^{V}(t,t_{0}),\label{eq:Iclassical}\\
U_{0}^{V}(t,t_{0}) & = & T\exp\left(-\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H_{0}^{V}(z_{0},t')dt'\right).\label{eq:U0classical}\end{aligned}$$
These arguments are trivially extended to field theory. As usual in the theory of cosmological fluctuations, one expands the original generally covariant Lagrangian around the (time-dependent) inflationary background and gets a time-dependent Hamiltonian functional of the fluctuations. Denote the latter by $$\begin{aligned}
z^{i}(\boldsymbol{x},t) & = & \phi^{i},\,i=1,\ldots,n\label{eq:fields}\\
& = & \pi_{i-n},\,i=n+1,\ldots,2n,\label{eq:conjugates}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi,\pi$ are canonically conjugate field, field momentum. The Hamiltonian vector field is $$H^{V}(z(t),t)\equiv\int d^{3}xJ^{ij}\frac{\delta H[z(t),t)}{\delta z^{j}(\boldsymbol{x},t)}\frac{\delta}{\delta z^{i}(\boldsymbol{x},t)}.$$ With this definition one can take over all the classical mechanics formulae above to field theory just as the corresponding QM formulae can be taken over to QFT.
To proceed further we replace the expectation values of QFT with statistical expectation values with some initial distribution $p(\phi_{0})$ . i.e. $$<\Omega|\hat{A}|\Omega>\rightarrow\int[d\phi_{0}]p(\phi_{0})A[\phi_{0},t)\label{eq:QMtoClass}$$ where the second factor in the integrand on the RHS is to be calculated using or . The point is that in both the left hand side and the right hand side of this relation one evaluates in the interaction picture, using or for the LHS and or for the RHS. Thus one just has to calculate expectation values of free fields and by Wick’s theorem it is a sum of products of two point functions determined by the correlator $<b_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{^{\dagger}}b_{\boldsymbol{q}}>$. Hence given what we have just established on the time evolution of classical and quantum operators, the LHS and the RHS of the above relation are actually equal in value when $p(\phi)$ is defined as in , as discussed in section .
As discussed in section with the distribution $p$ given by we get exactly the usual “quantum” calculation. What is evident from this discussion is that all that is quantum here is the use of Planck’s constant $\hbar$ in the expression for the kernel of the distribution. One could equally well have started with a different initial distribution as pointed out in that section. Also it is clear that the possible operator ordering issues that might account for a difference in the quantum and classical evolution will be irrelevant in a calculation of the above expectation value at least if we start from an initial Gaussian distribution since the interaction picture formulation in either the quantum or the classical case, shows that the final result is given by sums of products of Wick contractions. The difference in the usual computations and one with some arbitrary classical distribution is simply obtained by the replacement of the factor $\hbar$ in each Wick contraction (i.e. two point function) by some other unit of action ${\cal A}$.
[^1]: See for instance [@Dodelson:2003ft][@Mukhanov:2005sc][@Weinberg:2008zzc].
[^2]: For a discussion of the relation of quantum to classical distributions that is in the same spirit as this paper see [@Brustein:2002zn].
[^3]: If the compactification scale is the string scale and the string coupling $g_{s}=1$, then these two units of action may be identified. However if this is the case we are no longer in the weak coupling large volume regime in which one is able to analyze the cosmology and phenomenology of string theory.
[^4]: Similar issues have also been discussed in a paper [@Maldacena:2015bha] that appeared after the first version of the present work.
[^5]: Unlike a standard action the string sigma model action has dimensions of $L^{2}$ rather than $ML$ since the field is the coordinate in the ambient space. So the functional integral is defined by introducing a fundamental length scale $l_{s}$.
[^6]: I’ve followed closely the discussion in the review [@Kinney:2009vz] in this section.
[^7]: We’ve assumed for simplicity that the three curvature is zero.
[^8]: The constraints coming from this for different inflationary scenarios and how they can be mitigated in supersymmetric scenarios will be discussed in a separate publication [@Burgess:2014cb].
[^9]: This comes from a “$R^{4}$” term in the 10D long distance effective action.
[^10]: Note that $[b_{\boldsymbol{k}}]=M^{1/2}L^{2}$.
[^11]: Recall that the standard normalization corresponds to setting ${\cal A}=\hbar=\frac{l_{s}^{2}}{\kappa^{2}}\frac{g_{s}^{2}}{{\cal V}}.$
[^12]: It is convenient to use natural units in this section.
[^13]: The DBI inflation model (for a review with a discussion of possible problems in realizing such a model from string theory see [@Chen:2010xka]) would be a special case of this.
[^14]: Some aspects of the comparison of this model with the EFT are discussed in Appendix A of [@Cheung:2007sv]. However they do not discuss the general expectation for the cosmological EFT coefficients from a top down point of view.
[^15]: See for example the discussion of the four point function in [@Senatore:2010jy].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.